Virology is at the root of much unsupported Medical BS (disease causation and vaccination). Thus, proof of virus existence and character should always be required of the claimers of viruses. This requirement will get you nowhere with a doctor or judge, as they have to follow authority over science, and doctors are analogous to a religious priest. Nevertheless, virus criticism is essential for an honest conversation.
Virology: Two Achilles Heels
1) No isolation of viruses is actually achieved as claimed.
2) Toxicology is missing. That is, the toxic effects of antibiotics used in virological studies are not discounted from the observations. The clinical diagnoses and the epidemiology avoids environmental toxicology. This deceitful avoidance is an apparent Medical law, required to protect technocracy from litigating humans.
1) Virus Isolation
“Isolation” of viruses has always been broadcasted as a great achievement, because it intuitively conveys a sense of total dominance and understanding of the so-called virus. The virus exists and we certainly understand it — because we studied the isolated virus. The term is based on the great success of non-organic (non-biological matter) chemistry. Example: H2O can be split into two isolates (2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom), through electrolysis. Endless types of experiments can then be run on each of these isolates to determine their properties, density, weight, etc. For example, they can be reacted with each other to form H2O. They can be reacted individually with metals to form oxides and hydrides.
Children can do such experiments in the kitchen.
Hurrah for Science! Clever virologists copied this success and terminology. They did this by (in practice) redefining the word “isolate” to mean “mixture”, the opposite of its actual meaning!
Perth, in different words, is saying this, and so are biochemists Howard Urnovitz PhD, and Stefan Lanka PhD. Biochemist Judy Mikovitz was forced to admit this in her interview with David Crowe, the medical dissident.
Virus “isolates” are more “mixed” than anything on the planet, the result of blending for nearly an hour, diseased tissue, to break down its components, broken down into a thoroughly blended mess. Inject that into a mouse brain and then claim to know what specific part of the blend (a “virus”?) is causing disease? Hardly.
The only thing proven is the hazard of injection. So isolation means nothing. How can anyone prove in a laboratory which of the unknown items in an injected mixture (“virus isolate”) is causing disease if the items are not isolated? How would you be able to identify the mixture of visually different items seen under an electron microscope?
Another problem is that to see anything under an electron microscope, you must prepare the thing (kill it, dehydrate it, slice it, destroy it with splattered gold and toxic chemicals), so EM is not seeing the real thing. The brilliant, awarded, methodical and eloquent Professor Harold Hillman demonstrated this, and thereby lost his tenured professorship. Because Perth and its followers were so successful in unveiling claims of virus isolation as an intellectual crime, Medical officials published an article, two decades ago, stating that “isolation has no specific meaning”.
The victorious call, “Isolation achieved”, has now been replaced with a new routine of BS, whereby it is claimed that isolation is now not necessary. However, when I asked how this works, the claimer ran away.
2) Toxicology Avoided
This is extracted from my measles post.
Stefan Lanka notes the lack of evidence for measles virus. He specifically critiques the work of virologist John F. Enders, PhD. [Article 2015] [Article 2001] [Interview 2018] [Virology details 2/2017, German Language]
The first paper was published in 1954 by Enders et al… Enders… cut down dramatically on the nutrient solution and added cell-destroying antibiotics to the cell culture before introducing the allegedly infected fluid. The subsequent dying of the cells was then misinterpreted as presence and also isolation of the measles virus. No control experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects.
And a few notes from me on the fakery of virus isolation by Enders…
John Enders is also falsely credited for isolating poliovirus — according to a critical review by journalist Neenyah Ostrom, on the authority of biochemist Howard Urnovitz, PhD.[ref]
Poliovirus was not actually isolated by these investigators, either. They successfully grew “filterable agents,” which they assumed to be poliovirus, in human embryonic tissues.
Enders’ fame as “The Father of Modern Vaccines” is perhaps due to a tremendous inheritance and his elite membership in Yale’s wealthiest secret society. No joke. [ref]
How to argue “no virus”
Keep the burden of proof on the claimers (of virus existence).
They claim to know, and perhaps (unlikely) they do.
Therefore, just ask one question and two followups.
1) What seminal study describes the discovery of said virus? The first, original study which describes discovery. (Note that the earlier the study, the less complicated the BS.)
a) What text in this study describes the isolation of the virus? (This is to ensure that they have read the study, and to save reading time.)
b) What text in this study describes the process of discounting toxicological factors? (See Lanka above on this.)
The claimers should balk. End of confrontation.
Likely they have not read the content of their prized study, and they are assuming you will be bluffed and in awe, like them.
It may be inconceivable to them that such sophisticated tech and writing could be misleading. Often they are in love with the semantic and tech sophistication for which money has paid, and they might not realize this.
In a sense, logic is the ultimate power, but no matter how eloquent, it requires valid data. It is not without political hazards. Logic can only be presented at diplomatically safe times and places. Diplomacy is superior, and another area of logic.
It is possible that a study will outright lie and invent data, but usually, to gain the support of a team of science techies, the study contains white lies. Techies will rally under the banner of white lies, secure that they will not appear fraudulent. The study will be peer-reviewed and published, and thereby gaining the prestige of honesty. However, even the senior editors of prominent Medical science publications have decried medical science in general as entering the dark age of fraud.
If for some reason you must read the study, yet you lack medical tech language, you can parse out the language and learn, or just search for “toxicology”. This necessary topic is very unlikely to be found in the study.
If you are presented with an article, not a study, then reply, “A scientific study is required, not journalism.”