By Michael J. Talmo January 25, 2024 (Published in State of the Nation)
In a 1933 speech, General Smedley Butler (1881-1940) explained that “war is a racket.” The same applies to virology, the branch of science that studies viruses. It has become a racket—a very dangerous racket. War is used to sell weapons that we don’t need and, in just about all cases, destroy and devastate people who have done us no harm. Viruses are used to sell vaccines that we don’t need and give governments power over our lives that they should never have. As is the case with war, virology makes a lot of money for some at the expense of the rest of us.
Many of us are old enough to remember the fear, bad policies, and toxic drugs unleashed due to the so-called HIV/AIDS virus. But AIDS was small potatoes compared to SARS-CoV-2 and its progeny, COVID-19. Many have criticized the absurdity of lockdowns, forcing people to wear masks and take experimental vaccines. Many are happy to embrace stories about SARS-CoV-2 being created in a Chinese laboratory and being released into the environment accidentally or on purpose. But too many have been unwilling to consider the possibility that these killer viruses don’t exist. If you are also too frightened to consider the possibility, then stop reading now. Just take “the blue pill,” to quote Morpheus in the 1999 science fiction classic The Matrix, and go back to sleep. But if you’re willing to take the symbolic “red pill” and see how deep the rabbit hole goes, then read on.
Virology is no longer science
Unlike religion, science deals with the tangible and the verifiable. Viruses are tangible physical objects that consist of nucleic acids (RNA or DNA) encased in a protein envelope. They also contain enzymes that allow them to do some of the nasty things that viruses can do. Unlike bacteria, protozoa, and fungi, viruses are not alive, which is why they can’t reproduce on their own and need to hijack the machinery of a host cell in order to do so.
To determine whether or not a virus exists and causes a disease, it must first be isolated or purified, as explained here and here. This means separating the particles from everything else that’s in a cell culture, which is a soup that contains many different things, including particles that look like viruses but aren’t really viruses. Once isolation is achieved, the viral particles, or pure culture, must be photographed under the electron microscope (EM). The virus can then be characterized by analyzing its proteins and genetic material. Once its existence has been established, it can then be determined if the virus causes a particular disease by applying Koch’s postulates. If said isolated virus does cause a particular disease, accurate diagnostic tests can then be developed using it as a gold standard, along with vaccines if deemed necessary.
In other words, proving the existence of a virus is not like trying to prove the existence of God. Hey, it’s a big universe out there. Who knows what may be lurking in its darkest and remotest regions? But viruses are a different story. The microbial universe is very up-close and personal. The procedures for isolating viruses from an infected person are very straightforward. And as stated in this 2007 study:
“Viral disease diagnosis has traditionally relied on the isolation of viral pathogens in cell cultures. Although this approach is often slow and requires considerable technical expertise, it has been regarded for decades as the “gold standard” for the laboratory diagnosis of viral disease.”
Unfortunately, as explained in this 2013 study:
“However, molecular methods, in particular, the PCR, have usurped the role of viral culture in many laboratories, limiting the use of this traditional method of virus detection or replacing it altogether…When all is said and done, it is difficult to envision how viral culture will continue to have diagnostic relevance given the ever-changing and improving world of molecular technology.” (see Abstract and Conclusions)
NAATs (nucleic acid amplification tests), which include PCR (polymerase chain reaction, invented by Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, PhD, 1944-2019), detect and copy fragments of nucleic acid that supposedly belong to the genome of a virus. These tests don’t detect the entire viral genome, just what is supposed to be a small part of it. These tests are never verified by isolating an actual virus.
Back in the 1990s, they started calling PCR the viral load test because Dr. David Ho got a paper published in the peer review journal Nature that claimed, contrary to over a decade of research, that HIV, the virus that supposedly causes AIDS, was not a slow, inactive virus but was incredibly active and producing massive amounts of virus in the blood of infected people. This idiotic claim isn’t based on how much of a pathogenic virus is in a person’s body, but on how many copies of genetic fragments are produced after a certain number of cycles are run in a PCR machine outside of the body in order to produce a measurable signal.
To quote Dr. Ian M. Mackay, PhD, Associate Professor of Virology, University of Queensland, 2019 article: Side note #1: “A positive PCR result does not prove active replication of a virus. It does not prove infectious virus is present.”
Bottom line: If infectious viral particles can’t be detected, isolated, photographed, or seen, then they aren’t there. It doesn’t matter what a PCR or other type of NAAT may indicate. If the actual virus can’t be seen, then it doesn’t exist.
Smoke and mirrors
The fact that properly isolating SARS-CoV-2 (originally called 2019 nCoV) for COVID-19 had not been done was made clear in this 2020 Eurosurveillance study. Instead, they used a different virus’s genetic material to design the PCR test. See Introduction:
“In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
As explained in this 2020 study in The Lancet, virologists are losing the knowledge of how to properly isolate and identify viruses because they are now relying on PCR and other non-specific molecular methods. Actual viral isolation “requires both specialized staff and expensive equipment,” but “it’s use has been in decline in the past decades, resulting in irreversible loss of expertise that now becomes dramatically overt during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” which “should alarm us all, as misleading information on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in tissue has already made its way into the scientific literature.”
Even this study in the CDC’s peer-reviewed journal Emerging Infectious Diseases echoed the words of The Lancet: (see Conclusions)
“For decades, the combination of the classical techniques of virus isolation in tissue culture and examination by EM has been critical in detection of previously unrecognized viruses…There is a continuing need to train younger scientists in these traditional methods to maintain an underlying expertise. In particular, with EM, the electron microscopist needs to be able to differentiate between infectious agents and artifacts or look-alike structures.”
This loss of knowledge explains why we are getting articles in reputable publications like Reuters that continue to insist that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated. The Reuters article even provided a link that it claims shows pictures of isolated viruses. In reality, none of the pictures in that link are of isolated viruses. I’m not accusing the fact-checkers at Reuters of lying. In my opinion, they probably just don’t know any better. Here are electron micrographs of real isolated viruses compared to impure cultures:
Notice that the isolates of Rous sarcoma virus and type C virus contain identical viral particles and nothing else, while the impure cultures are a soup of different-sized and shaped particles along with other debris. As explained in the Perth study, virus-like particles are always present in cell culture (page 702, Particle detection). To prove they are viruses, you have to isolate (purify) them. If this isn’t done, then error and confusion will result, as reported in The Lancet regarding EM or electron microscopy:
“Just recently, there have been two additional reports in which structures that can normally be found in the cytoplasm of a cell have been misinterpreted as viral particles. EM can be a powerful tool to show evidence of infection by a virus, but care must be taken when interpreting cytoplasmic structures to correctly identify virus particles.”
What The Lancet fails to mention is that the only way to correctly identify virus particles is to isolate or purify them.
Another 2021 article in Reuters asserted that “Koch’s postulates, as they were originally understood, do not need to be demonstrated in order to establish that a microbe causes a disease.” This article is even absurdly titled “Koch’s postulates do not need to be fulfilled to prove the existence of a virus.” For your information, fact-checkers, Koch’s postulates don’t prove the existence of any microbe—they only prove whether or not it causes disease.
Reuters correctly states that “updated criteria for determining viruses that cause disease are sometimes still referred to as Koch’s postulates.” But this in no way, shape, or form changes the fact that the basic criteria still apply. As this 2021 Oxford University Press study clearly states, “Koch’s postulates would need to be fulfilled to provide definitive proof that SARS-CoV-2 causes acute pancreatitis, but the accumulating data appear to support this.” Get it, folks? “Appear to support” doesn’t mean “definitive proof.” And paragraph five, the “Additional content” section, shows that the author is talking about Koch’s four original postulates.
This 2017 study in Antiviral Research also clearly states that Koch’s postulates “has been applied to microbes for over a century and is a current practice not only for identifying pathogenic viruses in diseased organisms, but for the isolation of viruses from their natural reservoirs and vectors that harbor them.” The fact-checkers at Reuters need to get their facts straight.
As stated here, here, and here, modern virology claims that many disease-causing viruses can’t be grown in cell cultures, don’t proliferate in standard cell cultures, and that molecular methods like PCR and other NAATS are finding viruses that were previously undetectable. In other words, they are claiming that just because a lot of disease-causing viruses can’t be isolated, it doesn’t prove that they don’t exist. The first citation in this paragraph further claims that “due to the highly pathogenic nature of SARS-CoV-2, most laboratories do not want to isolate this virus in culture.” Horse poopie! Again, I repeat, if you can’t isolate it, examine it, and definitively prove that it causes a disease, then it doesn’t exist. To claim otherwise isn’t doing science—it’s practicing voodoo.
Like computer modeling, which doesn’t count as scientific evidence and, as documented here and here, has failed miserably when it comes to guiding public health policies, modern virology isn’t evidence for anything. In using non-specific molecular methods, today’s virologists aren’t studying a virus—they are studying the idea of a virus. In the same way, when reading the Bible, you aren’t studying God; you are studying an idea about God; you are acting on faith. By not looking for actual viruses, modern virologists are also acting on faith.
And it should be obvious that most politicians don’t care about science. It’s just a word, a stamp of approval for their corrupt agendas. This is why corruption in medical science is rampant, as explained here and here, and “most current published research findings are false,” as documented in this study. This is also why virology, as it exists today, must be shut down. We must not allow government officials and corporate elites to use non-existent viruses to scare us into giving up our freedom.
I have an idea that I hope will catch on. Cryptovirology is defined as using cryptography to create and improve malicious computer programs. I think the definition should be expanded to include the non-specific molecular methods used by modern virologists. Think about it.
In 1947, Ivan T. Sanderson (1911-1973) invented the term cryptozoology. It’s derived from the ancient Greek words kryptos, meaning secret or hidden; zolon, meaning animal; and logos, meaning knowledge or study. Thus, cryptozoology is “the scientific study of hidden animals.” But it was Bernard Heuvelmans, PhD (1916-2001) who popularized the term in the 1950s with an international best-selling book. Both men are the founding fathers of this field of research. So, I think amending the word crytovirology to apply to modern virology would be very appropriate because, just as cryptozoology is the study of animals that aren’t there, modern virology is the study of viruses that aren’t there.