Much more on non-existent viruses

You can read my prior article on imaginary viruses and absurd tests for their presence here.

Ask yourself this question: How can pharma companies sell drugs and vaccines to treat and prevent diseases, if the companies have NO CAUSES for these diseases?

The drugs and vaccines target a cause.

A big-time curative drug isn’t developed to go after a fever or muscle weakness or lung congestion. It’s developed to kill the cause.

If no cause has been established, there can be no curative drug, and thus there can be no money.

No money is intolerable.

A company can’t exist on no money.

So, historically, researchers had to find causes for diseases or supposed diseases. The more causes, the more drugs and vaccines, the more money.

These researchers were and are in the business of causes.

Thus, bacteria weren’t enough. They needed more. And so they said: “There must be a smaller particle. We’ll say THERE IS a smaller particle. We’ll call it a virus. We’ll say a whole host of illnesses are the result of these viruses.”

Dozens and hundreds of discussions “in the literature” then ensued. Was the virus just a smaller bacterium? Was it fundamentally different?

No one knew. No one knew because the virus hypothesis was just a guess in the first place. A speculation. A money-making speculation.

Is the man in the moon wearing a purple hat? Or is he hat-less? Let’s try to sound like erudite scientists as we debate this question.

The discussion and debate went on and on. The one missing factor? No one was actually producing a physical virus.

Researchers were “inferring from evidence.” Except, when you boiled it down, there was no evidence. That was a problem. It had to be overcome.

Hence, “the tests” for the existence of new viruses.

Somewhat clever. Not brilliant, but clever.

“We can claim to have tests that confirm or deny the existence of new viruses. We can define these tests. We can conduct the tests. People respond positively when you tell them you have tests. They understand tests for, say, broken bones. X-rays. So they’ll believe our tests for viruses are definitive and conclusive. They won’t understand the details of the tests, which are complex, and that’s good. Only WE will understand the details. Only WE will know the details are actually rigmarole and mumbo-jumbo…”

—Yes, we have a test which will decide whether the man in the moon is wearing a purple hat or is wearing no hat.

Flash forward to the present day:

The structure for testing is firmly in place. The CDC has its Epidemic Intelligence Service, peopled by professional virus hunters who are sent to the sites of “outbreaks” all over the world. Their mandate? Find the causative virus. There are labs across the world who are “sensitive to outbreaks,” and they, too, go straight for “the new virus.”

Public health institutions like the World Health Organization and the CDC back up the researchers, and they make pronouncements about epidemics and confirmed viruses.

Pharma is there to develop the drugs and vaccines to kill and prevent the viruses from wreaking havoc.

No one is finding a physical virus.

Why would they? How could they? From the beginning, VIRUS was a guess, a story, a narrative.

The story is a thousand-layer cake by now. Researchers confidently refer to their own history of “finding viruses.” There are data banks bulging with the genetic sequences of prior viruses. Of course, all these sequences are stories, too. They’re cobbled-together strings of data “inferred” from: viruses that were never discovered, never proved to exist.

And the drugs and vaccines are rolled out.

Meanwhile, back in the land of Reality, some of these giant pharma companies are ALSO chemical companies and genetic-engineering (GMO) companies and pesticide companies…

And these other products are making huge numbers of people sick and killing them (as are the medical drugs and vaccines).

But no. The companies deny this with every lawyer they can pay. No.


— Jon Rappoport

I REJECT the slam-dunk test for the existence of viruses—no matter how the test is improved

There has been a great deal of discussion about doing the test for the presence of a virus properly.

“It has never been done fully and correctly.”

“There is the absence of a control group.”

“Using a control group would make the test show the truth, one way or another.”

I reject all this.

Let’s start by reviewing the test. It is how virologists claim to isolate (discover) a virus.

They create a soup in a dish in the lab. The soup contains chemicals, a growth-promoting medium, monkey and/or human cells, possibly antibiotics (and who knows how many random bits of genetic fragments).

Into this soup, the researchers drop a mucus sample from a patient said to be ill as the probable result of a virus not yet discovered.

The soup in the dish is allowed to sit for a time. The monkey/human cells die. The researchers boldly and absurdly claim this cell-death must be the effect produced by a virus in the mucus sample.

And this conclusion they call “isolation of a virus.” Of course, nothing is isolated at all. Nothing is plucked and separated from the soup.

Furthermore, the cells in the soup could have died from the effects of the chemicals in the soup, or because cells, separated from the body, are starved of nutrients.

Some critics of this soup-testing process say a control is needed. This is what they mean:

Make two identical soups. Drop the mucus sample in one of them. Let both soups sit there for a time.

If the cells in both soups die, then you know the supposed virus in the mucus sample didn’t cause the cell death—and there is no reason to suppose a virus is present in the mucus sample.

If the cells only die in the soup with the mucus sample, then you know there is a virus in the sample and it is killing the cells.

But this is false. What allows you to say there is a virus in the soup that killed the cells? Why must there be a virus in the mucus sample? How about bacteria? Or mold? Or parasites? Or decaying rotting toxic matter? Or who knows what?

Since no one is actually extracting a physical virus from the soup, the above questions remain unanswered. And they will always remain so.

So using “the second dish of soup,” the so-called control group, proves nothing about a virus. No matter what the result is.

While I’m at it, I’ll go over a different test that supposedly can prove the existence of a virus: This test has a number of steps. I’ll highlight the most prominent ones:

From a patient who is thought to be ill because of a virus, a mucus sample is taken. It is spun at a high rate in a centrifuge.

Researchers, knowing the nature of the patient’s illness (e.g., lung infection) have a good idea about what type of virus they’re looking for (e.g., corona).

From prior experiments, they know where, in the centrifuge, coronaviruses are going to settle after being spun.

From that stratum, they pluck a sample and put it under an electron microscope and photograph it.

They look at the photo. If they see budding particles attached to cells of the patient, or other particles, they know these buds/particles are viruses.

—However, there are several fatal flaws in this whole process.

First, the notion that researchers know where different types of viruses will settle out after a mucus sample is spun in a centrifuge—that claim is wrong.

The claim is based on prior unsupported assumptions about: viruses that have never been isolated. In other words, the researchers’ knowledge base isn’t knowledge at all. It’s speculation. It’s guesswork, at best. It’s saying, “We can find this new virus because we know where other viruses we never found end up in the centrifuge.”

Therefore, in reality, researchers have no idea where to look in the centrifuge for a sample after the spin.

Next, these electron microscope photos showing buds/particles? There is no evidence they are viruses. There is only “evidence” that the particles fit the researchers’ narrative about viruses. The particles could be anything. For instance, they could be debris excreted by the patient’s cells.

Essentially, researchers are assuming what they’re attempting to prove. This is called circular reasoning.

Example: Black feathers on the backs of birds indicate polio.

We do find black feathers on birds’ backs.

Therefore, we know the birds have polio.

—Yes, you know, because you set up your first assumption. You rigged it to give you an ironclad opportunity to “discover” what you wanted to discover, what you intended to discover.

This second test for the presence and existence of viruses also has fatal flaws that can’t be remedied.

Both tests come down to the fact that no physical entity called a virus is ever found.

Both tests offer indirect methods of “discovery.” And both methods have gaping holes.

The virus story is just that; a story. I can tell a story about an invisible ghost in a cave. But if all I can show you are drawings scratched on the cave walls, I can’t show you the ghost.

I can only claim the drawings were made by the ghost.

Why would you fall for that?

So…am I saying there is no test that can prove the existence of viruses?

I’ll answer the question this way. If I’m just making up a story, would you expect there to be a test which proves I’m not making up a story?

— Jon Rappoport

Join us online