Reasons to doubt
6 weeks ago I was a believer. Despite possessing a rather hard head, a strong distrust of government organisations and the media; I found myself, on this occasion at least, starting to worry about this Virus.
But then something got my tail up. While scrolling down my Facebook feed one day, a ‘friend’ had posted that he had contracted the virus. It was clear that this was big news based on the amount of comments and get well soon messages he was receiving.
But when someone asked him if he had tested positive he said that it was more than likely since he was told over the phone that his symptoms seemed to indicate that.
Wait, what? Someone being diagnosed over the phone based on a generalised list of symptoms that could well be caused by other diseases / factors? That didn’t make any sense to me.
Research led me to the Royal College of Practitioners, where they have a page dedicated to offering telephone and online assessment of Covid-19 symptoms. They even discuss, in one of their videos, how to get patients to assess their own respiratory rate using Youtube videos.
Sound professional? The plot thickens.
Further investigation led me to discovering and reading Virus Mania – a brilliant book detailing the numerous frauds, scams and lies the medical establishment undertake in order to blame illness and disease on so called ‘viruses’ when in fact other factors like toxic waste, pollution, heavy drug usage are more viable causes of such illness – and have been shown as such.
Koch’s postulates – The gold standard of germ theory that has never been satisfied.
It was there I learned about Koch’s postulates – the gold standard criteria in proving whether microbes are causative agents of disease. Developed by Robert Koch ( 1843 -1910 ); his postulates for determining whether germs causes a specific illness ( i.e. symptoms ) are thus:
- The microorganism or other pathogen must be present in all cases of the disease. But not found in healthy cases.
2. The pathogen can be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture.
3. The pathogen from the pure culture must cause the disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible laboratory animal.
4. The pathogen must be re-isolated from the new host and shown to be the same as the originally inoculated pathogen.
Sounds like common sense to me. You simply take the microbe you think is causing the disease out of an infected host, clean it up a bit so as to procure a pure culture, and then inoculate it into a healthy host to see if they too develop symptoms, then repeat.
To my astonishment, Virus Mania details the constant failings the medical establishment have had on carrying out this simple experiment in some of the most ‘major’ life changing diseases of our modern day: AIDS / HIV, Polio, Hep C and many others.
And now it’s COVID turn to join the heap of other diseases which haven’t fully satisfied Koch’s postulates.
I feel it is at this point that I have to make a disclaimer. Because it’s usually about this point where people start thinking I’m stupid, crazy, ignorant of science, and/or just plain thick. I am not saying there is no such thing AS A VIRUS AND HENCE NO SUCH THING AS COVID-19. I am saying that the evidence suggesting that COVID-19 is caused by a virus has not been proven.
This is not just my own subjective opinion. Many people in the medical profession like Dr. Kaufmann and Dr. Cowan and other independent researchers and investigative journalists have also claimed this to be the case.
And to support their claim one just needs to go look at the original studies which can be downloaded and read by anyone with an enquiring mind.
The first paper: Identification of a novel coronavirus causing severe pneumonia in humans: a descriptive study, was one of the first, if not the first, study of its kind to examine this new illness in Wuhan, China.
The study claims to have isolated the virus but the isolation was not carried out in accordance to Koch’s postulate. On page 3, the authors discuss the isolation process. They took BAL ( lung ) samples from symptomatic individuals and inoculated Vero cells with it – Vero cells are kidney cells specific to green monkeys. Now I’m not a medical doctor, by why would they inoculate kidney cells with infected lung tissue ? How can a kidney cell reproduce the symptoms of something that affects and harms the lungs ? Am I missing something?
Regardless, Koch’s postulates simply states that you must inoculate a healthy host in order to see if they too would go on to produce symptoms of the disease. This was clearly never done in this study.
In any case, the conclusion makes grim reading. ‘CPE ( a technical term for changes that occur in a cell following the introduction of microbe ) were observed in 30% of Vero cells innoculated with the new CoV’.
So what accounts for the 70% of the variance? Well other factors. But what factors? Environmental ? Unfortunately the paper does not discuss this, but go on to conclude that ‘it remains to be determined whether this novel CoV is capable of causing similar diseases in experimental animals’.
Still, how did they know that this ‘virus’ was a novel coronavirus? Well, they simply looked at the BAL samples under an electron microscope, performed genome sequencing using the RT-PCR technique – which as we will see is a very unreliable diagnostic method – and went on to conclude that this ‘virus’ looked similar to the Coronavirus strain discovered in 2003.
But even the ‘discovery’ of this 2003 Coronavirus hasn’t been sucessfully isolated in line with Koch’s postulates.
The May 2003 paper: The outbreak of COVID-19, An Overview briefly discusses the history of SARS and the notable similarities COVID-19 has to the Coronavirus of 2003. Interestingly, the authors cite a paper that claims they have successfully isolated this Corona virus in line with Koch’s postulates.
However it becomes immediately apparent that what they purported to satisfy wasn’t Koch’s postulates as such, but a derivation of it by Rivers (1937). Why was this derivation used? Simply because they found it extremely difficult / impossible to isolate virus’ using Koch’s postulates so a modification would enable them to soften up the experiment some what in order to prove what they set out to.
Despite some overlap with Koch’s postulates, Rivers postulates are six in total. These are:
- Isolation of the virus in a diseased host. ( Doesn’t specify that a healthy host should be virus free )
2. Cultivation of virus in a host cell and ( not pure culture as specified by Koch )
3. Proof of filterability ( the filter should be able to purify the virus and virus only – leaving all other microbes out of the sample )
4. The virus should produce the same disease in host.
5. Re-isolation of the virus
6. Detection of specific immune response
These are the criteria this paper claims to have satisfied –not Koch’s postulates.
In an in depth video, Dr. Andrew Kaufman went on to study this paper and the subsequent papers it cites as evidence of isolation and purification using Rivers’ six postulates ( a total of four papers are cited claiming this ) and he went on to conclude that:
“Despite the claim of satisfying Koch’s postulates, not one of 6 Rivers ( Koch ) criteria was met for SARS ( SARS-CoV).
In essence the May 2003 paper is not only misleading, it purposefully deceives and makes unsubstantiated claims that are on the verge of fraudulent.
The ‘indirect’ fake test
So what about these tests the government and media keep going on about? The first thing to note is that without a reliable method of isolating the virus and proving that it causes illness first, it is pointless to even implement a test since you don’t know what your looking for.
Despite this major problem – which the main stream media refuse to address – the government go on about reaching their target of producing 100,000 tests per day! But a test for what!?
Dr. Thomas Cowan and other medical doctors, as well as good investigative journalists, scientists and others people in the medical profession have professed that the RT-PCR test that is being rolled out and used to test for Covid-19 infections in people exhibiting symptoms is not a test that is designed to diagnose viral illnesses. Indeed, even the creator of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, himself cautioned against the use of PCR for the purpose of diagnosing infectious diseases.
The PCR test is an extremely technical procedure, but in simple terms the test involves taking a specimen ( or swab ) of an infected person’s lungs which is then analysed for genetic material by amplifying it a number of times. One sample of RNA that is found in the material is too small to achieve a positive result, so a certain number of cycles is needed to achieve this. In his Youtube talk, Dr. Thomas Cowan suggests that 60 cycles are needed for a 100% positive result. A major issue with this, Cowan points out, is that there is no universally agreed number of cycles to carry out, so it is possible that if someone wanted to achieve a positive result, all they would have to do is increase the number of cycles. Likewise, if they were looking for a negative result then decreasing the number of cycles would suffice. It is therefore plain to see that this system can be easily open to abuse and sinister manipulation of the figures.
That is perhaps the major flaw with the PCR test. However, there are also other problems associated with it.
Firstly taking a swab of someones lungs will produce a whole host of germs, bacteria and other microbes that happen to be present in the patient exhibiting flu-like symptoms. So trying to find which microbe is causing the ailment ( which remember is a very vague general set of symptoms with numerous causes ) is close to impossible. And we are not just talking about a handful of microorganism. In the digestive tract alone, researchers came upon around 100 trillion microorganism, which meant, according to Jeremy Nicholson of Imperial College, London, that there are an interaction of around 1,000-plus known species, and these probably contain ‘more than 100 times as many genes as exists in the host’ ( Engelbrech & Kohnlein, 2007). So there is no way in knowing which of the many microbes caused the illness because the ‘exact virus determination has not been carried out’. In short, the PCR test simply indicates that an immune response, ‘or some disturbance or activity’ at the cellular level exists. But what caused this disturbance remains unknown.
Secondly the PTR test tests for genetic material ( which most if not everyone has anyway, especially when amplified to 60 cycles ), and not the actual viral RNA. In order to do that, you must have accomplished isolating and purifying the virus from an infected host, and then administer this pathogen into a healthy host to see if they too become ill. If they do, and you repeat this test numerous times and find that the healthy subjects all become sick 100% of the time, then that will be deemed sufficient proof to proclaim that the isolated microbe caused the illness, and only then can you say, with certainty, that the symptoms that developed was caused by such a microbe. Following this, if the RNA found from the PTR test of the ‘infected’ lung matches that of the RNA that was thus isolated, then that would be proof that the virus caused the illness.
But we know that this has never been done. So far anyway.
The manipulation of death certificates (MCCDs)
One of the most striking consequences resulting from this ‘pandemic’, is the swift action taken by the UK government to implement ’emergency’ legislation. This has never been done before. Part of the legislation – which covers a whole range of topics – describes the process by which the registration of deaths are recorded in relation to Covid-19.
Media reports thrive of death figures. It is their life blood; the very thing that keeps them engaged because they know that’s what grabs and sucks us in. From flashing text, to sensationalised sounds effects and music,;we are all drawn into this morbid addiction to the point where everyone tunes in to see how many people have died.
But analyse the language. What do you read? They report on those who have died WITH Covid-19 or died AFTER BEING TESTED FOR Covid-19. They also report deaths just because Covid-19 was put down on the death certificate – but this doesn’t indicate that they died FROM Covid-19 since the layout of death certificates means doctors can fill in as much info regarding the direct cause of death, while adding any additional information.
Obviously dying with something does not entail dying from it. I could die with a loaded gun in my pocket, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was the gun that killed me. This is basic logic. Further, dying after testing positive doesn’t entail that the presence of the virus in the body killed its host either. Again, I could die of heart disease whilst having flu.
Upon further investigation regarding the recording Covid-19 related deaths, I came upon a short pamphlet produced by The British Medical Association. In it it states that:
‘Covid-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the MCCD, even without the results of a positive test, and it is important that likely Covid-19 deaths are reported as such via the registrar.
That doesn’t sound reassuring does it? The CDC in America similarly remarks that:
Covid-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.
How on earth is it acceptable to put down a cause of death or contributing factor without the reassurance of a positive test ?! It simply doesn’t make sense. In all honesty it doesn’t even matter because the test in itself is flawed.
It is becoming clear therefore, that what is happening is not the result of a viral infection. Indeed it could be; but until there is hard evidence and direct proof I will suspend judgement.
It is at this point that many people ask me what is killing so many people. My response to this is that it is a mistake to assume that one disease has one cause. There are an array of reasons as to why people are dying. Here are a few:
Multiple illnesses – Strong possibility since many people dying have underlying health conditions anyway.
Environmental – Toxic pollution ( especially in Wuhan, northern Italy and Iran )
Toxic substances / waste – a notable factor in the 2003 SARS outbreak.
Prolonged exposure to electromagnetic radiation – noted in the book ‘The invisible Rainbow’
Pneumonia / flu– Covid-19 seems to bear resemblance to these illnesses.
Whatever the causes be, its always important to keep an open mind and challenge the mainstream narrative. Never allow others to do the thinking for you. That is why I am in serious doubt as to whether what is happening is viral related.
