All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
01:06:48
The Scientific Method and Its Absence in Virology - Ekaterina Sugak
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We will now hear from researcher and analyst Ekaterina Shugak on the topic of virology, germ theory of disease, the scientific method and vaccination.
Greetings to all viewers and participants of this conference.
I am very grateful for the invitation and happy to be here.
My name is Ekaterina Shugak and I am an independent researcher, analyst, naturopath, author, documentary filmmaker, and activist.
Since 2020, I have been working to popularize real biology and to bridge the gap that exists in our society between the public and science.
I titled my presentation as The Scientific Method and Its Absence in Virology.
Today I am going to talk about the most important topic that does not receive the attention it deserves from the public, but which has a huge impact on the lives of all of us.
I would like to start with the fact that a month and a half ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, we were warned of the arrival of a new global pandemic, hitherto referred to as the disease X. Because of the predicted inevitability of this new pandemic, immediate preparations were initiated.
According to the World Health Organization, just as the military prepares for war, health systems must prepare for a new pandemic.
I will now quote the director of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus.
That disease X will happen is a question of when, not if.
So we need to prepare for this disease already.
Although COVID came right after we prepared, we prepared for it as for Disease X. You could even call COVID the first Disease X. And it could happen again.
And here is a quote from the United Nations website.
As part of helping the world prepare to prevent future pandemics, the Tzipi plan is for scientists to create a range of vaccine candidates for each viral family and then select a handful as prototypes to put through rigorous testing.
Including safety and dosing trials in people.
In this way, when a newly emerging virus comes across the frontier, and that is most certainly a when and not an if, we'll have banked a vast amount of data on safety and immunogenicity of both the plug-and-play platform technology and the antigens of viruses that are closely related, if not exactly the same, as the new disease X.
The WHO and the UN are so confident of the imminence of a new pandemic that they have created a treaty on prevention, preparedness and response to future pandemics, to be signed by UN member states in May this year.
Friends, as you can see, things are getting pretty serious.
Preparations for a new pandemic are well underway.
Prototype vaccines to combat the new virus are being actively developed.
And all governments are agreeing on measures to be taken to contain the new virus.
In light of these disappointing predictions about our future, today I want to touch on a topic as important as the scientific method.
The fact is that the first Pandemic X, i.e.
COVID-19, with all its unprecedented features, such as closures, quarantines, mass testing and vaccinations, not only hit the economy of almost every country on the planet hard, but also had a very negative impact on people's health.
I will not dwell on the negative effects of lockdowns and the use of masks on people's physical and mental health.
Nor on the highly toxic and dangerous protocols for hospital treatment of people diagnosed with COVID-19, which have been written and spoken about extensively.
Speaking of vaccines, I would like to point out this September 17, 2023 study titled Vaccine-Related Mortality in the Southern Hemisphere, whose authors demonstrate unequivocally that COVID-19 vaccination may be responsible for more than 17 million deaths.
Regardless of how one feels about vaccinations, everyone agrees that vaccines can potentially cause side effects and even death.
If this were not true, there would be no compensation programs for people affected by vaccinations in all countries.
Here is an example of such a compensation program on the WHO website, COVAX Compensation Program Without Admission of Guilt by the Vaccine Manufacturer.
In Russia, the Law on Immunoprophylaxis of Infectious Diseases also provides compensation for complications and disabilities acquired as a result of vaccination.
As we can see, the ability of vaccines to cause serious health problems is not a conspiracy theory, but a recognized fact.
Thus, when it comes to mass vaccinations, due to the declaration of a viral pandemic such as COVID-19 or any other, the public expects that the benefits of these vaccines actually outweigh the risks.
People assume that all the necessary scientific evidence has been obtained.
It is believed that because a certain percentage of the population is inevitably going to suffer as a result of the vaccinations they have been forced to undergo with the threat of suspension from work, exclusion from public places and restriction of travel, an incredibly rigorous scientific effort has been made to prove that vaccination is nonetheless justified.
In general, people expect, believe, assume, but never verify the claims and actions of scientists themselves.
The average person does not consider themselves smart enough, educated enough, or capable enough, so they delegate these things to scientists whom they expect to check things out for them.
However, the model of the world's first scientific society, the Royal Society of London, is the Latin phrase Nellius in Verba, which means don't take anyone's word for it, but always verify.
No matter who is in front of you.
Given that the WHO and the United Nations consistently state that the declaration of a new global pandemic is not a matter of if but of when, and given that as a society we have already had a very sad lesson with COVID-19, during which it became apparent what devastating consequences measures to counter the so-called virus could lead to, Every responsible person concerned about the well-being of their family and community should take some time to reflect on how justified all these measures were during COVID-19.
And will be during the next pandemic?
How justified will it be to vaccinate again, wear a mask, use inherently dangerous and toxic antiviral protocols, and allow the government to impose lockdowns?
This is something that touches everyone's life.
Each of us has been exposed to all of these measures to one extent or another.
Many people have been vaccinated and have been at risk of falling within the percentage of people damaged by the vaccine, so they can no longer continue to delegate someone else to solve for them matters that directly affect their lives.
Moreover, the scientists on whose work and claims all virus control measures are based, namely virologists, are funded by government grants.
This means that taxpayers pay for their work.
Usually, when you hire and pay an employee, you personally monitor his or her work, because you do not want your money to be wasted or misused.
But when it comes to science or publicly funded scientists, usually their work is checked only by their senior colleagues working in the same field, who will obviously be, to put it mildly, very biased.
After all, they benefit directly from this field and are only interested in its promotion.
Any discrediting of the field, through which they receive income and a high position in society, will result in serious losses for them.
Therefore, the truth is that only outsiders who do not benefit financially or otherwise from this field and industry can truly criticize their work.
Unfortunately, however, these people blindly trust the conclusions and claims of scientific researchers and do not consider it necessary to subject them to verification.
Even if on the basis of them they cannot leave their homes and are forced to inject themselves with a substance that can lead to serious side effects.
This behavior on the part of the public is the height of irresponsibility, and today I am proposing that this be remedied and that virology be subjected to scrutiny.
The question we will ask is a very bold one, is virology a science?
Most people think virology is a science, but they have never checked whether it really is.
What is science?
What criteria must an activity meet to be called scientific?
To understand this better, let's go back in history.
In 1660, the founders of the English Royal Society, the world's first scientific community, established that what mattered in science was experimental evidence rather than fantasy, superstition, and blind faith.
Science, with its proof principle, was meant to free people from ignorance, superstition, tyranny, and, not least, physical and psychological suffering.
At that time it was still common to accuse people of witchcraft and burn them at the stake in the name of God, or to accuse sick people of being taken by a demon and cast out of society.
The establishment of the standard of scientific proof marked the end of the Middle Ages.
Today, believing that we are in the safe hands of our high-tech scientific culture, we look back with doubt and great despondency at the abuses of power that took place in those draconian times.
The feeling that today every decision is made on the basis of rigorous scientific research gives people a sense of security against arbitrariness.
Like our modern legal system, which is tied to the principle of proof, true science recognizes only one guiding principle, demonstrability of facts.
True science, then, is nothing but method.
Here is a wonderfully precise definition of science from the Biology Online.
A systematized body of knowledge in the form of hypotheses, theories, principles.
Models or laws that have been conclusively drawn from observed or verifiable facts or from experimental findings gained basically from the application of the scientific method.
The goal of the scientific method is to discover the cause of observed natural phenomena.
The scientific method is an approach to the pursuit of knowledge that involves the formulation and testing of a hypothesis.
The scientific method provides a logical and systematic way to answer questions and eliminates subjectivity by requiring that every answer be supported by objective evidence.
The goal is to confirm or disprove the supposed cause of one or more phenomena.
The first step of the scientific method is to observe the natural phenomenon itself.
Then it goes to the second step, which is hypothesis formation.
So, you observe something happening in nature.
For example, you see that a man is sick and covered with a rash.
And you ask yourself, why is he sick?
What is my hypothesis as to why it is happening?
What do I think is the cause?
This is where hypothesis formation begins.
First you see something happening and then you think, I wonder what is causing it.
Then you have an idea of what you think might be causing it and you postulate, I think X causes Y. For example, I think a virus causes this disease.
It should be clear to everyone that to prove that a virus causes a disease, one must be certain that the virus exists.
That is, it has to be definitely real.
One cannot invent something only by imagination.
The purpose of formulating a hypothesis is to conduct an experiment in which you physically manipulate the alleged cause, the virus, to see if it causes the disease.
In any scientific experiment, there is bound to be an independent variable and a dependent variable.
The independent variable is the alleged cause, that is, the virus, and the dependent variable is the outcome, that is, the symptoms of the disease.
Therefore, according to logical standards, the alleged cause, the independent variable, i.e., the virus, must exist and be found before we can begin to test whether it causes the disease.
Either it causes the disease, which supports the hypothesis, or it does not cause the disease, which does not support the hypothesis.
This is what science and the scientific method boils down to.
As you can see, it comes down to basic logic.
Here is the definition of pseudoscience, a set of beliefs or practices falsely believed to be based on the scientific method.
Because of this definition, we can know with certainty whether something is truly scientific or not.
Only what is based on the scientific method is scientific.
Let's see if virology uses the scientific method in its research.
Has the existence of viruses been proven on the basis of the scientific method?
Do virologists conduct valid scientific experiments with a really existing independent variable?
These questions are crucial because the creation of a vaccine or diagnostic test cannot be possible without first identifying a virus.
Lockdowns, masks, and toxic antiviral treatment protocols cannot be introduced if there is no real evidence that a virus exists.
According to the definition, a virus is a microscopic infectious particle consisting of nucleic acid, DNA or RNA, and a protein envelope capable of infecting living cells for its reproduction.
Therefore, to prove that the virus exists and is the cause of the disease, the first thing to do is to find and extract, i.e.
isolate, the viral particles from the biological sample of a sick patient, purifying them of any contaminants.
Virus isolation is a step without which virology cannot exist as a scientific field.
Because without this step virologists do not have the sample of a truly existing virus to study it further and prove its pathogenicity.
In fact, humans are constantly engaged in isolation, studying the world around them.
It is the way our thinking works.
If you have not isolated something, that is, found it and separated it from everything around it, you cannot understand it.
Now I will give you a simple but very precise example, like that of the sewing needle.
Suppose you have never seen a sewing needle.
But a friend of yours has told you that there is a sewing needle with which thread can be introduced into the fabric.
The fact that the thread is inserted into the fabric is the result, that is, the dependent variable.
And the needle with which this result is achieved is the independent variable.
So you try to find the independent variable to see if the needle can be used to introduce the thread into the fabric.
Does the needle actually produces that result?
How does one go about isolating, that is, finding and taking a sample of sewing needle?
One has to go to the environment in which one expects to find a sewing needle, that is, the box in which sewing items are stored.
You look inside the box and discover an object that you think might be a needle.
You take this object, the needle, out of the box and separate it from everything else, buttons, scissors, bobbins, thimbles, balls of wool, thread, pins, ruler, and so on.
At this point, you are holding a sewing needle separate from all the rest of the other objects.
Then you test the hypothesis formulated by your friend.
You take a needle, put a thread through its eye and insert the needle into a piece of fabric, followed by the thread.
At this point you can do a control experiment.
Because, how do you know for sure that it was not your own hand that inserted the thread into the fabric?
You try doing the same thing without the needle and you find that you cannot insert the thread into the fabric with your hand alone.
There, you have proved your friend's hypothesis and also done a control experiment.
So it is a scientific fact that the needle can insert the thread into the fabric.
Another example, someone tells you that there is a frog squawking and eating flies.
You go to where you expect to find the frog, which is in a pond, and with a net you isolate the frog from the pond so that in the net there is only the frog and nothing else.
Then you observe the frog and see if it really eats flies and starts squawking.
And then when the frog is old and dead, you can dissect it and study what it looks like.
This is isolating and studying the characteristics of something according to the scientific method.
You can do the same thing with particles that are tiny and invisible to the eye.
This is what analytical chemists do when they isolate nanoparticles, and as we remember, we are told that viruses are nanoparticles.
Instead of the net or the hand, they isolate these particles from the environment or ecosystem in which they are found with techniques appropriate to their size.
These can be ultracentrifugation, chromatography, precipitation, and so on.
These are all techniques to get the nanoparticles in a separate and purified form from the environment in which they were originally found.
Here is an example of how this can be done using an ultracentrifuge.
You take a sample of snot from a sick person, i.e., the environment in which the virus is thought to be found, filter it, then put it in a centrifuge.
Spin it rapidly to distribute the contents of the filtered phlegm by density and weight, and in one of the resulting layers there should be particles measured in nanometers, like the claimed viruses.
You then take these particles in a pipette, look at them under a microscope, do a biochemical analysis, and see if they can cause disease.
That is how bacteriophages were isolated, which, just like the viruses that supposedly cause disease in humans and animals, are measured in nanometers.
It is also how even smaller particles than so-called viruses, such as a protein like albumin, can be isolated and purified.
So all the procedures necessary to isolate viruses are available and there is no reason not to use them.
I would like to remind you that any scientific experiment to understand the cause of a disease is impossible without an independent variable.
Only when you isolate a virus do you have an independent variable to conduct further experiments and you can introduce the virus into a healthy organism and see if it causes disease symptoms.
Disease symptoms are the dependent variable in this case.
If we want to understand what causes the disease and, after doing the experiment, we clearly see that the virus does not cause the disease.
It means we have to discard it as the independent variable and look for another one, and then test the hypothesis with that.
So what do virologists do?
Contrary to the scientific method, virologists do not isolate or attempt to isolate the virus in a sick person or animal.
That is, they do not even try to detect the virus, the independent variable, in a sample from a sick person.
Although the titles of their papers sound like Isolation and Characterization of Viruses A, B, C, and so on, when you examine the methods of their work, a very different picture emerges.
This is a vivid example of the danger of reading only the titles without carefully examining the methodology itself.
When virologists claim to have isolated a virus, they do not mean they have found and isolated particles from a patient's sample at all.
They mean they have taken fluid from a sick patient, added it to a cell culture, usually consisting of monkey kidney cells, to which antibiotic antifungal agents, trypsin, fetal bovine serum and cell culture medium containing unphysiological amounts of electrolytes and carbohydrates have been added.
Then, this toxic mixture is left to incubate for several days until the appearance of the so-called cytopathic effect.
The cytopathic effect is the destruction of the cells, and virologists are trained to think that if after several days they see this effect.
It is caused by the virus present in the patient's sample and therefore the cytopathic effect proves the existence of the virus and that the virus has multiplied in the cell culture.
Simply put, if cells die in a test tube, according to virologists, this proves that the hypothetical virus was actually present in the sample and therefore is no longer hypothetical but real.
As can be seen, the conclusion that a virus exists is based only on observing cell death, not on finding an actual structure that can be called a virus.
That said, the substances I just listed that are added to the culture are toxic to the cells.
For example, it is well known that antibiotics and antifungals are extremely toxic to cells, especially kidney cells, which are the most commonly used in virology.
Due to time constraints, I cannot now review studies in which the same scientists working with cell cultures in the laboratory emphasize the toxicity of antibiotics to cells and even urge against their use if possible.
Because these drugs kill cells.
On this slide, you can see a link to an article on this topic and read it yourself.
Trypsin, which is added to cell cultures, can also cause cytopathic effects because it is an enzyme well known to digest proteins.
Which means it destroys the integrity of cell cultures and causes them to disintegrate.
Even simple alterations in acid-alkaline balance and non-physiological amounts of electrolytes and carbohydrates can cause cytopathic effects.
Therefore, there is no reason to say that the cytopathic effect was caused by a hypothetical virus never discovered by virologists and not by the toxic conditions of the cell culture.
The very idea of doing an experiment with cell culture is absurd because any experiment requires an independent variable.
You have to first isolate the virus directly from a patient sample, then put that isolated virus into a cell culture and see if it causes the cytopathic effect, which is the dependent variable.
Virologists do not have an independent variable, so their experiment is meaningless.
Here is one example of a publication on the isolation of SARS-CoV virus 2.
As you can see in the methods section, there is no actual isolation, that is, finding the virus, but only the above experiments with cell culture, in which the occurrence of the cytopathic effect is attributed to a hypothetical virus and not to actual toxic substances added to the cells.
In other words, the main role in the cytopathic effect is attributed to the fictional hypothetical virus rather than to the real toxic conditions of the cell culture.
All other publications on SARS-CoV-2 and any other virus use exactly the same methodology.
And why is everything so unscientific in virology?
The idea of viruses originated with Louis Pasteur, a French chemist, in the 19th century, when he could not blame bacteria for causing rabies.
For reasons of time, I cannot talk about the germ theory of disease in general, but only say that our modern view of bacteria and their role in disease is not based on the scientific method of evidence.
But we will talk about that another time.
In this context, Pastor had the idea to claim that he had discovered a new pathogen.
Pastor called this new pathogen virus, which means poison in Latin.
Pastor announced that the new pathogen was thousands of times smaller than a bacterium.
So to study it, he used very dense filters through which only viruses could pass, but not bacteria.
So he squeezed fluids and poisons from a dead animal, passed them through the filter, and injected this poisonous fluid into the brain of a dog tied vertically to a pole.
The dog would convulse, bark, its mouth would foam, and it would die.
And Pastor called it rabies.
Any sane person, hearing this, would agree that the animal's condition was caused by poisons injected into the brain.
But Pastor claimed that this condition of the animal was caused by its hypothetical agent virus entering the body, attacking and killing it.
And not a word about how, in fact, he had caused this condition in the dog.
He, moreover, claimed to have an antidote to this virus to promote his serums.
Pastor said it was an invisible pathogen, impossible to see under the light microscope of the time because of its tiny size.
Then, when the electron microscope appeared, looking at tissues, scientists saw tiny particles and became excited, assuming that they were the viruses that no one had been able to see before.
They exclaimed, Finally!
We knew there was something so small in there, and now that we have an electron microscope, we can see it!
In reality, these were artifacts, that is, decomposition products of dead tissue, because in order to observe the sample with the electron microscope, it has to be treated with aggressive chemicals and stained, so you could only see decomposing tissue particles.
And of course, there was no way to prove that they were pathogenic and caused disease.
So after 20 years of trying, they abandoned the idea and switched to the so-called cell culture experiments.
It is these that allow virology to exist today in a completely unjustified way.
In my new investigative documentary, The Truth About Measles, which will be screened in Russian language in a few days and eventually translated into Italian, English, German, and other languages.
I explain who was the first to introduce the cell culture experiments without an independent variable into virology and thus give it a second breath.
Because before then virologists could not create the illusion of the presence of the virus in a patient sample and thus virology was in danger of dying out.
The film offers a profound look at the first work that used cell cultures and the history behind it.
The Truth About Measles is a unique investigative documentary film.
The movie disproves any argument about the need for measles vaccination.
It is almost four hours long and consists of three series.
There is no other material in existence that would delve so deeply into the topic of measles.
It goes through its history, diagnosis creation, And explains how exactly throughout history the medical establishment has created the illusion of measles epidemics and how they convince the public that vaccination reduces the incidence of measles.
The movie explains all the details about the court case dedicated to the question of whether the measles virus exists.
It looks into experiments that try to prove the contagiousness of measles to verify the validity of the claims about measles being one of the most contagious diseases on the planet.
The documentary looks into the so-called measles complications and whether measles really causes them.
You will also understand the true causes and purpose of measles symptoms, learn what to do if you get sick, and free yourself from the fear of measles once and for all.
To not miss and watch this documentary, subscribe to my Telegram channel.
This film will give you a very deep understanding of the topic.
Control experiments, which are a very important aspect of any scientific research, of course are not done by virologists either.
Remember my needle analogy, where a control experiment was done to make sure that the effect a thread inserted into the tissue was actually achieved with a needle and not just with the hand?
Similarly, virologists should do control experiments to test whether cell culture conditions cause the cytopathic effect.
To that end, they should take a sample from the lungs of a healthy person, put it in cell culture, add antibiotics and other substances, and show that the cells do not die.
They do not do this because they know that the cytopathic effect will still occur.
In April 2021, German virologist Stefan Lanke, who, however, prefers to call himself a former virologist, conducted such an experiment and showed that the cells die even if they are not supplemented with material taken from a sick person that contains the hypothetical virus.
But it is also important to note that virologists, in principle, cannot do control experiments, nor can they do experiments to prove pathogenicity, because they need an independent variable.
And they do not have it.
My followers have been communicating with Russian virological authorities.
Asking them to provide us all with at least one publication describing the isolation of a virus directly from a patient's sample.
Perhaps we have missed something.
Perhaps somewhere in the remotest compartments of the virological archives there is such a publication somewhere.
It is important to note that a Canadian biostatistician, a woman named Christine Massey, And her team have sent hundreds of such requests to various government virological institutions and health authorities, and the responses they have received are very interesting and revealing.
You can find my conversation with Christine Massey on my Telegram channel.
But now I will show you a response that my followers received from the creator of the world's first COVID-19 vaccine, Sputnik.
It is the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Russia.
Here they recognize that it is not possible to isolate the virus directly from a patient sample.
And look, virologists and I agree on the most important point, which is that virologists have never found a virus in a sample taken from a human, animal or plant without first mixing the sample with a foreign material such as a cell culture.
The disagreement we have with virologists concerns the implications of this fact.
The virologists continue to claim that, despite this, the existence of viruses has been proven through cytopathic effects and genome sequencing, and that we must vaccinate, treat people with toxic antiviral drugs, wear masks, and undergo all the other life-destroying restrictive measures.
While we claim that it is urgent to stop these anti-scientific practices and devote efforts and funds to research into the real causes of human diseases, Unfortunately, this is what they do not want to do, as the real causes will almost always be lifestyle, intoxication, environment and stress.
And treatment will require addressing these root causes rather than using vaccines and various pharmaceuticals, which is not very profitable.
Let's examine the reason given by the creator of the first COVID vaccine to explain why it is not possible to isolate the virus from a patient sample.
They believe that there is too little virus present in the patient sample to be able to isolate it from there, and therefore cell culture experiments should be done.
I have explained the failure of that there is too little virus in the patient sample to isolate it argument in great detail in my articles, which you can read on my Telegram channel.
Here is a quote from my article.
Making the argument there is too little virus in a sick patient sample to isolate purify it, I find is the same as saying that there are too few cat dogs.
A cat dog is an imaginary animal.
Half dog, half cat, in nature to find and show them to the world.
If we can't find cat dogs in their claimed habitat, then we can't claim that there are too few of them, since we have never seen a cat dog, and thus its existence is just our fantasy hypothesis.
We can hypothesize, I guess cat dogs exist and there are probably very few of them, so we can't discover them and be known as the discoverers of cat dog.
But we cannot confidently claim that there are few cat dogs if we have never seen one, and we certainly cannot base an entire health policy on the idea that cat dogs exist.
We cannot, by threatening punitive measures, lock people in their homes and restrict their movement on the pretext of protecting them from a group of distraught.
Escaped cat dogs that might attack people when the existence of cat dogs has not been proven.
We can only claim that something is too little if we see that something in front of our eyes and can count quantify it.
Or if we took a concentrated, real substance and diluted one drop of it in the ocean.
Yes, then there won't be enough of the substance to isolate it from the ocean, but we know that because we put the substance there ourselves.
If we have never isolated or purified the viral particles, i.e.
found them, and their existence is just our hypothesis, then we can't even speculate about their quantity.
Here is the continuation of the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology.
Response It is for this purpose that pathogen accumulation is carried out using cell cultures e.g.
varro, chicken embryos, etc.
before purification by ultracentrifugation and or chromatography.
And here is my comment.
If the Gamaleya Research Institute claims that it is technically impossible to purify virus from a patient sample before a cell culture or chicken embryo experiment, then they cannot claim that their experiment to accumulate virus in a cell culture or chicken embryo has anything to do with science.
Any scientific experiment requires an independent variable.
If you want to grow, accumulate, propagate, cultivate, these are synonyms used interchangeably in virology, a virus, and cell culture.
You must first have an actual virus that you put into the cells and get the effect that it did accumulate or didn't accumulate.
You can't do a virus accumulation experiment just by fantasizing that the virus is present in a patient sample.
You must know for sure that it is there by isolating and purifying it from the patient's sample before doing any experiment.
You cannot conduct experiments that require an independent variable without the presence of an independent variable.
This is completely contrary to logic and the scientific method.
That is why we asked the Gamaleya Research Institute in our response letter.
Does a scientific experiment require an independent variable?
Yes or no?
Regardless of the answer, they will fail, and here's why.
If they answer no, then they are admitting that virology does not adhere to the scientific method, being a pseudoscience.
If they answer yes, then they also recognize that virology is a pseudoscience, since they have never conducted a real scientific experiment because, in their own words, it is technically impossible.
As you can see, I use the word pseudoscience boldly, because, according to the definition, pseudoscience is a set of beliefs or practices falsely believed to be based on the scientific method.
Unfortunately, in their last response, they ignored our question about the independent variable.
Therefore, in our next inquiry, we will ask this question again.
Let's see what they wrote in their last response.
There is molecular genetic data on what virus genome was in the patient samples, what viral proteins were found there, etc.
reasoning along the lines of if something is not seen in its natural form.
Then it is not there is a common cognitive distortion that contradicts evidence-based scientific experiments.
So, once again, they admit that the virus in natural state cannot be found.
In doing so, they point out that we suffer from cognitive distortion because we want tangible evidence for the existence of structures such as viruses.
That is, they suggest that we plunge into the world of esotericism and reason about viruses as if they were spirits or ghosts.
That is, according to them, viruses exist, but at the same time they do not exist.
When in all their definitions viruses are described as physical structures that exist in this dimension, not in a parallel dimension.
All their definitions state that viruses are real particles.
Their size and composition are specified.
Their characteristics, such as pathogenicity, are specified.
How is all this defined if a virus cannot be found in its natural state?
Here they contradict themselves.
And they refer to the fact that instead of the virus, the viral genome and proteins can be found in the sample.
That is, instead of any physical and tangible evidence of the existence of particles that can be considered viruses, they offer us the following.
According to them, there is no need for direct evidence of a virus when a computer database has this random set of letters A, C, T, G that are supposed to represent the genome of a virus.
If the virus has not been isolated, what viral genome can we talk about?
How can one know the genome of something that has never been found?
One cannot.
One can only create a hypothetical computer model of the genome based on what was present in the cell culture genetic material from humans, bacteria, fungi, monkey kidneys, and cow embryos.
If RNA is not taken from cell culture, it is taken directly from unpurified samples, such as lung fluid, as was done for the SARS-CoV-2 genome assembly.
In this case, the genome of the hypothetical virus consists of genetic material from humans and their microorganisms.
In reality, all viral RNAs and sequences are nothing more than a mixture of human, animal, bacterial, fungal and other unknown sources of genetic material.
These RNA mixtures are declared viral and added to the database to create a viral library.
There is no evidence that the RNA came from a virus, since no virus has ever been found.
In a nutshell, using various technologies such as Sanger sequencing, next-generation sequencing, metagenomics, PCR, computer algorithms, alignment software, reference genomes, and so on, virologists have created a database full of completely random sets of letters A, C, T, G that supposedly represent invisible viral particles.
Diagnostic tests are then created to search for these computer-generated fragments.
Regarding the detection of viral proteins, the Sputnik vaccine creator, the Gamaleya Institute, claims that this proves the existence of the virus in the patient's sample.
To prove the specificity of the antibodies and that the proteins come from the virus, it is necessary to find the virus first.
And this has not been done, as the virologists themselves admit.
When we asked them how they could be sure that the electron microscope photographs showed the virus and not artifacts, i.e.
decomposition products of dead and processed tissues, they said the following.
In the case of electron microscopy, experience is indeed required to interpret micrographs correctly, which is why the combination of all the comprehensive approaches outlined earlier, including PCR, ELISA and sequencing, is important.
Electron microscopy is a good complement to more precise research methods, but by itself is almost never sufficient evidence.
A photograph of the purified virus can be found at this link.
It is good that they recognized that electron microscope photographs alone are not sufficient as evidence.
Again, we agree, because to understand whether these photographs show a virus or cellular decay products, it is important to know the methodology by which they were taken.
It is surprising that the link provided to view the photos that they claim show purified SARS-CoV-2 virus particles leads not to a scientific publication describing the methodology, but to a stock images website where the images are sold.
There is not even the name of the publication from which the photos were taken.
This is extremely unprofessional on the part of the Gamaleya Institute.
In fact, this photo and all the others are derived from an unpurified cell culture supernatant.
After the cytopathic effect is achieved, the cell culture is filtered, put into a centrifuge, and the topmost layer is taken out in a pipette.
This is the supernatant.
It is examined under an electron microscope to find what should visually resemble a virus among the many cellular breakdown products that have been trapped in the supernatant.
This unpurified supernatant is subjected to aggressive treatments such as fixation and staining in order to be visualized under an electron microscope.
This process kills any living components and creates artificial artifacts called viruses.
Virologists examine this mass to find particles that match their preconceived idea of what a virus particle should look like and declare it guilty.
Even though millions of other similar or identical candidates exist in the unpurified supernatant.
In fact, several similar particles are known to be present in these samples, such as clathrin-coated vesicles, secretory vesicles and granules, exosomes, and other multivesicular bodies that are commonly mistaken for coronaviruses.
Here we can see the particles in a sample positive for COVID-19 that has been declared a coronavirus, but exactly the same particles are present in a healthy human sample.
The study authors concluded that this suggests that the ultrastructural features observed in the lungs are not exclusive to SARS-CoV-2 infection, raising the question of their specificity to confirm viral invasion.
Here is another publication, whose authors show that in kidney samples obtained a few years before the emergence of COVID-19, the electron microscope detects exactly the same particles as those called coronaviruses.
The authors also write that the fact that normal cellular components and products of cellular decay are indistinguishable from so-called viruses under an electron microscope has been known since the 1970s.
So, friends, to summarize what I said.
One, the virologists agree with me on the most important aspect that viruses have never been isolated from a patient sample.
But I strongly disagree with them about the consequences that should follow this fact.
Two, they say that a virus cannot be isolated and we must settle for an indirect evidence such as cytopathic effects, genome sequencing, and protein detection, but as I have now explained in detail, this evidence is not an indirect evidence, because to provide an indirect evidence you have to prove the existence of the original object.
A shadow in a room can only be circumstantial evidence of my presence if my existence has been previously proven.
Otherwise, it is just a shadow of something else.
So they don't even have an indirect evidence.
3.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a lot of debate about the benefits or harms of masks, lockdowns, vaccines, and so on.
The same will be true during the WHO's predicted Pandemic X. These debates will go on endlessly until we stop and pay attention to the elephant in the room.
The elephant in the room is the absence of scientific method in virology.
It is the fact that virology is, unfortunately, a pseudoscience, because it lacks its foundation, the viruses themselves.
Until we realize that claims about the existence of pathogenic viruses are based on pseudoscientific premises, we will forever play this game of pandemics.
There will always be a new virus or a new strain of it, and we will continue to suffer all this devastation.
Even in the absence of pandemics, based on anti-scientific test results, millions of people are told every day that a virus is the cause of their symptoms.
Often people have no symptoms and are healthy, as in the case of HIV, but they are prescribed antiviral therapy, with inevitable side effects.
Pharmaceutical companies and leading scientists earn huge sums of money from the fight against viruses, while the media increase their ratings and circulation at the expense of sensationalist news.
And the public pays the price, not receiving what they deserve and need most to stay healthy, education about the real causes and true prevention and treatment of their diseases.
4.
That our health care policy is based on such a false foundation should be of concern to every right-thinking person.
Our civic duty is not to go and get vaccinated and tested for HIV, as officials tell us, but to demand a complete revision of health care policy, methods of disease prevention and treatment, as well as investing taxpayers' money not in pseudoscience, but in real scientific research that finds out the real causes of diseases and brings real benefits to the health of the population.
Thank you for your attention.
I am done.
Thank you, Ekaterina.
It was a very interesting presentation.
I did not expect anything else from you.
Your presentation is very voluminous and contains a lot of facts.
The level of this chaos is mind-boggling.
There is a lot of, I mean, a lot of chaos.
It is really frightening to realize how many people have suffered because of this anti-scientific interference in their health.
Tell me, please, do you see a way out of the situation you just described?
from this chaos that has been created.
I've been thinking about it a lot.
And you know, when COVID-19 happened, I was motivated to start talking about it because I actually already knew a lot about what I'm talking about.
Even before COVID-19, I knew that the viral hypothesis is not based on the scientific method.
And then when it all started, the solution I saw was to start talking about it and try to popularize this information.
The problem is that still few people know the falsity of the virology and germ hypothesis of the origin of diseases.
There is only one way out of this situation, we need to talk about it more, and the more people who do, the better.
We have to make sure that a critical mass of people learns about the existence of virology refutation and the germ hypothesis of the origin of disease and that these people start to study the subject, using the educational materials we have created to help them do so.
If they start doing research, they will inevitably come to the same conclusions.
After all, the facts are there for all to see.
It is necessary for all kinds of people, with all kinds of backgrounds, experience and training, to start talking about it with their audiences or acquaintances and friends and not be afraid to do so.
Because all this information is supported by the logic and research of the virologists themselves.
In their own studies you will find all the refutations of their activities.
Now there are opinions and even dates for the appearance of a new disease X, everywhere it is said that there will be an epidemic again and that new vaccines will be needed.
What is your opinion about the new disease?
What do you think about the new epidemic and new vaccines?
Personally, I think it will be a so-called viral epidemic again, just like the COVID epidemic.
Because the lack of proof that I told you about makes it possible to create all these anti-scientific tests, and therefore a huge number of asymptomatic people.
Because of that, it is very easy to create a pandemic in terms of numbers, because people will do the tests, they will get positive results, and most of them will be asymptomatic.
But nobody will be embarrassed by that.
And again, there will be lockdowns, there will be much stricter measures than before.
People may well be forced to vaccinate much more aggressively than they have so far.
I see a more pessimistic development than what we saw during COVID.
And I think the only way to avoid it is to talk about it wherever you can, or at least support people who are already doing it.
Give them a place to talk, an audience or financial support.
Can I ask a question?
Yes.
Have you ever heard of optogenetics?
It is the development of viruses that produce light-sensitive proteins that can affect the human brain.
They can damage neurons.
That is, interfere with electrochemical processes in the brain.
And they affect thinking, memory, feelings and emotions.
Viruses cannot be created or used in any technology.
They don't exist in any form.
The fact is that I have taken information from open sources and read that the World Economic Forum invests a lot of money in these developments and more than 1,000 laboratories are engaged in this.
And since I am a victim of psycho terror, would like to know if these technologies exist.
There is speculation of a new pandemic X because of exposure to these technologies that target humans with light-sensitive proteins to start controlling people on a mass scale.
I am therefore trying to understand the relationship between the disease X and these light-sensitive proteins.
To say whether this technology exists, you have to look at the scientific publications that describe it, that is.
You have to see step by step how they have shown that they have invented these proteins and what effect they have.
You have to see whether they have really invented something valid that can really affect people in this way and whether we should be wary of it.
I have not seen this kind of research.
I don't think it will be used.
I think it will be much simpler, the old-fashioned way, just as it was during COVID, and that was also essentially psychoterror.
People are very suggestible.
The Nocebo effect is a scientific fact.
It is a proven phenomenon.
If the government comes out and says that something terrible is happening and we are all going to get sick and die, people start getting sick.
There are also examples where it has been done.
For example, when a man dressed as a robber with a gas mask came to a bank in California.
He sprayed something in the air, which was not toxic, but people decided it was some poison or a noxious gas.
In the end, people ended up in the hospital with respiratory symptoms just because they were 100% convinced they were exposed to the gas.
So when the government comes out and tells us that there is a new so-called deadly virus, all they are doing is psychoterrorism, which causes tremendous stress in the population that weakens people and makes them sick.
I believe that they will operate in this way, and I don't believe that new technologies will be introduced, assuming they exist, which I personally question.
To be able to say for sure, I would have to see all these documents, all these patents and review them.
But I haven't seen them.
But even if, let's assume, they do and they use some technologies.
Again, they always use the idea of viruses as a cover.
Even if we take factors like air pollution, toxic environment, huge amounts of toxins in food and water.
I could spend an hour listing the factors that can make a person or a group of people sick at the same time.
I believe that the disease process, like the flu for example, is a mechanism by which our body cleanses itself.
To do that, we get a fever, we start coughing, producing mucus and so on, and we start sweating because the body wants to get rid of toxins and other unnecessary things.
If we live in such a toxic environment, if we are full of stress, if we are subjected to psychoterrorism, we start to get sick and often at the same time.
If people share many factors, they start getting sick at the same time, with the same frequency.
In fact, everything in nature is cyclical, but human beings forget that they are part of nature.
Cycles are the fundamentals of nature.
Seasons change, trees lose their leaves and green up at the same time.
And so do all other organisms.
They can manifest symptoms at the same time, but this is called contagion.
Such a phenomenon as contagion, that is, the passing of a disease to another person, has never been experimentally confirmed and therefore is not scientific.
There are many experiments in which scientists have failed to infect volunteers.
Many people have already heard about the experiments conducted during the Spanish flu, in which healthy volunteers were put in hospitals to be with sick people and were in close contact with them.
And no one got sick.
If the body doesn't need it, symptoms don't occur.
But in general, this is how social beings and the collective function, often going through stages of purification at the same time.
And this simultaneity does not prove the existence of the virus or the transmission of the disease, i.e.
contagion.
To think that it proves it is a logical fallacy.
So all these disease-causing factors that we are exposed to are put aside, and we are led to believe that we are sick because of a virus.
That's why we have to talk about the falsity of the viral hypothesis and the germ hypothesis of disease, because only then will we open ourselves up to real research.
We will finally start to suspect everything, to investigate everything around us, because we stop focusing on non-existent things like viruses.
And even if there are dangerous technologies out there, then we will find them out, read all the research and see if they really exist and have a real effect on our health.
But nobody does that, because everybody is fixated on the viral hypothesis.
And people don't think at all what the real causes of their illnesses are, because they believe if they get sick it's because of a virus or bacteria.
The point is that by discarding the viral hypothesis we will finally be free.
Spread our wings and employ taxpayers' money in the search for the real causes of diseases according to the scientific method.
Ekaterina, I want to thank you very much.
Everything is so logically constructed that there is no room for objection.
I also believe, and everyone listening will agree, that science should be evidential.
This is the basic principle of science.
If it is not, then it is fantasy, not science.
So the question becomes, how did the fantasists end up in the health authorities?
How do these fantasists have the right to terrorize us and violate our rights?
I think law enforcement needs to intervene.
Because the only thing citizens can do is to reject all the proposed measures.
I would really like to invite you to the next meeting to talk about the impact of bacteria on human health.
Because I think this is our main symbiont that allows us to live, and all medicine now aims to deprive us of these bacteria.
Ekaterina, what kind of life attitude should a modern person have?
to not become a victim to provocations in such a situation and not leave anyone to violate their rights?
First of all, we need to protect our conscience.
That is, if we really want to put up with this whole new story of the disease vax, have the moral strength to stand up for our rights and not let it sting us.
It is necessary to realize that the truth is on our side.
The people who will agree to all these measures will most often be those who do not understand the fundamental falsity and refutation of the claims on the basis of which they are forced to submit to.
The measures?
These people do not understand that vaccines are dangerous and deadly liquids.
That is the fact and the government recognizes it.
Yes, we can discuss with them how widespread post-vaccine harms are.
I think they are much more common than they claim and a much higher percentage of people are affected by vaccines.
But they still recognize that somebody might get hurt, but we have to sacrifice them for the greater good because there is a virus, because there is immunity, because we will protect the public.
And if something bad happens to you after the vaccine, you are heroes, you have sacrificed yourself for the good of the society.
And they will pressure you to vaccinate and declare you heroes if something happens to you.
But only if you go through the seven circles of health to prove that your health damages are caused by the vaccine.
People who don't understand the anti-science behind it at all can fall for it.
And if we want to defend our rights and stand firm, we have to know why we do it.
And we do it because we understand everything and we know it's all false.
It's all unreal and we will not give up, and in this way we will also energetically create opportunities to get out of this pressure situation.
That is why it is necessary to protect consciousness from intimidation.
In general, the fear of something invisible, of something that cannot be seen and against which nothing can be done, is the most terrible thing for the human psyche.
We are made to believe that there is something we cannot see with our own eyes, but it is dangerous.
Well, yes, there are rare examples that we cannot see, but are dangerous, like gas.
But at least we can smell it.
That is, they use man's strongest fear against them, they activate their instinct of self-preservation, people go crazy and anarchy begins, but only in a strange way, not toward liberation, but toward slavery.
One can protect one's conscience from this only by scrupulous fact-checking.
That is, first of all, one needs a psychological attitude and an objective understanding of what is happening.
Don't be afraid of anything, live peacefully.
Yes, first of all.
And of course we must strengthen our body.
We must have a strong spirit through fact-checking and critical thinking and a strong body.
We must devote ourselves to as healthy lifestyle as possible.
This, by the way, is the simplest thing you can do, go to bed early, get up not at 2 o'clock in the afternoon but early in the morning, eat the best food you have available.
Then, learn the laws, find like-minded people and create strategies, create cooperation, team up with other people.
That's how we will endure.
And I also wanted to ask one last question.
Now there is a trend all over the world, not only in Russia, to the installation of many 5G towers everywhere.
Again, how dangerous do you think these towers are to public health?
Should people fight for the dismantling of these towers?
Because now we have a very strong group in St.
Petersburg, they went to court and they are trying to dismantle the 5G towers.
And there are some successes in this case.
What is your opinion about the damage or, maybe, on the contrary, we should not be afraid of these towers and radiation?
I honestly say that I haven't studied this topic in depth, specifically 5G radiation, because my time was occupied with virology.
But I read a book in which the author describes the chronology of events throughout history.
When precisely new radiation for humans appeared and at the same time there was what we call an epidemic of influenza, that is, many people got sick, this was a very interesting correlation.
Something new appeared, for example, the telegraph or telephone communications, and there were quite severe flu epidemics.
So we can assume that the introduction of something new into a person's usual electromagnetic field can disturb it and cause symptoms, and the body, through these symptoms, will try to strengthen itself to be able to resist further.
But how dangerous they are after a while, I cannot say at the moment.
We live with all these things, we live with cell phones, which harm us to a certain extent, but not so much as to cause serious problems.
Unless you put your phone near your brain and talk for hours and hours, which can lead to brain cancer, there is pretty conclusive data on that.
And yes, there is also such a thing as the announcement of the COVID story in conjunction with the beginning of the installation of new towers and the appearance of thromboembolism in the lungs.
Although pulmonary embolism existed before, it was a little more common than usual, especially in Italy and China.
So one can speculate that there was a harmful effect of the 5GS, but now after the passage of time, it's hard for me to say how harmful.
But in all honesty, I would dismantle them.
I don't think they are as necessary as telegraph or cell phone communication.
We were fine before them.
Thank you, Ekaterina.
Colleagues, are there any more questions for Ekaterina?
Has everyone asked everything?
In fact, we can discuss this topic for a long time.
Yes, it touches many aspects.
Thank you very much.
I think we will continue to work with you, continue to conduct research as part of our future meetings.
It was a pleasure to meet and talk with you.
It was a pleasure for me as well.
Thank you very much.
▲
Export Selection