Addendum: more evidence that viruses remain undetected

1) The standard methodology used to detect pathological viruses, in particular the use of animal cell culture, was introduced in a 1954 paper on measles. Its authors, John Enders and Thomas Peebles, had however performed a control experiment using “uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells”, i.e. free from infected material. “The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles.” Although it maintains that “when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished”, it should be noted that dyeing can impact results (see section 1). In fact in a subsequent 1959 article, Enders recognised that “an agent from monkey kidney tissue that so far is indistinguishable from human measles virus had been isolated and that the origin of the agent responsible for the presence of … antibodies in apparently normal monkeys has not yet been solved.”

In the meantime, regarding measles, Bech & von Magnus had also found that the “cytopathic effect is not measles-specific, but is caused by other factors”[1]:

“cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue …. These changes are probably caused by virus-like agents, so called ‚foamy agents‘, which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys.”[2]

Also in the case of measles, this has been seemingly confirmed in recent years by an independent German laboratory, according to which: “Depending on the added non-viral and non-infectious substances, changes in cell morphology could be observed at different points in time, which since 1954 has been equated with the “isolation” of the “measles virus”. Especially after the addition of high concentrations of penicillin/streptomycin (20%) or cultivation under deficient conditions (1% FCS), changes in cell morphology were observed that were microscopically identical to the formation of syncytia described by the measles virus …  The investigations clearly showed that the formation of syncytia is not specific for a measles infection. Thus the forgotten observations of both Enders & Peebles and Bech & von Magnus were confirmed and the assumption that Enders & Peebles and successors had used this technique to prove the existence of a virus was refuted.”[3]

More general control experiments are at present being performed.[4] In April 2021, according to virologist Stefan Lanka, he found that the central effect of any experiment that follows the methods described previously taken as evidence of viral presence and causality, namely the decay and death of cells, can be created using the same methods but without any infected material. He used 4 groups of cells free from any infectious matter.

Group 1: freshly isolated tissues, given their natural nutrients and 1 (small) dose of antibiotics

Groups 2-4: tissues transferred to the medium of Vero cell culture

Group 2: with 10% FBS and 1 (small) dose of antibiotics as in group 1

Group 3: with 3 doses of antibiotics, and nutrient solution reduced from 10 to 1%, as per usual procedure

Group 4: as in group 3, with added RNA coming from yeast, i.e. neutral, not of pathogenic origin, but mimicking the lung fluid from a patient inoculated in the cell culture, which introduces large amounts of nucleic acids

Results

1 day after transfer: group 1 healthy, the others in increasing order of unhealthiness, though minimally in group 2.

5 days after transfer: group 1 still healthy; group 2 less so than day 1; group 3 with the massive specific decay commonly interpreted as the cytopathic effect due to viruses; group 4 with dramatic decay and cell death.

These results should be taken with prudence until they are checked by other researchers. The fact that in the case of the measles virus they were verified by an independent German laboratory gives some credence. However, it still awaits a detailed written account before more can be said. Besides the experiments are still ongoing and it is best to await their completion.

2) Viruses are supposed to produce proteins with spikes to enter the cells. At least until recently, it would seem that these had only been observed “on budding particles (as they exit the cell membrane)”, not “on the independent, cell-free particles”.[5] This would further confirm that viruses are in fact exosomes produced by our cells, in which case are these proteins part of the repair mechanism?

Whatever may be the final verdict on control experiments, or the answer to the previous question, it in no way changes the fact that the standard methodology to study the particles named Sar-Cov-2 cannot identify them as pathological viruses. Such a conclusion is nothing more than simple logic.

 

  1. https://telegra.ph/The-end-of-virology-is-only-a-single-control-experiment-away-10-01
  2. Bech, V. and P. von Magnus, P. 1958. “Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures.” Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica 42(1): 75-85
  3. https://telegra.ph/The-end-of-virology-is-only-a-single-control-experiment-away-10-01
  4. https://odysee.com/@Bfruitful:4/Dr.-Stefan-Lanka—Dean-Braus—CPE—Control-Experiment–Sub—ITA–21-Aprile-2021:c
  5. http://www.theperthgroup.com/OTHER/ENVCommentary.pdf