Brno, Lužanky Park, statue, the Personification of Tolerance, credit Wikipedia
The Final Pandemic: An Antidote to Medical Tyranny (2024), written and published by Dr Mark Bailey & Dr Samantha Bailey, foreword by Professor Tim Noakes, a book review and discussion by Dr A. R. Kneen
The official narrative of ‘the pandemic’ could be summarised thus:
There is a novel ‘virus’ (sars-cov 2) that is very dangerous to health and is highly contagious; it is transmissible from person to person through the air and also by other means of transmission, such as via cross-contamination from objects. This alleged ‘virus’ is claimed to cause a disease (‘covid-19’) that can cause severe problems to health, and can kill. A person can have this dangerous ‘virus’ with no symptoms, and can still infect others (‘asymptomatic transmission/carrier’). The means by which a person is diagnosed as having the ‘sars-cov 2 virus’ is by a ‘PCR test’ (or RAT test[1]). The government claims that to protect its people from this terribly dangerous ‘virus’ it was necessary to impose the extreme measures that it did, including lockdowns.
In The Final Pandemic (‘TFP’), the Baileys dismantle this narrative. The basis of the official narrative is that there was a contagious ‘virus’ (sars-cov 2). However, this claim has never been proven. The so-called ‘science’ used to evidence the existence of sars-cov 2 is inadequate. Furthermore, no other ‘virus’ has actually been demonstrated to exist either. Neither has any alleged resultant contagion. When scientific experiments have been properly conducted, the evidence refutes the hypotheses of both: viral existence; and of contagion. The Baileys refer to pandemics as ‘manufactured crises’ based on shaky science.
We were all told to ‘follow the science’ and to ‘trust the science’. Dr Fauci claimed to ‘represent science’[2]. ‘Science’ was a term frequently used during the past few years in the context of the alleged pandemic. Science rests upon observation of the world. A typical definition of science would be one such as:
The careful study of the structure and behaviour of the real world, conducted by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development and testing of theories to describe the results of these activities. The term ‘science’; is also used to refer to knowledge obtained from such systematic observation of the world – knowledge obtained by using the scientific method. The scientific method is a dynamic process that involves objectively investigating questions through observation and experimentation. Hypotheses are tested through logical procedures which observe the results in the real world, observations that might, or might not, refute a hypothesis (e.g. see Popper[3]).
Hence, science rests upon observation of reality: it is ‘real-world’ based. Without empirical data obtained by observation of the real world, there is no science. To properly test a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method must be followed. A scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable, and if falsified by the properly obtained empirical evidence, discarded.
In the foreword to The Final Pandemic, Professor Tim Noakes explains that this book presents evidence that the ‘Covid 19 pandemic’ was based on a ‘fictional science’ (TFP page xxi)[4] – listing 4 major errors. The first error listed by Professor Noakes is that the method virologists use to detect the presence of a virus is unscientific, significantly because the method used lacks experimental controls[5]. It rests upon circular logic[6]. It is assumed that a sample (e.g. of bodily fluid) from a sick person contains the ‘virus’. This sample is then mixed with a whole variety of substances, such as: African Green Monkey kidney cells (‘viro’); fetal bovine serum; antibiotics; and antimycotics[7] (a process that ‘poisons and starves’ the viro[8]). The theory is that if, after a few days, the monkey kidney cells die and deteriorate (i.e. show ‘cytopathic effects’ known as ‘CPE’[9]), then this proves that the ‘virus’ was present. However, to follow the scientific method, a control should be used[10]. If the kidney cells show the same CPE without the body fluids from a sick person being added, then this process has not proven that there was a ‘virus’ in the body fluid sample that caused the effect: it would have happened anyway. Dr Stefan Lanka actually conducted the required control experiments and found that the monkey kidney cells, when mixed with the same variety of other substances and subjected to identical treatment, did indeed show the same effects (‘CPE’) whether the bodily fluids from a sick person were added or not[11] (e.g. TFP Chapter 4)[12]. In fact, more dramatic CPE effects were found if yeast was added (instead of bodily fluids from a person). It is circular reasoning to claim that there is a ‘virus’ in a fluid sample, and then to ‘prove’ the existence of this virus by stating that if this fluid is added to the viro (and other materials) and the hence viro deteriorates, then the ‘virus’ caused this. A hypothesis that is unfalsifiable is not science (e.g. see Popper qv).
The second error noted by Noakes is that the genome that is supposedly that of the alleged sars-cov 2 ‘virus’ is not taken from an isolated sample of the ‘virus’. This means that there is not an actual genetic sequence of the ‘virus’. It is possible to sequence the genetic code of something if one has a pure isolate sample of whatever one wishes to sequence. This process has been conducted for many organisms – including the sequencing of various animal cells. Hence, the genetic sequence of a dog is known to differ from that of a cat and one could thus determine whether any given sample was from a dog or a cat[13]. However, the process used by ‘scientists’ to sequence the alleged sars cov 2 ‘virus’ does not actually do so.
To sequence the coding of a sample, one has to have an isolated pure sample of whatever one is sequencing. If a mixed sample is used, then one could never be sure that the sequence actually was that of the species in question. For example, if one were to mix the samples of saliva from both a dog and cat and then sequence the code[14], one would not necessarily actually have a sequence of a dog (nor of a cat). It has been admitted by many governmental bodies around the world (often via Freedom of Information Requests ‘FOI’) that they have no evidence of an isolate of the alleged sars-cov 2 virus, e.g. Christine Massey in Canada has published many of the responses from these bodies on her website[15].
It is likely that many virologists actually believe that they have isolated a ‘virus’, since the method used is ‘protocol/standard procedure’ and it is highly probable that many have never thought about what they are actually doing (or not doing)[16][17]. The famous Fan Wu paper, held by many to be the start of the ‘pandemic’, illustrates this. On the 3rd of February 2020, a Chinese team of Fan Wu published a paper called:’ A New Coronavirus Associated with Human Respiratory Disease in China’[18]. A 41-year-old man had been hospitalised in Wuhan on the 26th December 2019 with pneumonia. He had no unusual nor new symptoms that would distinguish his illness from any usual pneumonia case (TFP chapter 4). A sample was taken from his lungs (‘crude bronchoalveolar lavage fluid’). Obviously, this sample contained many sources of genetic material – including his own genetic material. Any lung sample will contain a myriad of substances such as pollen, bacteria, fungal spores, dust, and all sorts of microorganisms[19]. This mixed sample was then basically ‘chopped up’ and the smaller pieces (‘reads’) were sequenced (base pairs were listed for each piece). At no point could anyone be sure as to the source of any particular read: was it from the man’s own biological material, or bacteria he had inhaled, or otherwise? However, the codes of these millions of reads were then fed into a computer software programme (actually 2 software programmes were used, Trinity and Megahit – both producing different results). The software programmes fitted together reads by searching for overlapping sequences in the codes where the pieces could thus possibly fit together (‘contigs’). The computer produced hundreds of thousands of possible full sequences where it could fit the reads together by matching the ends (contigs). The team then chose the longest sequence (approximately 30,000 bases long[20]) and concluded that this must be the code of ‘the virus’[21]. None of this produced a genetic sequence that was shown to exist in the real world; this sequence was only shown to exist on a computer (‘in silico’).
The third error listed by Professor Noakes is that the pandemic was not a viral pandemic – but instead was a testing pandemic. The usual practices of clinical medicine were not followed. Instead, people were encouraged (and often terrorised and/or otherwise coerced) to take PCR tests (or a rapid antigen test ‘RAT’ – ‘lateral flow’ qv), and if this PCR was positive, then they were deemed to ‘have covid’ (even if asymptomatic). The test was the criterion used for claiming that the sars-cov 2 virus was present in the person. However, the ‘PCR test’ does not, nor could it, determine that sars-cov 2 virus is present in a sample.
The PCR is actually a process and not a test. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a process whereby a prespecified piece of genetic code is multiplied[22]. Each cycle doubles the amount[23], the Baileys referring to this as a ‘biological photocopier’. Eventually, after enough cycles, one can use another method to determine presence[24]. In this context, the short section(s) is supposedly from the sars-cov 2 ‘virus’ – and exclusively so[25]. It is claimed that the PCR process is not reliable after 25 or 30 cycles. Many testing centres were using 45 cycles. This fact alone would render the results unreliable. However, use of the PCR as a test for sars-cov 2 is invalid in a more fundamental manner than running too many cycles. The whole process rests upon one using a short section of genetic code (typically 18 to 24 base pairs) taken from the longer genetic code of the alleged ‘virus’ (allegedly approximately 30,000). Hence, without an isolate of the longer code, this is invalid – and there is no isolate of the alleged sars-cov 2 ‘virus’ qv. There is no scientific evidence that this code is from an alleged sars-cov 2 virus and there could not be so unless an isolate were sequenced – which does require an isolate. Also, any short section of genetic code could be from a number of potential sources; exclusivity would need to be demonstrated[26]. Thus, all the positive case results that were reported by the media every day, causing fear/hysteria[27] amongst many, were meaningless. And, importantly, there is no means of demonstrating presence of the alleged sars-cov 2 nor hence of validly deeming anyone as ‘having covid’.
People with no symptoms of illness were categorised as having ‘covid (asymptomatic)’ because of these invalid tests (and also deemed contagious, but this is possibly refuted too[28]). And people who had symptoms of a cold, of flu, pneumonia, breathing difficulties, coughing, etc. were recategorized as ‘covid’ patients on the basis of these invalid tests. The Baileys note that cold and flu cases disappeared and were reclassified as ‘covid’ cases through a testing pandemic (TFP chapter 4). As Weston notes, it is almost as though all the usual respiratory deaths caused by flu every year were simply re-labelled as covid deaths.
The idea that alleged ‘covid’ was not a highly dangerous disease, but perhaps was more like flu, is suggested in various publications. The UK Health Security Agency removed ‘covid’ from the list of high consequence infectious diseases (‘HCID’) on 19th March 2020, stating it had low overall mortality[29]. Dr Fauci also considered the alleged ‘covid’ to be of a similar case fatality rate to flu (albeit severe flu[30]):
This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively[31]
So not only was what they were classifying as ‘covid’ not considered as highly dangerous (refuting the official narrative in this respect), but this lack of a high mortality rate provides further evidence that perhaps flu (and related diseases such as colds, sniffles, pneumonia, etc.) was merely reclassified as ‘covid’ by means of the PCR ‘test’ (TFP Chapiter 4).
The fourth error noted by Professor Noakes is that of viral contagion: the idea that a ‘virus’ can be passed from one person to another, or from a host animal to Patient Zero, has yet to be properly documented. In fact, not only has it not been properly evidenced, but there is a lot of evidence that refutes this hypothesis. Most people grew up believing that people can pass a ‘virus’ to one another – and why would people doubt or research this idea? Adults told children this was the case, this idea was assumed as a fact in many films, some household cleaning bottles referred to killing ‘viruses’ on the packaging, and doctors sometimes told patients that they ‘had a virus’. But what evidence did people ever actually have that any ‘virus’ even existed, never mind something that caused illnesses by being passed from person to person? Of course, we have all observed that people in the same environment sometimes are found to suffer from the same illness. However, ‘people in the same environment’ could be being affected by the same environmental factors[32] rather than actually passing a ‘virus’ to one another.
Scurvy was a disease that often used to afflict sailors out at sea. After one sailor became ill, others would follow. However, it is now known that this was not due to a ‘virus’ being passed from sailor to sailor, but instead was caused by a lack of vitamin C, due to the unavailability of any fresh foods on long voyages. Giving the seamen citrus fruits (e.g. limes) provided them with vitamin C and scurvy disappeared.
In Chapter 3, ‘The History of Misplaced Beliefs’, the Baileys discuss how many other diseases were likewise blamed on contagion, but were in fact later shown to be caused by other factors. Beriberi was blamed on microbes, but then later found to be caused by a nutritional deficiency (of thiamine, vitamin B₁); and pellagra was found to be caused by lack of vitamin B₃ (niacin). In other cases, environmental toxins caused diseases that were blamed on viruses. For example, polio can be traced back to the use of pesticides (especially DDT). The cases of polio dropped in America as the use of these toxins was reduced, with DDT being almost completely banned by 1972. By the time polio vaccines were introduced in 1955, polio had already dramatically declined with the reduction in DDT usage[33]. Also, reclassification of symptoms as other diseases can also manipulate statistics, e.g. cases that would previously have been classified as polio can be reclassified as other diseases such as multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Hence, people who share an environment may also share exposure to the same toxins, the same poor foods, etc. and thus they are at risk of suffering from the same diseases – this can be explained without the need to postulate a ‘virus’[34]. A properly conducted scientific study of such cases would, amongst other things, require the variable of environment to be separated from that of proximity to sick people for any valid conclusion. Merely noting epidemiological data is not valid scientifically to conclude contagion nor ‘viruses’.
However, it could be useful for various industries to blame a ‘virus’, e.g. if a product were causing illness (say a pesticide), then this could avoid liability. And of course, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst others, benefit from the belief in ‘viruses’ and contagion. Increasing the consumption of citrus fruits does not enrich the medical profession or virus/contagion-related industries in the manner that belief in viruses and contagion does. Many have gained power and/or money from the virus/contagion theory. Without ‘viruses’, there would, inter alia, be no vaccines[35] – an industry that increased profits massively due to the ‘pandemic’ (TFP chapter 6).
So, if there was no evidence of any sars-cov 2 ‘virus’, then how was there a pandemic? Perhaps a better question would be whether there was a pandemic at all. As stated by Weston[36] ‘there was no lethal pandemic in 2020’: approximately 1.1% of the UK population died between 2000 and 2019, as is normal, and 1% in 2020.There were no excess deaths[37][38]. Any argument that lockdown measures, standing on yellow dots in shops, wearing masks, etc. prevented excess deaths is unproven. In fact, many people continued to associate with friends and family, many continued to work outside their homes, thousands were held in prisons, and many marched on protests throughout 2020[39]. Anti-lockdown and Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests were held across the UK during 2020. These protests also occurred in many other countries and consisted of thousands of people being shoulder-to-shoulder for many hours – this all without mass death/illness from ‘covid’. Some countries, and even some areas/states withing the same country, did not follow ‘covid’ measures[40] and did not experience worse outcomes than those that did (some actually fared better). Furthermore, it has since been reported that there was not scientific evidence that measures such as masks, staying 6 feet away from others, etc. prevented illness[41].
Also, and relevant to refutation of the ‘novel’ claim in the official narrative, various samples of bodily materials (and sewerage[42]) collected and stored prior to 2020 have tested positive for sars-cov 2[43]. If the tests were evidence of the presence of a deadly contagious ‘virus’, then there would have been mass deaths/illness at the point in time that these samples were stored (or shortly afterwards).
If there was no pandemic, then why did so many people believe that there was? Perhaps the main reason for this widespread belief was because people watched their digital screens – and trusted what ‘the experts/authorities’ said on their digital devices. Many people trust media personalities (such as Huw Edwards). Former US President Nixon is reported to have stated that: ‘The American people don’t believe anything until they see it on television’. The Baileys discuss (TFP Chapter 1) how early in 2020 the internet was awash with videos of people in China lying dead or collapsing, etc. Most of us remember the video of the man with his shopping bags just falling face down on the street[44]. Other popularised videos were of people in China convulsing uncontrollably. However, seizure-type shakes and dropping suddenly while out shopping were not the consequences that were found in other countries of what was allegedly the same ‘virus’. All of this was present in the digital world and not in the real world[45]. In the real world, those categorised as having ‘covid’ might have had flu-like symptoms or suchlike (or no symptoms at all).
The media propagated the official narrative and ‘flooded the zone’[46] with hysteria and terrifying news about the alleged pandemic. Questioning of the official narrative was largely censored[47]. This censorship included evidence about the hospitals not being ‘over-flowing’[48] during early 2020[49]. The narrative was sold to people by a ‘compliant and incentivised media aided by a subservient and well-rewarded medical profession’ (TFP page xiii). And ironically, presentation of data that might contradict the narrative was, if not censored, labelled with the new buzzword ‘misinformation’ (TFP Chapter 6). But science should always be tested – that is the essence of science[50] . Using the term ‘science’ in its methodological sense, it is not something to ‘be followed’; quite the contrary qv. The whole ‘virus’ paradigm is not universal across the world, nor has it been historically. Science can move in revolutions as the paradigm shifts[51]. And if using the term ‘science’ in the sense of a body of knowledge obtained by observation of the real-world in a scientific manner: such a body of scientific knowledge did not exist in relation to the claims made by the official narrative of the pandemic.
The Baileys also note that many fell for the ‘lab-leak’ decoy narrative. This narrative was the ‘worst kept secret’ and to date is still publicised by many. This holds that a ‘deadly virus’ escaped from a laboratory in China; either it escaped accidently or was released deliberately (depending which version one is given). This ‘lab-leak’ narrative does not refute the official narrative, rather it supports it. However, it is not supported by any scientific evidence.
Not only is sars-cov 2 (nor ‘covid’) not evidenced to exist, but the Baileys also discuss how there is not scientific evidence of any viruses existing. Dr Stefan Lanka offered a reward of €100,000.00 to anyone who could prove the size and existence of the measles virus by means of a single publication. The prize remains unclaimed. Someone did try to claim the prize, but the claim ultimately failed[52].
The Baileys go further and discuss the lack of evidence of contagion. Many diseases that were held to be contagious have, when tested scientifically, been shown not to be so. This includes the Spanish Flu (1918-1920) – a disease that frequently was mentioned by the media in early 2020. In 1918 Dr Milton Rosenau ran a series of experiments[53] conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy. During these experiments natural everyday interactions were simulated whereby people who were sick with Spanish Flu coughed on the subjects, shook hands with them, chatted with them face-to-face, etc. More extreme attempts to infect the volunteers were also undertaken. These included: taking mucous from the sick and this being placed into the nostrils of the volunteers; blood was taken from the sick and injected into volunteers; and lung fluid was taken from the sick and sprayed into the eyes, nose, throat and lungs of the volunteers. None of the subjects became sick with Spanish Flu[54]. This failure to transmit allegedly highly contagious diseases has also been documented much earlier in history[55] with Napoleon carrying plague victims demonstrating that it was safe[56]. Numerous other similar experiments, recent and historical, likewise have failed to demonstrate human-to-human transmission of allegedly contagious diseases (including the flu and colds, measles, polio, scarlet fever, diphtheria, chicken pox, small pox, tuberculosis, etc[57]). Florence Nightingale also expressed scepticism of the ‘doctrine of contagion’[58].
Hence, the Baileys demonstrate that there is not scientific evidence that supports the official narrative. In fact, the evidence available tends to refute each aspect of it. The belief in the official narrative was based on the digital-world ‘evidence’, not real-world evidence – and, despite what they said on the digital screens, this was not science. Many will reject the thesis presented in TFP – ‘it is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled’. Many people will be too embarrassed to accept what the Baileys say, do not wish to be perceived as a ‘conspiracy theorist’[59] and cannot face the idea that the Government could be so corrupt and/or incompetent, etc. However, if enough people were to believe what the Baileys present, then this would be the final pandemic.
ENDNOTES
[1] Many considered the RAT less reliable than PCR, and sometimes a positive RAT was to be followed up by a PCR to confirm the results.Whereas the PCR process multiplies a specified piece of genetic code, the RAT test detects a protein: allegedly the ‘sars-cov 2 nucleocapsid’ (‘N’ protein). A few drops of bodily fluid are placed onto a membrane which mixes these with what they refer to as ‘anti-sars-cov-2 antibody’. If the reaction occurs, then a visible bar is produced on the strip and the presence of sars-cov 2 virus is declared (‘a positive test’). Dr Bailey notes that there are no published papers proving the existence of a pathogen sars-cov 2 and so there is no scientific proof that this protein is from any ‘virus’. This protein is merely one that is found is some human and mammalian, etc. culture experiments. Again, without an isolate of the alleged sars-cov 2 ‘virus’, no such claims can be made with validity
[2] Dr Fauci on ‘Face the Nation’, CBS News, 28th November 2021
[3] Popper, K. (2002) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge; 2nd edition (2 May 2002)
[4] Some people call this pseudo-science ‘scientism’. Editorial note, a concept discussed extensively by Friedrich Hayek and somewhat akin to the idea of Positivism, as elaborated by Auguste Comte
[5] For more detail on this, and related issues, see: Dr Mark Bailey (2022) A Farewell to Virology
[6] Perhaps one should not claim that ‘viruses’ do not exist, rather that there is not evidence of any ‘virus’ existing. Just as the claim that unicorns do not exist would be better phrased as the claim that nobody has evidenced the existence of unicorns. This is in contrast to bacteria that have been proven to exist; bacteria have been isolated. However, the idea that bacteria cause contagious disease has not been evidenced. In fact, the attempts made to demonstrate this hypothesis have actually refuted it (e.g. see Lester and Parker ibid)
[7] All these other materials are present in the ‘chopped-up’ mixture when these short pieces are sequenced for the in silico genetic code to be sequenced (actually a process of a computer fitting them together in many possible sequences – see below). So the reads could actually be from any of the substances added to the brew
[8] This caused by the substances added to the viro and also passaging methods, e.g. reducing the nutrition levels to the cells, etc.
[9] The cytopathic effects are demonstrated by looking at the monkey kidney cells under a microscope and seeing that the cells have broken up and formed smaller pieces. Some claim that some of the smaller pieces are ‘budding viruses’, but this has not been proven.
[10] Of course, even were a control not to show CPE, this would not prove existence of a ‘virus’ in the bodily fluid sample – other variables would need to be tested for, etc.
[11] Lanka, S. The Virus Misconception, Wissenschafftplus, January 2020
[12] In the original 1954 Enders paper this was effect was also noted. Enders is sometimes known as ‘the father of vaccines’. See F. Enders and T. C. Peebles (1954), ‘Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles’, from the Research Division of Infectious Diseases, Children’s Medical Center, Boston, Mass. And Departments of Bacteriology and Immunology and of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School
[13] It is possible that what scientists are calling the ‘genetic sequences’ are not exactly what many believe them to be. However, the fact that whatever it is differs, and can be observed as different, still stands
[14] Which involves ‘chopping up’ the sample into smaller pieces to sequence it.
[15] E.g. see: virus FOIs and court documents – Google Drive, The Disruption Corona Press Conference …the missing virus [SARS-CoV-2]…
[16] There are many other reasons why this procedure seems to go largely unquestioned. Also, the very act of questioning an established procedure within many organisations is something that often is not considered acceptable by those in charge. People who challenge and/or ask too many questions frequently are not the people who are kept for very long by some organisations – nor are such people taken on in the first place if their ‘attitude’ is apparent
[17] There is also the issue that not all that is labelled as science is necessarily correct. Relatedly, see: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/; https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/22/how-big-a-problem-is-scientific-fraud/; https://dailysceptic.org/photoshopping-fraud-and-circular-logic-in-research/
[18] Fan Wu ’ A New Coronavirus Associated with Human Respiratory Disease in China’, Nature, 3rd February 2020, A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China | Nature
[19] If this mixture of genetic sources is then added to monkey kidney cells (and bovine fluids, etc.) to culture ‘the virus’ – that process then adds more potential sources of genetic material (e.g. from the monkey cells, etc.)
[20] The longest contigs generated by the 2 software programmes used, Megahit and Trinity, were: Megahit (30,474 nt); and Trinity (11,760 nt)
[21] It is unclear why they chose the longest sequence. The statement that this sequence matched a previous sequence that was also obtained in the same inadequate manner by 89.1% is not a valid reason. And also, although 89.1% sounds a high level of matching, humans and chimpanzees share around 96% of their genomes. However, the previous sequence was also merely another in silico model – and never proven to actually exist in the real world either. As the Baileys discuss this: it is the reasoning of tortoises on other tortoises (see Chapter 4)
[22] The short section is used as a primer for the process.
[23] Thus, if one were to start with just 1 molecule of the specified sequence, then after 20 cycles of PCR one would have over a million such molecules
[24] E.g. via agarose gel electrophoresis followed by ethidium bromide staining
[25] Since the alleged sars-cov 2 virus is said to have a genetic code of ribonucleic acid (RNA) and because the PCR process works effectively with DNA, then to conduct PCR the target RNA must first be converted to its complementary DNA (‘eDNA’) by the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This is conducted using the enzyme reverse transcriptase
[26] Or at least exclusivity from any other substance that might be mixed in the sample (e.g. bacteria, human genes, etc.)
[27] There was an incredible amount of fear during 2020. Relatedly see:Dodsworth, L. (2021) A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic Pinter & Martin; 1st edition (16 May 2021)
[28] Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates | The BMJ [29] High consequence infectious diseases (HCID) – GOV.UK
[30] However, one has to account for the fact that if pneumonia cases are included in statistics, then this would increase the fatality rate for flu
[31] Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D. Editorial, March 2020, 382;13 The New England Journal of Medicine Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted | New England Journal of Medicine
[32] There are many theories as to why people in the same environment might suffer from similar symptoms that could explain this without using the idea of a contagious ‘virus’. And ‘environment’ does not necessarily preclude the idea of people having an effect upon one another, e.g. women living in close proximity to one another often synchronise menstrual cycles (and nobody is suggesting a ‘menstrual virus’). Laughing and yawning are often found to spread from person to person without a ‘laughing virus’. Space does not permit a review of this literature here. However, see: Lester and Parker (2019) ibid
[33] Relatedly also see: Humphries, S., Bystrianyk, R., (2013, 2015) Dissolving Illusions. Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History. Engelbrecht T., Köhnlein, C., Bailey S. (2021) Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense Books On Demand; 3rd edition (22 April 2021)
[34] Toxins and deficiencies are not the only potential causes of disease. For example, stress can cause disease, as can radiation exposure (although some might class those 2 causes under the umbrella of ‘toxicity’). Relatedly see: Fisrtenberg, A. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life Chelsea Green Publishing Company; Reprint edition (9 April 2020) And for a more comprehensive discussion of what can cause disease see: Lester, D. and Parker, D. (2019) What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong
[35] Recently there are suggestions to ‘vaccinate’ for illnesses other than those allegedly caused by ‘viruses’, e.g. cancer vaccines have been suggested.
[36] Weston, P. M. L. (2024) Covid-19 All Lies All Crime. Facts and Figures.
[37] Relatedly also see: Chaillot, P. (2024) Covid 19: Decoding Official Data: Mortality, tests, vaccines, hospitals. The truth emerges. L’Artilleur (27 May 2024)
[38] A small spike in the UK after lockdown (peaking around the 12th April 2020) was possibly due to mistreatment of patients. The use of ventilators is stated by many to have unnecessarily killed people, likewise other possible mistreatments such as DNRs, morphine and Midazolam, Remdesivir, neglect, etc. could possibly have killed people. Such accusations need to be investigated. For example, see: Olszewski, E. M., (2020) Undercover Epicenter Nurse: How Fraud, Negligence, and Greed Led to Unnecessary Deaths at Elmhurst Hospital Hot Books (18 Aug. 2020), https://expose-news.com/2024/09/22/nhs-whistleblower-we-were-instructed-to-euthanize-patients-to-inflate-covid-death-toll-while-hospitals-sat-empty/ [39] 15 protests that defined 2020 | Mashable
[40] Or did not do so strictly
[41] Relatedly see, e.g.: PolitiFact | Did Fauci say he ‘made up’ COVID-19 rules on social distancing, masks? Let’s look at the transcript
[42] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science/coronavirus-traces-found-in-march-2019-sewage-sample-spanish-study-shows-idUSKBN23X2HQ
[43] Researchers find coronavirus was circulating in Italy in September 2019. Researchers say study on COVID-19 in Italy doesn’t dispute virus origins | Reuters
[44] Chinese Covid death vids faked[45] It is possible that these videos were genuine, or perhaps were genuine but were nothing to do with any ‘virus’, and were just used to promote fear and belief if a terrifying ‘virus’, e.g. perhaps the woman under the blanket had epilepsy or suchlike. It is also possible that these videos were staged in order to create fear. Some claim that these videos were staged to create belief in a ‘deadly virus’, others claim they were from previous drills, etc.
[46] See Event 201.
[47] Relatedly also see: Dr Sam White
E.g. Hampshire GP’s Covid social media ban was wrong, court rules – BBC News
Former GP is struck off for spreading conspiracy theories about covid pandemic | The BMJ
Dr Sam White on the Medical Mafia
[48]https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-hospitals-have-four-times-more-empty-beds-than-normal/7027392.article
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/27/nhs-hospitals-like-mary-celeste-say-surgeons-despite-record/
[49] Many people around the world checked and a trend started of ‘film your hospital’: people went into their hospitals filming the empty corridors, car parks and wards, etc. Some of these people were arrested or chased out by security. E.g. see: Empty Hospitals -ALL HOSPITALS EMPTY in the middle of PLAN-DEMIC! #FilmYourHospital
Hashtag Film Your Hospital Compilation
INTERVIEW DEBBIE HICKS! FILM YOUR HOSPITAL – GLOUCESTER!
[50] E.g. see Popper or Kuhn ibid
[51] Kuhn, T, and Hacking, I. (2012) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition Paperback. University of Chicago Press; Fourth edition (30 April 2012)
[52] As discussed in TFP Chapter 3. Some of the six papers presented by the claimant lacked control experiments, e.g. just showed the breakdown of the cells (CPE) without a control experiment seeing if this breakdown occurred without the addition of bodily fluids from a sick person (assumed to have a ‘virus’). Some papers merely showed electron micrograph images of particles and claimed they were measle ‘viruses’ without characterising them in any other way – nor showing they could cause disease. This is reminiscent of the cartoon (or CGI) images that were ubiquitous during the ‘pandemic’ and purported to show the ‘corona virus’ with the spikes jutting out from the circle. These often were not even microscope images; they were just digital cartoons. One paper showed images of cell cultures and claimed that measles virus was budding from the cells, but failed to differentiate these particles from extracellular vesicles. Another paper claimed to describe the genome of the measles ‘virus’, but actually merely presented a computer-generated hypothetical model assembled on a computer by fitting together fragments from a mixture – it was not established that this code existed in the real-world, nor that the genetic material came from a ‘virus’ (e.g. see above)
[53] Rosenau, M. Experiments to Determine Mode of Spread of Influenza, Journal of American Medical Association 2nd August 1919
[54] People did die and suffer illness during the period labelled as the Spanish Flu pandemic. The question as to exactly what caused this illness would be difficult to answer definitively now since the evidence is not present. However, there are a number of theories as to what caused the Spanish Flu that do not postulate ‘viruses’. qv
[55] Roytas, D. (2024) Can You Catch a Cold? Untold History and Human Experiments
[56] In 1798, Napoleon’s protégé, physician-in-chief of the French Army Renée Desgenettes, took samples from the wounds of plague victims and injected the matter into himself; he also did not catch the plague. In 1835 Antoine-Barthélémy Clot injected himself with pus from a dying plague victim; again, the plague was not found to be transmitted. See Royats (2024) ibid
[57] E.g. see Roytas ibid
[58] Nightingale, F. 1866. National Archives.
[59] Also see: A Conspiracy to Silence and Control – The Quarterly ReviewThe Quarterly Review (quarterly-review.org)
A.R. Kneen is the author of Multiculturalism – What Does it Mean? She was awarded a Bye-fellowship at Magdalene College, Cambridge
Editorial note: concerning articles published in QR the ideas expressed therein are not thereby endorsed by the Editor
Like this:
Like Loading...
