Mika: Thanks again for the lengthy and thoughtful reply. I clearly understand your position on the matter that you’ve stated eloquently above, as I’ve been listening to and reading your work for nearly 2 years now.
Let’s try a different route. Hypothetically, let’s say Dr. Lanka’s findings are correct for a moment. That it doesn’t matter whether you add to the viral culturing mix: the urine of a person with Covid, or the blood of someone with ebola, or the saliva of someone with the flu, or the mucus of someone with zika —- that this is a complete and utter waste of time — a pointless step —- as it’s undoubtedly the antibiotics that are killing the vero cell culture tissue — not some alleged virus in the bodily fluids.
If Lanka is correct, as we’re hypothetically assuming so for the moment, what do you suppose modern virologists think they’re seeing after “culturing a virus” exactly? It’s abundantly clear that they’re making no efforts to “isolate” anything after their toxic brew is cooked up as there is never any mention of it in the methods section of their papers.
I’m genuinely curious what you think it could be (if Lanka is correct)? I have no doubt that the lab workers and researchers are genuinely seeing/finding “something” on their smears, I just can’t imagine what they thing it is exactly?
Now, if you think Lanka is wrong, and you believe there are viruses running rampant through the sick person’s body and thus, in their fluids, how do you explain his apparent findings that the diseased bodily fluids played zero role in the cytopathic disintegration of the green monkey kidney cells?
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful input!
Jeff Green: The reason I brought up isolation and felt it worth discussing is because there are so many I have personally read, whether through emails I have received all over the world, or from comments I have read, that seem to conclude viruses do not exist because most have not met the requirements of being ‘fully’ isolated—which usually means fully, as in 100%. Or, that it has not fulfilled Koch’s postulates, which is that it must be shown to cause disease; many of them not knowing that Koch’s postulates was designed solely for bacteria and that Koch’s postulates is not used for viruses unless it is a modified form of those postulates. This is another area that is misunderstood by many people.
My larger point is that isolation is not the be-all end all to whether something like a virus exists, and that it is an error to claim it is.
What these scientists are looking at is the result of cell breakdowns that happen in all cellular life when outside of the body, or exposed to some level of toxin—be that metal salts, artificial serums, and fluids, and so forth. A cell, being outside its natural habitat, will starve. Because of their doctrine of Germ Theory which they adhere to, they do not question the validity of what they are seeing—only that they are seeing it in the presence of cell breakdown, therefore it must be responsible for it. Herein lies the deception, and possibly a high degree of misunderstanding. The act of merely seeing something in the same vicinity and automatically claiming it causes disease is entirely incorrect. And that is what they are doing, more or less. I do believe Lanka has expressed this as well. The point of contention is that these are not merely cellular breakdowns with no purpose inside the body. There is intelligence there.
To address your last question: The Vero cells would not be attacked by any viral tissue per se. That diseased tissue will only act as waste debris—as any other toxin would—not as some naturally occurring virus. There must be a cohesive act by a whole body. For instance, if you take the whole body into account, the virus will be guided via RNA by white blood cells after having been created by cells. In a petri-dish environment, none of this will occur. If you add a toxin into the cellular environment, that toxin will likely degenerate the cellular fluid and the tissues of the cell causing its eventual death. As this decay occurs, that cell may begin to produce its own solvent protein (called virus). This protein will be excreted by the cell to clean itself and its surroundings, but it will be unregulated and may dissolve the entire cell. Compound that with toxic serums, and the cell will surely die. Also, without some communication system between other cells, the virus will stay static and not be able to move around. White blood cells guide the virus through the fluid of the body utilizing Zeta Potential (static charge). *Experiment:* Place your finger in water with dust floating on top and observe how your finger will repel the dust as you move it forward. This is the same principle working in the body with regard to viruses and other agents.
Further, cells can not really exist in singular forms for very long, that is, they must have more than one cell to survive and be kept stable. They can only survive on their own outside the body for so long. In those environments, there is no excretory system available to the cell. Thus, toxins have nowhere to go even if dissolved by the viral solvent. There are no organs, no sweat, bowel, kidney, liver, respiratory system, or white blood cells, or any other regulating and cleansing cells available to take that matter and expel it away from the cell and out of the body.
Scientists take already diseased cells from unnatural origin, such as ‘immortal’ HeLa cells, which are cancerous, or Vero cells extracted many decades ago. They place them in fertile petri dish solutions with toxic solutions to keep them alive. Because of the state of those cells, they elicit quicker reactions and quicker results for researchers. They take that dish and ‘incubate’ it for up to 72 hours until ripe. They then observe that the cells have degenerated and dissolved, thus, the viral tissue placed along with the cell is confirmed as the culprit. In reality, since they are not actively seeing the virus do these things itself, they are assuming that the virus is causing the infection, and therefore the cell death. In reality, the virus is unregulated and is dissolving the cell and breaking it down further by cleansing it. That’s what a virus does naturally by itself. When you have toxic tissue, that tissue must be dissolved to maintain cell stability. If the entire cell is toxic, the virus may dissolve the entire cell. In the human body, this rarely ever happens. If so, viruses would dissolve every healthy cell in your body and you’d die every time you develop a virus.
They take the contents of the dish and it is then filtered using a filter the size of 0.22 µm. Anything smaller than this passes through the filter along with the virus, so there is leeway for a small amount of contamination. It is then placed in a tube by carefully hand layering each part utilizing a syringe—laying each part of the mixture on top of the other in a liquid base (density gradient). That tube is then placed into a centrifuge and spun at an optimized and exact rate needed to separate each object into sediment layers called bands. The middle band will usually contain the viral particle due to their weight and density. The band is extracted by inserting a pipette needle into the side of the tube at each level of the band which contains the mixture they want to extract. This is deemed an isolate. So, indeed, the isolate may contain viral particles, and in fact, be isolated. But this does not prove its infectiousness.
5 Responses
Two questions now Jeff:
1. As far as I’m aware and have read for myself or heard from others, there is ABSOLUTELY NO attempt to “isolate” so-called “viruses” after the culturing process in modern virology. Zero. Which, BTW, is the ONLY WAY they can “get” viruses as apparently it’s near impossible to capture them in the urine/blood/saliva/mucus secretions from even 10,000 identically sick people (according to a Wuhan virologist), which is why they claim the only way they can “find viruses”, is through their culturing process. Which, when complete, apparently generates their “virus”, which is, in effect, all the tissue, fluids, chemicals and whatever else that make up this final toxic soup. Do you have any research papers or evidence of legit scientists who claim to actually attempt to filter/centrifuge/titrate this final toxic soup down to “Just the virus”? Honest question. I’d love to see those papers if you can share a few examples.
2. Simplifying the Lanka question. Is it possible modern virologists are simply calling these “dead cell/tissue particles” following the culturing process their “viruses”? This is, quite simply, what Doctors Lanka, Cowan, Kaufman and Sam Bailey are now all asserting. That’s a major league “OCCAM’S RAZOR” level conclusion I must say. We could explain this to a 5 year old. If you believe they’re wrong, which would make their conclusions massively incorrect (and they just might be), what is it that you think they’re overlooking or misunderstanding in the professional scientific literature, and/or in their process/methods of deriving these so-called viruses?
3. Do you have lab experience in which you’ve been able to create/culture/isolate (heck even 50% pure would be remarkable) what you consider to be these solvent viruses?
Thanks!
1. I do have papers that show how centrifugation is done and all it entails. Here is one, and I consider it trustworthy in that regard. See link
It would seem implausible to suggest they are not using this technology in their field. I have never read those things as you say, but admittedly, I do not frequent many places where people would claim this. It is my view that they are using this technology and I have seen no proof to the contrary.
2. Yes, in a way, absolutely. But it is not that simple. Those particles are usually viral particles because all cells would produce those particles during breakdown. You can call them dead cellular debris, but they are not just merely debris. They are particles generated from the breakdown process that we call viruses as I explained in my last response. So, that distinction must be made and is vital. I am not familiar with Sam Bailey—I am only familiar with what Lanka has stated in his writings and some of what Kaufman has said. I spoke with Kaufman on the phone last year and we discussed this matter. His assertion at the time was that exosomes were being mistaken for viruses. He has since recanted some of this from what I have heard from others (I can not verify this because I have not heard or read it first hand).
3. No, I do not. I am not a virologist as Lanka is. I am a researcher interested in finding the truth. However, I do have experience in bacteria experiments with raw foods and so forth and by observing the effects of different kinds of detoxifications, both bacterial and viral, and how those biological processes play out. I have proved to myself and others that the bacteria they claim cause disease, are in actuality our helpers and that they in fact support good health. Most of virology is theoretical, regardless. Out of those you mentioned, Lanka is likely the only one with such experience, but he too would not know what occurs after what he is visually able to see, thus, in steps theoretical observational science to explain what we cannot see, which is an important part of true science. Kaufman told me he has looked under a microscope at extravesicles, but he too is not experienced in the field of virology. Virology is mainly a pseudoscience scam branch of science, and I’d never be involved in it. It makes me wonder why Lanka stayed in the field so long. I am mainly a health and nutrition researcher, and viruses merely supplement that.
Thanks for sharing the research paper Jeff, an interesting read.
What is perhaps more interesting is that when you read all the scientific papers for every “virus” you can think of, nowhere in any of these papers do they mention any attempt to isolate anything from the resultant toxic soup post culturing. There’s no mention in the body of the paper, and more importantly, no mention in the “Methods” section of their papers, where it should most definitely be.
Herein lies the rub methinks -> Virologists aren’t “trying” to isolate anything, because there’s nothing to isolate in the first place”.
As much as you may not like that conclusion, this appears to be what is happening in all the papers we’ve researched (hundreds now). And it’s well-served by Occam’s Razor I might add. It goes well with the fact that are apparently no actual scientific papers demonstrating human-to-human transmission of any viral dis-ease. They tried and tried for about 50 years, from “Spanish flu” all the way through polio in the 1950s — and they struck out. Every. Single. Time.
Like you, I’m after the truth, no matter where it leads me. I’ll continue to listen to you as long as you remain open to the above possibility, and/or make a cogent argument as to why you believe the conclusions of Lanka/Kaufman/Cowan/Bailey are wrong.
I don’t necessarily like or dislike the conclusion. No amount of not isolating, or trying to isolate a virus, will disprove to me that what we call viruses are real and produced by the body to dissolve toxicity.
My points still stand: Virologists add specific cell lines to a petri-dish environment that allows faster results. The viral/diseased tissue suspected to contain viruses is added to the petri-dish solution. Afterward, they believe they observe that the cells are being broken down and killed by viruses. I am stating this would occur without adding anything to the cell culture. I am stating that it is the exact opposite and that viruses are being produced by cells as a cleansing mechanism due to their static singular environment during natural breakdown. They then take that mixture, centrifuge it, thus isolating the virus into a singular form (in accordance with their documentation). Whether this is successful or not is not my point.
There are papers showing isolation of ‘SARS-CoV-2’ – here is one (good luck trying to understand it all): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/pdf/jkms-35-e84.pdf
The study states:
“In order to observe virus particles, Vero cell monolayer showing the cytopathic effects was
fixed as previously described.7 It was cut on ultramicrotome (RMC MT-XL; RMC Boeckeler,
Tucson, AZ, USA) at 65 nm. Ultrathin sections were stained with saturated 4% uranyl acetate
and 1% lead citrate before examination with a transmission electron microscope (JEM-1400;
JEOL USA Inc., Peabody, MA, USA) at 80 kV. Spherical particles with crown-like spikes
ranging 66 to 81 nm in diameter were observed within the cytoplasmic vesicles and in the
extracellular space adjacent to cell membrane (Fig. 1C and D).”
Lead citrate is a compound of lead and citrate that is primarily used as an enhancer for heavy metal staining in electron microscopy. What effects might adding these toxic chemicals with lead do to an organic substance like a virus or cell? It will skew observation further and degenerate life and organic substances.
Lead citrate is…
What about uranyl acetate?
Surely, these substances would affect observation. Secondly, this is a study from Korea, and likely by Chinese there. The communist government in China would not allow any unbiased study showing the non-infectiousness of any viral particle, neither would our state-controlled medical industry here in the US. Those studies by Chinese counterparts were funded by our own government.
Isolation is not the be-all, end-all, that some believe it is. It can be manipulated like anything else—but that doesn’t mean that it is not possible or that viruses do not exist.
Well I agree with your final conclusion. Isolation isn’t the be all end all, and I’m quite confident it is DEFINITELY being manipulated at this stage. I’m also quite confident that isolation is 100% POSSIBLE, as mentioned earlier.
My first question is, why don’t they appear to be trying? It’s almost as if, with their “universal standardized culturing methods”, they can get away with observing bits and pieces of decayed vero cell tissue and calling the stuff they see “viruses”. Right? Simple trick.
And my second question, why the trick word “isolation”. This is the crux. Why use the word “isolation” when there are no apparent attempts to do exactly that? Simply put, this is the fundamental fraud that Lanka/Cowan/Kaufman is asserting. They could pick a thousand different words to describe the final batch of toxic soup they produce after culturing. Heck, they could call it a “viral culture” or “viral serum” or whatever. After all, this is precisely what they do and use to create “vaccines”. And frankly, both of these are far more accurate anyway. Why call it a “viral isolate”, when clearly it is anything but?
Herein lies the rub. Why would they blatantly lie? And when caught, state “well, virology isolation is not the same thing as every day isolation.”???
It’s funny, I’ve been studying the law these past 2 years as well. The deception is so mind-boggling, that if you’ve never researched it, you’d fall out of your chair if I explained to you what they’re doing to we-the-sheeple. If you don’t know the tricks, and there are legions, you wouldn’t see it in a million years. Anyway, my point here is, the “legal realm” is doing the same thing as what virology field appears to be doing. Both are based on the subtle use of ASSUMPTION and PRESUMPTION. We ASSUME we know what virologists are saying when they say they “isolated a virus”. But this is a faulty assumption that furthers the deception INHO.
Likewise, in the legal realm, you ASSUME when you show up to court for your traffic ticket or whatever and the judge asks you, “are you Mr. Jeff Green?” You say, “yes I am”. What you don’t realize is, that there’s a private trust corporation based in Puerto Rico in your ALL CAPS NAME, called “JEFF GREEN” (worth millions of dollars I might add), that you’re unwittingly acting as the trustee for (instead of the rightful beneficiary). And that’s what’s being put on trial for civil matters or “crimes against the state”. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I won’t bore you with any more.
Anyway, I believe this is what’s happening. They’re banking on our ignorance (and the ignorance of indoctrinated working virologists in the field today) of their little assumption/presumption sleight-of-hand word (Isolation). Could it be this simple?
And don’t get me wrong Jeff, I’m still interested in hearing what you have to say about the solvent theory. It’s good, and interesting and I appreciate your efforts along these lines as well as answering my questions. I haven’t written you off. My hope is that there’s a way to harmonize your ideas with Lankas. We shall see. We shall see.
Keep up the great work!