Can You Catch A Cold? - Untold History & Human Experiments (2024)
By Daniel Roytas - 30 Q&As - Unbekoming Book Summary
The question seems absurd at first. Can you catch a cold? Everyone knows you can. Parents warn children to bundle up in winter. Office workers eye sniffling colleagues with suspicion. Entire industries exist to prevent, treat, and contain the spread of respiratory illness. The experience feels self-evident: someone sneezes near you, and a few days later you’re reaching for tissues yourself. But what happens when you move past everyday observation and examine the actual scientific evidence—the controlled experiments, the documented attempts to transmit disease from sick people to healthy people under laboratory conditions? What emerges is not the airtight case for contagion that most people assume exists. Instead, you find a century of failed experiments, unexplained contradictions, and foundational studies whose control groups produced the same results as the experiments themselves. The question stops seeming absurd and starts seeming urgent.
Germ theory—the idea that specific microorganisms cause specific diseases and spread between people—arrived in 1861 when Louis Pasteur released his theory to the world. Contrary to popular belief, this was not a moment of scientific triumph welcomed by the medical establishment. Many of the most eminent physicians of the era opposed it fiercely, warning that the profession was abandoning centuries of clinical observation for an unproven hypothesis. For most of human history, doctors had attributed epidemic illness to environmental conditions: atmospheric changes, toxins, malnutrition, poor sanitation. The “weather doctors” who documented relationships between meteorological events and disease outbreaks found contagion inadequate to explain why illness spread simultaneously across vast distances, moved consistently from east to west, and coincided with atmospheric phenomena rather than human travel patterns. These objections were not fringe positions held by backwards thinkers resistant to progress. Rudolph Virchow, considered the father of modern pathology, stated he wished he could devote his life to proving that germs seek diseased tissue rather than causing it. The debate raged for decades, with anti-contagionists labelled “sanitarian heretics” even as they pointed to case after case where the germ explanation failed to match observed reality.
The historical record contains remarkable episodes that have largely been forgotten. Diseases now understood to result from vitamin deficiencies—scurvy, pellagra, beriberi—were once treated as contagious. Hospitals refused to admit pellagra patients, nurses went on strike rather than treat them, and children were barred from schools if family members showed symptoms. Doctors administered arsenic and mercury trying to kill the non-existent pathogen while the actual cause, niacin deficiency, went unaddressed. More than two million sailors died from scurvy while physicians pursued contagion theories instead of recognizing the dietary origin. In 1956 Minamata, Japan, a mysterious illness spreading through a fishing village triggered quarantines and disinfection campaigns until researchers discovered the cause was industrial mercury poisoning, not an infectious agent. And then there is Dr. Matthew Rodermund, who in 1901 smeared himself with smallpox pus, spent 48 hours touching the faces of at least 37 people without washing, and produced not a single case of disease—one of dozens of self-inoculation experiments throughout history that failed to transmit supposedly contagious illnesses. These are not obscure footnotes. They represent fundamental challenges to assumptions that modern medicine treats as settled.
The most striking evidence comes from the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, supposedly the deadliest outbreak in human history. At its peak, the U.S. Navy partnered with the Surgeon General and leading universities to conduct 25 controlled experiments attempting to transmit the disease. One hundred sixty-one healthy volunteers had sick secretions sprayed into their noses, instilled in their eyes, injected under their skin. They sat bedside while dying patients coughed directly into their faces. Fewer than 2% became ill. The researchers documented their bafflement but drew no conclusions about what the results meant for contagion theory. Similar experiments at the Common Cold Research Unit in England failed for nearly two decades to reliably transmit colds despite elaborate methods. When Paul Schmidt tested influenza transmission, his saline control produced more symptoms than the actual sick secretions. These results sit in medical archives, published and available, yet virtually unknown to the public and unmentioned in medical education. The experiments that should have definitively proven or disproven respiratory disease transmission instead produced results that the scientific establishment quietly filed away while proceeding as if contagion had been established beyond doubt. This book examines that evidence—the failed experiments, the flawed isolation methods, the diseases mistaken for contagious, and the alternative explanations that better account for why people seem to catch colds—and asks whether the story we have all been told can withstand scrutiny.
With thanks to Daniel Roytas.
Can You Catch A Cold?: Untold History & Human Experiments: Roytas, Daniel
Deep Dive Conversation Library (Bonus Access to Complete Library for Paid Subscribers Only)
This deep dive is based on the book:
Deep Dive Conversation No.162:
Insights and reflections from “Can You catch A Cold? - Untold History & Human Experiments”
Thank you for your support.
ANALOGY
Imagine you live in a village where everyone believes that house fires are caused by firefighters. After all, whenever there’s a fire, firefighters are always present at the scene. The more severe the blaze, the more firefighters appear. When one house catches fire and then a neighbouring house ignites shortly after, villagers observe firefighters rushing between the two properties and conclude the firefighters must be spreading the flames. The village responds logically according to this belief: they ban firefighters, prevent them from gathering, develop elaborate systems to detect their presence early, and treat anyone who has recently encountered a firefighter with suspicion and isolation.
A small group of villagers notices something peculiar. They point out that firefighters are also present at houses that never burn down—they live in homes, shop at markets, attend festivals. They observe that when firefighters are deliberately introduced to healthy houses, those houses rarely ignite. They document hundreds of attempts to start fires by bringing firefighters to intact structures, and the success rate hovers below two percent. They discover that houses actually catch fire due to faulty wiring, unattended candles, lightning strikes, and accumulated combustible materials—and that firefighters arrive in response to flames, not as their cause. The firefighters’ job, they realise, is to break down the burning material and carry away the debris so rebuilding can begin.
But the village has organised its entire existence around firefighter avoidance. Industries profit from firefighter detection equipment. Authorities derive power from firefighter containment protocols. Citizens have spent lifetimes teaching their children to fear firefighters. When the small group presents their evidence—the exposed houses that never ignited, the exposed villages that stayed safe, the exposed firefighters themselves who never sparked a blaze—they are dismissed as dangerous heretics. After all, everyone knows firefighters cause fires. The textbooks say so. The experts confirm it. And just last week, someone saw firefighters at a burning building with their own eyes.
The villagers who see firefighters as friends rather than foes are not arguing that fires don’t exist or that burning buildings aren’t dangerous. They’re asking a different question: what if the presence of firefighters is a response to conditions that make houses vulnerable rather than the cause of their destruction? What if the village spent its resources on safer wiring, proper candle management, and clearing combustible debris rather than firefighter surveillance? What if the fear of firefighters was itself causing harm—making people afraid to call for help, isolating those whose houses were burning, and preventing the very cleanup crews that could restore damaged structures?
The central message is this: for over a century, medicine has observed microorganisms at the site of disease and concluded they must be the cause, just as villagers observe firefighters at fires and draw the same conclusion. The presence of germs in sick tissue may indicate they are responding to cellular damage and dead material—performing cleanup and recycling functions—rather than attacking healthy bodies. The experiments designed to prove transmission have overwhelmingly failed. The methods used to isolate the alleged culprits cannot distinguish them from the body’s own cleanup particles. The diseases once blamed on contagion turned out to be poisoning and malnutrition. And the fear of invisible enemies may itself produce the very symptoms people dread, while the measures taken to avoid contagion undermine the health that would otherwise protect them.
The question is not whether people get sick—they obviously do. The question is whether the firefighters are starting the fires or arriving to clean up the damage caused by something else entirely.
THE ONE-MINUTE ELEVATOR EXPLANATION
For 150 years, we’ve been told that invisible germs floating through the air invade our bodies and cause diseases like colds and flu—and that sick people spread these germs to healthy people through coughing, sneezing, and close contact. This book examines whether that story holds up when you actually look at the evidence.
What you find is surprising. Over 200 experiments have attempted to transmit colds and flu from sick people to healthy people by having them cough on each other, share living spaces, swap bodily fluids, and receive direct injections of sick secretions. The overwhelming majority failed completely. During the 1918 Spanish flu—supposedly the deadliest pandemic in history—the U.S. Navy conducted 25 rigorous experiments with 161 volunteers and achieved less than a 2% infection rate despite extreme exposure methods.
Meanwhile, the methods used to prove viruses exist and cause disease contain circular reasoning: scientists observe cells dying in a laboratory dish and conclude a virus killed them, but the same cell death occurs when no virus is present. The foundational experiments that “isolated” viruses like measles produced identical results in their control groups. And diseases we now know were caused by vitamin deficiencies and poisoning—scurvy, pellagra, mercury toxicity—were once blamed on contagion because people in the same environments got sick at the same time.
If germs aren’t spreading disease, what explains illness? The evidence points toward environmental factors—air pollution, temperature and humidity changes, toxin exposure—combined with psychological phenomena like the nocebo effect, where believing you’ll get sick actually makes you sick. What looks like contagion may be groups of people responding to shared environmental conditions and shared beliefs.
[Elevator dings]
For further research: examine the actual experiments attempting human-to-human disease transmission, investigate the methodology behind virus isolation claims, and explore the history of diseases once considered contagious that turned out not to be.
12-POINT SUMMARY
1. Germ theory was fiercely contested from its inception and has never been the only explanation for disease. When Louis Pasteur released germ theory in 1861, many of the most eminent doctors and scientists opposed it and warned against its adoption. For most of human history, environmental accounts of illness prevailed—physicians attributed epidemics to atmospheric conditions, toxins, malnutrition, and sanitary failures rather than invisible contagious agents. The theory that one specific microorganism causes one specific disease only gained dominance in the late 1800s, and that dominance came through institutional power rather than overwhelming experimental proof.
2. The criteria designed to prove germs cause disease—Koch’s and Rivers’ Postulates—have never been satisfactorily fulfilled. Robert Koch developed his postulates to establish cause-and-effect between microorganisms and disease, yet he could not satisfy his own criteria for tuberculosis. The germs he identified appeared in healthy people, failed to cause disease when introduced to healthy hosts, and produced different symptoms in laboratory animals than in naturally acquired cases. When other scientists encountered the same failures, Koch and his followers modified the postulates and invented explanations like “asymptomatic infection” rather than questioning whether the theory was wrong. Thomas Rivers later developed modified postulates for viruses, but these suffered from the same fundamental problems and remain unfulfilled.
3. Multiple diseases once believed to be contagious turned out to have entirely different causes. Scurvy was treated as a communicable illness for centuries—sailors falling ill one after another seemed obvious proof of person-to-person spread. More than two million sailors died before researchers accepted it was vitamin C deficiency. Pellagra triggered mass panic in early 1900s America, with hospitals refusing patients and nurses striking rather than treat the “infected.” It was niacin deficiency. Minamata disease in 1956 Japan appeared to spread through a fishing community; homes were disinfected and patients quarantined until researchers discovered the cause was industrial mercury dumping. In each case, the assumption of contagion delayed correct diagnosis, wasted resources, and caused suffering that had nothing to do with infectious agents.
4. Standard methods for “isolating” viruses do not actually isolate anything. Isolation in ordinary language means separating one thing from everything else—a subtractive process. Virologists instead mix filtered bodily fluids with animal cells, antibiotics, growth factors, and numerous chemical additives, then observe whether the cells die. When cells break down, this “cytopathic effect” is taken as proof a virus is present. The process adds complexity rather than subtracting it, making it impossible to determine whether cell death results from a virus or from the harsh conditions of the culture method itself. Studies have documented identical cell death in control cultures containing no viral material, and antibiotics alone have been shown to dramatically increase the cell destruction that virologists attribute to viruses.
5. The landmark study claiming to isolate measles virus produced the same results in its control experiment. In 1954, John Enders and Thomas Peebles cultured material from measles patients and observed cell death, which they attributed to the measles virus. They also ran a control experiment adding the same ingredients except for the patient material. The cells in the control died in exactly the same way. Enders and Peebles admitted they could not distinguish the “virus” from whatever was killing cells in the control. Despite this fundamental flaw—a control that invalidates the conclusion—Enders received a Nobel Prize and this methodology became the template for virus isolation that persists in modern virology.
6. Particles identified as viruses cannot be reliably distinguished from the body’s own cellular components. Exosomes are tiny particles that cells naturally produce for communication and waste removal. Under electron microscopes and purification techniques, exosomes appear structurally and antigenically identical to alleged virus particles. Researchers have described influenza-like particles budding from cells in cultures that contained no viral material. When those cultures were then exposed to supposedly infected material, the same particles increased in number. If non-viral particles are indistinguishable from viruses, and if they appear in controls and uninoculated cultures, the entire basis for claiming a virus has been identified and purified collapses.
7. Over 200 human transmission experiments have overwhelmingly failed to demonstrate that respiratory illnesses spread from sick people to healthy people. During the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the U.S. Navy partnered with the Surgeon General and leading universities to conduct 25 rigorous experiments with 161 volunteer sailors. Healthy men had sick secretions sprayed in their nose and throat, instilled in their eyes, injected under their skin, and transferred directly from patients’ swabs. They sat bedside with severely ill patients who coughed and breathed on them. Fewer than 2% developed any illness. The Common Cold Research Unit in England spent nearly two decades attempting to transmit colds between animals and humans with similar failure rates. When researchers did achieve higher transmission, their methods lacked controls, blinding, and proper independent variables—the most compelling evidence for contagion is tied to the least reliable methodology.
8. Experiments have shown that inert substances can produce more symptoms than sick secretions, creating an unresolved paradox. Paul Schmidt’s post-pandemic experiments found that saline solution—an inactive control substance—produced a higher rate of flu symptoms than the supposedly infectious material from sick patients. This result has never been adequately explained. It means that whenever researchers mix bodily fluids with other ingredients, they cannot determine which component caused any symptoms that develop. Sick secretions also contain inflammatory mediators like bradykinin and histamine—substances known to produce cold and flu symptoms when introduced to the respiratory tract—yet transmission experiments have not controlled for these confounding factors.
9. The nocebo effect can produce physical illness identical to infectious disease through expectation and suggestion alone. Researchers have documented students developing headaches from electrical equipment that was never turned on, cancer patients losing their hair from saline they believed was chemotherapy, and people dying from diagnoses that autopsies revealed were wrong. Doctors during the 1918 pandemic publicly stated that fear kills more than disease and recommended eliminating fear to eliminate flu. Mass psychogenic illness—symptoms spreading rapidly through groups without any pathogen—has been documented in schools, factories, and communities, producing outbreaks indistinguishable from infectious disease. The belief in contagion, reinforced through lifelong conditioning, may itself trigger symptoms when people believe they have been exposed.
10. Environmental factors correlate strongly with respiratory illness patterns and can produce symptoms without any viral mechanism. Changes in absolute humidity predict influenza outbreaks with remarkable accuracy—when humidity drops below certain thresholds, flu risk increases by 58% for every additional half-gram decrease. Air pollution kills over 10 million people annually, and for every increment above safe particulate limits, respiratory infection risk doubles. Temperature inversions trap pollutants near the ground; major pollution spikes in China have preceded epidemic outbreaks attributed to novel viruses. Dr. Volney Cheney demonstrated over 11 years that he could not transmit colds through exposure to sick secretions, but could reliably produce and reverse cold symptoms by manipulating respiratory pH with chemical compounds and sodium bicarbonate.
11. What appears as infection may represent the body’s detoxification response to accumulated environmental insults. The word “virus” derives from Latin meaning poison or toxin, and dictionaries defined viruses as poisonous substances produced by disease until mid-1900s revisions. When airway surface liquid becomes acidified through pollution exposure, temperature changes, or dietary imbalances, mucociliary clearance fails and particulate matter accumulates. Prolonged acidic conditions cause respiratory cells to die and slough off. The body releases inflammatory chemicals to force debris removal, producing coughing, sneezing, and mucus production—symptoms identical to colds and flu arising from a cleanup process rather than an attack. Just as trees shed leaves in autumn as an adaptive response to environmental conditions, respiratory symptoms may represent primitive detoxification mechanisms responding to toxic accumulation.
12. The broader implications challenge the foundations of public health policy and personal health decisions. If the evidence for viral causation and contagion is as weak as presented, measures predicated on preventing transmission—quarantines, lockdowns, masking, social distancing—may cause harm while providing no benefit. These interventions have demonstrably interfered with exercise, nutrition, social connection, sleep, and psychological wellbeing. The contagion narrative encourages people to externalise problems and solutions rather than take personal responsibility for health through lifestyle factors. Fear of invisible enemies produces nocebo effects while preventing the very behaviours that build resilience. Scurvy and pellagra sufferers were once treated as pariahs for diseases that had nothing to do with contagion; the question becomes what current illnesses are being similarly misattributed, and what suffering continues as a result.
THE GOLDEN NUGGET
The one idea in this book that is most profound and that the fewest people would know:
The U.S. Navy conducted the most rigorous disease transmission experiments in medical history during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic—and they failed almost completely.
At the height of what is called the most infectious and deadly pandemic in human history, the United States military partnered with the Surgeon General, over 50 high-ranking naval officers, and professors from leading universities to conduct 25 controlled experiments with 161 volunteer sailors. These men were directly exposed to Spanish flu patients through every conceivable method: having sick secretions sprayed into their noses and throats, having mucus instilled into their eyes, receiving subcutaneous injections of filtered material, having blood from flu patients injected into them, and sitting bedside for extended periods while severely ill patients coughed directly into their faces.
Across all 25 experiments, only two men developed influenza—a rate of 1.2%.
These were not poorly designed studies. They represented the combined resources and expertise of the United States military and public health establishment, desperate to understand a disease that was killing millions. The scientists followed strict protocols. The volunteers were young, healthy sailors in excellent physical condition. The exposure methods were extreme—far exceeding any natural contact that might occur in daily life. Yet the researchers could not make healthy men sick.
The doctors who conducted these experiments were baffled. They offered no explanation for why direct inoculation with supposedly lethal infectious material failed 98% of the time. They could not account for how the most infectious pandemic in history proved nearly impossible to transmit under controlled conditions. Their detailed reports documented the negative results but drew no conclusions about what this meant for the theory of contagion.
This evidence has sat in medical archives for over a century. It is not hidden or suppressed—the experiments are documented in published papers and official records. Yet almost no one knows about them. Medical education does not mention them. Public health authorities do not cite them. The scientific community proceeded as if the experiments never happened, building an ever-more-elaborate edifice of virology on a foundation that had already been tested and found wanting.
The implications are staggering. If the deadliest flu pandemic in recorded history could not be transmitted in controlled experiments despite extreme measures, what does that say about the assumptions underlying all subsequent pandemic responses? If 161 volunteers exposed to the most infectious disease imaginable through the most direct methods possible produced a 1.2% infection rate, what confidence can anyone have in claims about airborne transmission, asymptomatic spread, and the necessity of population-wide containment measures?
This is not an obscure finding from a minor study. These were the flagship experiments of the U.S. military during a global emergency, conducted with the full weight of institutional authority and scientific rigor available at the time. Their failure to demonstrate transmission should have prompted fundamental questions about germ theory itself. Instead, the results were quietly filed away while the world proceeded as if contagion had been proven beyond doubt.
Most people believe disease transmission is an established fact because it matches their everyday observations—someone sneezes, and days later you feel sick. But correlation is not causation, and subjective experience is not scientific proof. When researchers actually attempted to demonstrate transmission under controlled conditions, with proper documentation and observation, they could not do it. The Spanish flu experiments represent the closest thing to a definitive test of the contagion hypothesis that has ever been performed, and they returned a negative result.
This is the golden nugget: the single most important pandemic in history was subjected to the most rigorous transmission testing ever conducted, and the experiments failed. Everything built on the assumption of proven contagion rests on a foundation that crumbled in 1918.
30 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question 1: What is germ theory, and what is its central premise about the relationship between microorganisms and disease?
Answer: Germ theory holds that specific microorganisms cause specific diseases. The central premise asserts that disease-causing microbes are ubiquitous in the environment, waiting for opportunities to infect healthy hosts and spread to other victims. According to this view, all living creatures exist at the mercy of pathogenic microbes whose sole purpose is to invade the body, replicate, and cause disease. The interaction between the immune system and microbes is framed as a warzone locked in constant battle for survival, where germs can be “kept in check” but never fully eliminated.
This framework positions germs as external invaders that attack from outside the body, floating through the air or transmitted through contact with infected individuals. Contagionists believe that while anatomical barriers like skin and mucous membranes afford some protection, microbes can breach these defences under the right conditions. Disease and its associated symptoms are viewed as the problem to be fought and eliminated. Louis Pasteur, Robert Koch, and Joseph Lister are credited with establishing and legitimising this theory, which became the dominant model for understanding illness by the late 19th century and remains so today.
Question 2: What is terrain theory, and how does it differ from germ theory in explaining why people become ill?
Answer: Terrain theory proposes that the internal condition of the body—the “terrain” or “soil”—determines whether a person becomes ill, not exposure to external germs. From this perspective, disease results from altered internal physiological activity occurring when an organism is exposed to harmful inputs like toxins, poisons, and unsanitary conditions while simultaneously lacking essential health-promoting inputs required to maintain normal metabolic and tissue functions. The terrain determines the form and function of any microorganisms present, meaning germs are viewed as the consequence of disease rather than its cause.
Anti-contagionists argued that germs are incapable of causing disease in healthy tissue. They observed that so-called disease-causing germs are found in completely healthy individuals, and that introducing germs into healthy hosts is inconsequential. If germs could attack healthy tissue, humanity would face rapid extinction because no immune system could withstand the ever-present onslaught of pathogens living on and in us. From the terrain perspective, germs perform a beneficial function: they migrate to dead and dying tissue to decompose it, turning compromised tissue into pus so the body can eliminate waste and generate new tissue. Germs are the enemies of disease because they decompose morbid matter and recycle by-products for other biological processes—friends, not foes.
Question 3: Who were Antoine Béchamp and Louis Pasteur, and what was the nature of their scientific rivalry?
Answer: Antoine Béchamp was a physician, pharmacist, and Chevalier of the Legion of Honour who began conducting fermentation experiments in 1854. He discovered that tightly stoppered flasks containing sugar and water fermented rapidly only after mould appeared, and that mould would not grow when certain chemicals were added. Through continued experimentation, Béchamp uncovered what he called “microzyma”—microscopic base units present in all organic matter that could transform into specific germs in response to environmental conditions. Louis Pasteur, a French chemist working on similar questions about fermentation and putrefaction, observed that mould growth occurred only after exposing solutions to air. Though both men initially held similar views, Pasteur eventually committed to the position that airborne germs caused disease while Béchamp developed terrain theory.
The rivalry intensified when Pasteur presented findings to the French Academy of Science in late 1857, receiving credit for discovering that moulds caused fermentation. Béchamp protested that he had made this discovery first, detailing his findings in a memoir submitted months before Pasteur’s presentation. For unknown reasons, Béchamp’s memoir was published over a year late, and without records of its submission date, his dispute could not be substantiated. Later investigations by Dr. Montague Leverson concluded that Pasteur had indeed plagiarised Béchamp’s work. Beyond the fermentation dispute, their fundamental disagreement centred on whether germs invade from outside (Pasteur) or arise from within organic matter in response to environmental disruption (Béchamp). Pasteur allegedly conceded on his deathbed in 1895, reportedly stating: “The terrain is everything, the microbe is nothing.”
Question 4: What are Koch’s Postulates, and why were they considered essential for proving that a specific germ causes a specific disease?
Answer: Koch’s Postulates are a set of criteria developed by German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch in 1882 to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between a microorganism and a disease. The postulates require that: (1) the microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease but not in healthy individuals; (2) the microorganism must be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture; (3) when the cultured microorganism is introduced into a healthy host, it must cause the same disease; and (4) the microorganism must be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host and shown to be identical to the original. These criteria were designed to provide scientific proof that would silence critics who complained about the absence of experiments demonstrating that microorganisms actually cause disease.
Upon germ theory’s release, it stood on shaky ground and physicians were reluctant to accept it. The chief complaint among the medical community was precisely this absence of experimental demonstration. Without sufficient evidence, notable physicians including Professor Horatio Wood and Professor Austin Flint withdrew their support despite initially being receptive. Widespread acceptance did not follow until Koch published his work on tuberculosis, claiming he had proven it was caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The postulates were meant to provide the evidentiary standard that would validate germ theory and distinguish it from competing explanations. They became the cornerstone upon which the entire edifice of bacteriology—and later virology—would be built.
Question 5: What problems emerged when scientists attempted to satisfy Koch’s Postulates, including Koch himself?
Answer: Koch himself could not fulfil his own postulates shortly after developing them. In his initial work on tuberculosis, the animals he injected with pure cultures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis developed completely different symptoms than animals who acquired the disease naturally. The germs claimed to cause tuberculosis were not only present in both healthy and sick people, but they also failed to recreate the disease when exposed to healthy hosts. Other scientists and doctors immediately reported experiencing the same problems: so-called pathogenic microorganisms were found in completely healthy people, violating postulate one; many alleged human pathogens could not be grown in culture, violating postulate two; and healthy hosts failed to fall ill when directly exposed to bacteria alleged to cause disease, violating postulate three.
Whenever one scholar published a paper suggesting they had found a microorganism in diseased tissue and assumed it was the cause, another was quick to find the same microorganism in healthy tissue, annihilating the possibility that the germ was the causative factor. This occurred repeatedly. In response, Koch and his colleagues altered and expanded the original postulates so they could still conclude particular germs were pathogenic. When unexplained contradictions arose—such as “asymptomatic infection” where people carried pathogens without falling ill—Koch invented convenient rescue devices rather than questioning the theory itself. Many advocates of germ theory turned their backs on it in disgust after witnessing these failures. Dr. John P. Wall asked whether microorganisms present in diseased tissue might be the consequence rather than the cause, concluding that germ theory was “probably as fallacious as many other theories which have sprung up in medicine.”
Question 6: What are Rivers’ Postulates, and how did they attempt to address the limitations of Koch’s Postulates for viruses?
Answer: Rivers’ Postulates were developed by Thomas Rivers in 1937 to establish causation between viruses and disease, since Koch’s original criteria were designed for bacteria. Rivers recognised that viruses presented unique challenges: they were too small to observe directly, could not be grown in pure culture like bacteria, and passed through filters that trapped larger microorganisms. His modified postulates required that: (1) the virus must be found in the host’s body fluids at the time of disease; (2) filtrates from infected tissue must produce disease in a suitable host; and (3) similar filtrates from healthy hosts should not produce disease. These modifications attempted to account for the fact that viruses, being “obligate parasites,” required living cells to replicate and therefore could not be isolated using the same techniques applied to bacteria.
Rivers’ Postulates suffered from fundamental flaws that rendered them essentially unfulfillable. Rivers was attempting to prove causation for an inanimate particle he had never directly observed and knew little about. The postulates assumed that only viruses could pass through filters and cause disease, ignoring the presence of other substances in filtrates—including inflammatory mediators, toxins, and allergens—that could also produce symptoms. Rivers himself acknowledged that the central premise of germ theory was incorrect, giving the example of swine flu and declaring it was not caused by a virus alone but by the synergistic effects of a virus and a bacterium together. If two or more interacting agents cause disease, neither Koch’s nor Rivers’ postulates could prove causality because neither made provisions for this phenomenon. The criteria designed to prove viral causation were inherently problematic from conception.
Question 7: What was the tradition of medical meteorology, and how did “weather doctors” explain the occurrence of epidemic diseases?
Answer: Medical meteorology was a discipline that documented the relationship between environmental events and illness, with practitioners known as “weather doctors” or “medical meteorologists.” This tradition traced back to Hippocrates, who formally proposed a theory of meteorological causation around 400 BC. For over two thousand years, physicians believed that changes in barometric pressure, temperature, atmospheric electrical influence, wind, ozone, and other meteorological phenomena triggered influenza outbreaks. Weather doctors believed the secrets of cold and flu epidemics could be unlocked by understanding how subtle fluctuations in these atmospheric conditions impacted the human body. This environmental perspective remained the dominant explanation for epidemic disease until germ theory’s ascendance in the late 1800s.
Weather doctors reported that influenza did not behave like a contagious illness but was instead consistent with changing meteorological conditions. They found the contagion model inadequate because it could not account for the pace of disease spread (near simultaneous across entire regions), its scope (spanning entire countries and continents), its timing (coinciding with atmospheric phenomena), or its direction (consistently moving from east to west). Thomas Sydenham, known as the “English Hippocrates,” theorised that effluvium released from beneath the Earth contaminated the atmosphere and interacted with physical qualities like moisture, dryness, heat, and cold, disrupting the body’s humours and causing conditions like influenza. The idea of contagion progressively waned through the centuries, and by the mid-1800s the doctrine had all but collapsed and was considered nothing more than a remnant of childish ideas—until Pasteur released germ theory in 1861, breathing new life into the deflated concept.
Question 8: What is spontaneous generation, and why was the debate between Pasteur and Pouchet so significant for the future of medicine?
Answer: Spontaneous generation is the idea that germs do not infect organisms from outside air but arise from within organic matter in response to disruption such as disease or loss of vitality. First proposed by Aristotle in 350 BC, this theory held that life could emerge anew without parents—worms from mud, rats from filth. The debate intensified when Félix-Archimède Pouchet submitted experiments to the French Academy of Science in 1858 claiming he had observed spontaneous generation in sterile solutions. Pouchet described a “plastic force” within organic matter that could concentrate to form microscopic organisms when exposed to certain conditions. His theorising aligned with Béchamp’s concept of microzyma—base units present in all organic matter that transform into specific germs as a response to environmental stimuli.
The significance of this debate cannot be overstated: if spontaneous generation were true, it would render germ theory untenable while cementing terrain theory. The contagionists saw spontaneous generation as the ultimate obstacle to overcome, while anti-contagionists saw it as their last bastion of hope. The French Academy ultimately awarded Pasteur the 1862 prize for his swan-neck flask experiments purportedly disproving spontaneous generation, though historians suggest the Academy sided with Pasteur due to political and religious motives rather than scientific merit. Critically, Pasteur never directly witnessed a single germ floating through the air—he simply observed an effect and assumed the cause. He himself admitted his results could support either side of the argument, and many scientists including Joly, Musset, Bastian, and Reich produced experimental results supporting spontaneous generation for decades afterward. The question of whether spontaneous generation was ever sufficiently disproven remains open.
Question 9: How were diseases like scurvy, pellagra, and beriberi once mistakenly classified as contagious, and what were their actual causes?
Answer: Scurvy, pellagra, and beriberi were all mistakenly believed to be contagious diseases because people living in the same environments—ships, prisons, hospitals, orphanages—fell ill with identical symptoms around the same time. After several months at sea, sailors would develop bleeding gums, loose teeth, and skin lesions one after another, convincing naval doctors that scurvy spread between people. More than two million sailors died from scurvy between 1500 and 1800 while physicians pursued the wrong explanation. Similarly, pellagra patients in the early 1900s presented with dermatitis, diarrhoea, dementia, and death in cyclical springtime patterns, triggering “pellagra-phobia” across the United States. Hospitals refused to admit patients, nurses went on strike rather than treat them, and children were barred from schools if family members were ill. Doctors treated patients with arsenic and mercury in attempts to kill a non-existent germ.
The actual causes were nutritional deficiencies. Scurvy resulted from vitamin C deficiency due to sailors’ diets lacking fresh food. James Lind demonstrated this in the mid-1700s, yet the belief in scurvy’s contagiousness persisted into the early 1900s. Pellagra was caused by niacin (vitamin B3) deficiency, as Joseph Goldberger proved through experiments showing the disease could be induced by a “poverty diet” of corn meal, meat, and molasses, and cured by feeding brewer’s yeast. Beriberi resulted from thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency—yet Robert Koch convinced Japanese scientists it was caused by a contagious microorganism, sending them on a wild goose chase for years. The lens of germ theory interfered with truth, promoted unnecessary suffering, wasted countless resources, and caused people to be ostracised, isolated, and denied timely healthcare not because they had contagious diseases but because others feared they did.
Question 10: What happened in Minamata, Japan, in 1956, and how did the assumption of contagion delay identification of the true cause?
Answer: In May 1956, a five-year-old girl was admitted to a hospital in Minamata, a small fishing village of approximately 50,000 people, with unusual neurological symptoms including convulsions, difficulty walking, and impaired speech. Within days, her sister and three others presented with identical symptoms. Over the following weeks and months, more villagers fell ill while large numbers of fish began swimming strangely before dying, sea birds became unable to fly, and cats ran in circles as if they had gone mad. The outbreak exhibited all the hallmarks of a contagious disease—after the first case, increasing numbers of people in close proximity fell ill with the same symptoms. Rumours spread that a “strange infectious disease” had broken out, possibly infectious meningitis, sending the community into panic.
Fear of contagion proved devastating. People from neighbouring towns ostracised Minamatans, eroding long-established community ties. Homes were disinfected, the sick were quarantined, yet the disease continued spreading. It took nearly three years before researchers traced the cause to a local fertiliser company that had dumped 27 tonnes of methylmercury into Minamata Bay, contaminating local waterways and poisoning anyone who consumed fish and shellfish. Despite the official 1963 announcement that mercury—not a microorganism—caused the disease, the belief in transmissibility persisted for years, forcing victims to reassure others they were not contagious. More than 900 people died and two million suffered chronic health problems. Viewing the world through the lens of contagion led to false assumptions, delayed correct diagnosis, and promoted inhumane treatment of poisoning victims who were clean all along.
Question 11: What did Dr. Rodermund’s smallpox experiments demonstrate, and why did his actions make headlines across the United States?
Answer: Dr. Matthew Joseph Rodermund, an American ophthalmologist, was so convinced that germs did not cause disease that he conducted extraordinary experiments with smallpox—a disease considered highly contagious. On January 21, 1901, Rodermund visited a young female patient with smallpox, burst open several pustules on her face and arms, and proceeded to smear the fetid pus over his own face, hands, beard, and clothes. He had performed this experiment dozens of times over fifteen years, each time with negative results. Without washing, he returned home, ate dinner with his family, consulted patients in his medical practice, and played cards at the local Businessmen’s Club, touching the faces and hands of at least ten people that evening.
The next day, still covered in smallpox pus, Rodermund travelled by train to another town, mingling with those he encountered and consulting with 27 more patients while touching their faces and hands. Over 48 hours, he had directly exposed himself and at least 37 unsuspecting individuals to the bodily fluids of a smallpox patient. When news broke, he was held under police guard in quarantine, escaped, was re-arrested, then released after four days when police could find nothing to charge him with. Despite this direct exposure, not a single case of smallpox occurred—neither in Rodermund nor in any of the people he contacted. His exploits made headlines across the United States and continue to be reported by media outlets today. The results contradicted the fundamental premise that smallpox was highly contagious and could be transmitted through contact with infected material.
Question 12: What is the standard cell culture method used to “isolate” viruses, and what are its fundamental limitations?
Answer: The standard method for “isolating” viruses involves taking filtered bodily fluids from sick patients and introducing them to a cell culture containing animal cells, antibiotics, growth factors, and various other substances. When the animal cells begin to break down and die—a phenomenon called the cytopathic effect—virologists consider this proof that a virus is present and define the process as “virus isolation.” If no cytopathic effect occurs, virologists either conclude no virus is present, try different cell lines until cell death does occur, modify materials and methods (pH, temperature, serum concentration) to induce cell death, or inoculate healthy volunteers with the crude culture material to see if symptoms develop. The entire approach relies on the assumption that only viruses can cause cells to die in culture.
The fundamental limitation is that this process bears no resemblance to actual isolation. In everyday language, isolation means separating one thing from everything else—a subtractive process. Cell cultures are complex concoctions with numerous additives mixed together. Several studies have reported cytopathic effects in uninoculated cell cultures—meaning cells died when no virus could hypothetically be present—effects potentially caused by antibiotics and other cell-derived components. Antibiotics have been shown to increase plaque surface area by up to 50-fold, undermining the validity of plaque assays used to quantify viruses. With so many substances in the mix, it becomes impossible to know whether one or a combination of them induces cell death. Virologists might wrongly infer the presence of a virus when cell death results from the method itself rather than any pathogenic agent.
Question 13: What is a cytopathic effect, and why is relying on it to confirm viral presence considered problematic?
Answer: A cytopathic effect refers to the breakdown and death of cells observed in culture, which virologists interpret as evidence that a virus is present and actively destroying the cells. When virologists add filtered material from a sick person to a cell culture and observe the cells dying, they conclude a virus must be responsible for this destruction. The entire field of virology relies heavily on this phenomenon because researchers believe only viruses can cause it. Cell death becomes the proxy evidence for viral presence—rather than directly observing, purifying, and characterising an actual virus particle, virologists infer its existence from watching cells die.
The problem is that cytopathic effects occur even when no virus could hypothetically be present. Studies have documented cell death in uninoculated cultures—controls that received no viral material whatsoever. This cell death may be caused by antibiotics added to the culture, nutrient deprivation, or various other cell-derived components inherent to the culture process itself. The method is specifically designed to produce cell death through starvation and chemical stress, making it impossible to distinguish between cells dying from the method versus cells dying from a virus. This creates circular reasoning: virologists claim they know cell death is caused by a virus because they isolated one, but they “isolated” the virus by observing cell death. The dependent variable (cell death) cannot reliably indicate the independent variable (viral presence) when the same effect occurs without any virus being introduced.
Question 14: What occurred in Enders and Peebles’ 1954 measles virus isolation study, and why is their control experiment significant?
Answer: In 1954, John Enders and Thomas Peebles published a paper claiming to have isolated the measles virus. Their process involved having measles patients gargle milk and spit it into a container, adding antibiotics, centrifuging the mixture, then spreading the liquid component atop Rhesus monkey kidney cells in culture. They added numerous substances including bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, horse serum, more antibiotics, phenol red, and soybean trypsin. When the monkey kidney cells began to break down and die, the researchers claimed that virus particles present in the measles patients’ mucus were responsible. They mixed multiple cultures together, ground them up with aluminium, centrifuged again, added the material to new cultures, and when those cells also died, declared successful “serial passage” of the virus.
The control experiment is where the study collapses. Enders and Peebles performed a control by adding the same ingredients to a cell culture except for the “infected” mucus from sick patients. This uninoculated control—which did not contain any measles material—broke down in exactly the same way as the inoculated culture that did contain mucus from measles patients. The researchers themselves admitted that whatever cytopathic agent was present in the uninoculated culture could not be distinguished with confidence from the “virus” in the inoculated culture. The control produced the same result as the experiment, meaning the cell death could not be attributed to any measles virus. Despite this fundamental flaw, Enders had already received a Nobel Prize in 1954 for similar work with polio, and this methodology became the template for virus isolation that persists today.
Question 15: What are exosomes, and why do some scientists argue they cannot be reliably distinguished from viruses?
Answer: Exosomes are tiny particles that cells naturally produce and release as part of normal biological processes, including communication between cells and waste removal. They are present in all bodily fluids and are particularly abundant in the respiratory tract of both healthy and sick individuals. When virologists examine samples under electron microscopes or attempt to purify viral particles using techniques like density gradient centrifugation, they encounter exosomes alongside whatever they believe to be viruses. The particles appear structurally and antigenically similar—so similar that researchers have explicitly described them as identical to alleged virus particles.
The inability to distinguish exosomes from viruses creates a fundamental problem for virology. If non-viral particles are indistinguishable from viruses, it becomes exceedingly difficult to confirm whether a virus is actually present in any given sample. Influenza-like particles have been observed budding out of cells in uninoculated cultures—cultures that should not contain any virus. When those cultures were then inoculated with material allegedly containing influenza virus, the same particles increased in number. Scientists described the original particles as identical to the influenza virus both structurally and antigenically. This means purified samples contain particles that may or may not be viruses, and there is no reliable way to separate them. According to virologists, 380 trillion virus particles already exist in the human body alongside half a dozen different virus families in the oral cavity and respiratory tract of healthy individuals, further complicating any attempt at true isolation.
Question 16: What logical problems arise from the circular reasoning embedded in standard virological methods?
Answer: The circular reasoning in virology operates as follows: virologists claim they know cell death is caused by a virus because they isolated the virus. When asked how they isolated the virus, they explain they mixed ingredients together and observed cell death, which proved the virus was present. This is logically fallacious—the conclusion is assumed in the premise. Scientists cannot conclude a virus causes cytopathic effects before isolating one, yet they cannot isolate one except by relying on cytopathic effects to confirm its presence. Pointing to an effect and attributing a cause without independent verification violates basic principles of scientific reasoning.
The problems compound when virologists attempt to escape this conundrum. They argue they can purify viruses from cell cultures using other methods, allowing them to pinpoint the virus as a true independent variable. However, influenza-like particles have been observed in uninoculated cultures, and when researchers “purified” influenza virus from inoculated cultures, those same particles were present alongside what they believed to be the virus. By definition, if other particles are present, the sample is not purified. If the sample is not purified, the virus cannot be considered a true independent variable in any experiment. If researchers cannot identify a pure independent variable, they cannot determine its real effect. The entire structure of causal claims rests on methods that cannot deliver the certainty those claims require.
Question 17: What were the key peculiarities of the 1889-1890 Russian Influenza pandemic that puzzled physicians at the time?
Answer: The Russian Influenza pandemic presented multiple anomalies that defied the contagion model. Most striking was its pattern of spread: the disease moved from east to west across Europe and beyond at a pace that exceeded all known means of transportation at the time. Outbreaks occurred near simultaneously in distant locations that had no direct contact with one another, including among remote Native American tribes with no modern transportation connections. Some researchers proposed that flooding of the Hwang Ho River in China in late 1889 might explain the pattern—decomposing organic matter swept up by flood waters dried into dust and was carried by easterly air currents, depositing across Russia and prompting the name “Chinese Cold.”
Equally puzzling was the disease’s clinical presentation. Physicians described four distinct forms: respiratory, gastrointestinal, catarrhal, and neurological. Symptoms ranged from mild respiratory illness lasting four to five days through to severe disease with multiple organ dysfunction, neurological symptoms, and skin rashes resembling scarlet fever. Doctors called the symptoms “protean,” “contradictory,” and “chameleon-like.” Dr. Egerton Fitzgerald reported witnessing dozens of patients with completely different complaints, none of which seemed to be influenza yet all had been diagnosed as such. He concluded that rarely were any two cases alike. If germ theory’s central premise holds that one germ causes one disease, the Russian flu’s presentation of four distinct diseases with wildly varying symptoms posed an inexplicable contradiction that physicians at the time openly acknowledged but could not resolve.
Question 18: What unusual characteristics of the 1918 Spanish Influenza pandemic made it difficult for doctors to diagnose and explain?
Answer: The Spanish Influenza pandemic presented three major peculiarities that confounded physicians. First, it spread from east to west across the globe at a pace that could not be accounted for by human transportation—outbreaks occurred near simultaneously in distant locations including among isolated populations with no outside contact. Second, it disproportionately killed young, healthy men between 20 and 40 years old rather than the elderly, infants, or immunocompromised—the opposite of what germ theory would predict. Those with the strongest immune systems, who should have been most protected, experienced the highest mortality rates. Third, the soldiers most exposed to influenza patients—medical staff treating the sick—had the best survival rates rather than the worst.
The symptom presentation caused further confusion. At least four distinct forms were described: a normal form indistinguishable from seasonal flu, a severe respiratory form with pneumonia, a gastrointestinal form with nausea and vomiting, and a phthisic form resembling tuberculosis with patients coughing blood. Symptoms varied so dramatically that doctors mistook Spanish flu for bubonic plague, typhoid fever, dengue fever, and cholera. During the first wave, physicians worldwide reported symptoms too mild to be influenza; subsequent waves struck with such intensity that pathologists declared they had never seen lungs like those of the dead. The symptoms closely resembled phosgene gas poisoning—unsurprising given that over 150,000 tonnes of poison gases were produced during World War I, and workers at phosgene manufacturing facilities experienced elevated influenza rates while workers at other chemical facilities did not.
Question 19: What were the U.S. Navy’s human transmission experiments during the Spanish flu, and what were their results?
Answer: As the Spanish flu pandemic reached its peak, the U.S. Navy and Public Health Service conducted a barrage of human experiments to determine the cause and mode of disease transmission. These experiments involved more than 160 volunteer sailors across 25 separate studies conducted at quarantine hospitals on Deer Island, Angel Island, and Gallups Island over six months. The military partnered with over 50 high-ranking naval officers, the Surgeon General, scientists from multiple laboratory divisions, and professors from leading universities to ensure the experiments adhered to the highest standards. These remain arguably the most comprehensive, thorough, and well-controlled human transmission studies ever undertaken in medical history.
The results were almost uniformly negative. At Deer Island, healthy sailors were inoculated with pure cultures of Pfeiffer’s bacillus, had unfiltered mucus secretions sprayed into their nose and throat, had mucus instilled into their eyes and nasal cavities, were swabbed directly with material from sick patients, received subcutaneous injections of filtered mucus, had blood from flu patients injected into them, and sat directly with severely ill influenza patients who coughed and breathed on them for extended periods. Not a single man fell ill across eight experiments involving 62 volunteers. Similar null results occurred at Angel Island and Gallups Island. Across all 25 experiments with 161 volunteers, only two men (1.2%) developed influenza and one developed influenza-like illness. The doctors conducting these experiments could not explain why it proved almost impossible to infect healthy men with what was supposedly the most infectious and deadly pandemic in human history.
Question 20: What was the Common Cold Research Unit, and what did nearly two decades of research reveal about transmitting colds?
Answer: The Common Cold Research Unit (CCRU) was established in 1946 in Salisbury, England, tasked with identifying the causative agent of the common cold and finding a cure. The facility consisted of 12 flats housing up to 30 volunteers for 10-day research trials, advertised as all-expenses-paid holidays with daily reimbursement. Upon arrival, volunteers were quarantined from each other and inoculated with either a “cold virus” or placebo, often in single- or double-blind fashion. Researchers observed and recorded symptoms while volunteers could watch television, play games, and go hiking—provided they maintained 30 feet distance from others.
For the first six and a half years, virologists tried to infect 20 different animal species with common colds, including rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, mice, ferrets, pigs, hedgehogs, and several monkey species. Their attempts were entirely unsuccessful. Human experiments fared no better. In one rigorous experiment, participants with experimentally induced colds spent 10 hours in a room with healthy people, yet none of the healthy participants became ill. Sick participants contaminated living spaces before healthy participants entered—none became ill. Healthy people were coughed and sneezed on for three hours—none became ill. After more than a decade of searching, CCRU staff admitted one of their biggest challenges was giving people colds. If common cold viruses are “highly contagious” and “easily spread” through close contact, demonstrating this should have been straightforward. Instead, researchers met roadblocks at every turn, and the facility’s continued existence was threatened due to its failure to produce results.
Question 21: What did Paul Schmidt’s experiments reveal about the relationship between saline, sick secretions, and symptom production?
Answer: In October 1920, Paul Schmidt published the first series of post-pandemic human experiments investigating the common cold and seasonal influenza. In one experiment, Schmidt collected mucus secretions from 16 influenza patients, mixed them with saline solution, filtered the mixture, and inoculated one drop into both eyes of 196 healthy participants. Twenty-one participants (10.7%) developed colds and three (1.5%) developed influenza. In a second experiment, 84 healthy men received filtered mucus secretions from 12 influenza cases, resulting in five (5.9%) developing influenza and four (4.7%) developing colds. These modest positive rates might seem to support contagion—until examining the controls.
Schmidt’s results revealed something deeply problematic for transmission studies: saline—an inert, inactive substance—produced a higher rate of flu symptoms than the supposedly active sick secretions. This finding poses a serious dilemma for all human transmission research. It means that whenever experimenters mix bodily fluids with other seemingly neutral ingredients, they cannot determine which substance caused symptoms. If scientists wish to claim an infectious virus makes people sick, they must demonstrate that symptoms occur at a rate exceeding whatever inert substances they use as controls. Most transmission experiments do not include adequate control groups to allow for this comparison, making it impossible to draw firm conclusions. Schmidt’s saline paradox went largely unaddressed, yet it fundamentally undermines the interpretive framework applied to positive results throughout the transmission literature.
Question 22: Why do inflammatory mediators present a significant confounding variable in human transmission experiments?
Answer: The mucus secretions of sick people contain inflammatory chemicals including histamine, prostaglandins, and bradykinin. These substances are produced by the body to promote the elimination of irritants from the respiratory tract and are present in elevated concentrations during colds and flu. Crucially, when these inflammatory mediators are introduced into the respiratory tract of healthy people, they produce symptoms indistinguishable from those of infectious disease: nasal congestion, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat, cough, and a sensation of rawness in the airways. Bradykinin is magnitudes smaller than a virus particle, meaning it passes easily through the Berkefeld filters that early researchers used to remove bacteria and “prove” that something smaller—presumably a virus—was responsible for illness.
This creates an unresolved confounding variable in transmission experiments. When researchers inoculate healthy volunteers with filtered secretions from sick people and some recipients develop symptoms, the researchers assume a virus caused the illness. However, the same filtrate contains inflammatory mediators known to produce identical symptoms. Without controlling for these substances—removing them or testing them independently—it is impossible to determine whether symptoms resulted from a virus, from inflammatory chemicals, or from some combination of both. Kruse, Foster, Dold, and other early researchers were ignorant of these facts, as inflammatory mediators were only discovered and studied decades later. Had they known, their conclusions and perhaps their methods would likely have changed. This same caveat casts doubt on all transmission studies that fail to rule out inflammatory mediators as alternative explanations.
Question 23: What is the aggregate picture when reviewing over 200 human transmission experiments conducted throughout medical history?
Answer: Reviewing the aggregate body of human transmission experiments reveals a consistent pattern: most studies find no infection, and when they do, the positive case ratios are dismally low. The U.S. Navy’s 25 experiments during the Spanish flu pandemic—among the most rigorous ever conducted—produced illness in less than 2% of 161 volunteers despite direct inoculation with sick secretions, blood injections, and extended close contact with severely ill patients. The Common Cold Research Unit spent nearly two decades failing to reliably transmit colds between animals or humans. Anna Williams, Mary Nevin, and Caroline Gurley failed to infect any of 45 participants; Robert Robertson and Robert Groves failed with 100 volunteers; Oscar Costa-Mandry and colleagues failed with 18 men. Across dozens of experiments documented throughout medical history, the pattern repeats.
The studies that did achieve higher transmission rates suffer from fatal methodological flaws. Yamanouchi’s team produced infection rates exceeding 75%—the highest recorded—but without control groups, random sampling, participant blinding, or a true independent variable. No other study came close to replicating these results. The most compelling evidence for contagion is tied to the least reliable methods. Meanwhile, studies with better methodology consistently produce null or near-null results. Modern experiments fare no better: a recent 127-participant study achieved 81% infection through laboratory inoculation, but when those “infected” volunteers were exposed to 75 healthy participants under controlled conditions, only one person (1.3%) developed symptoms regardless of whether they wore protective equipment. The evidence that should most clearly demonstrate person-to-person transmission instead reveals its absence.
Question 24: What is the nocebo effect, and what evidence suggests it can produce physical symptoms including those resembling colds and flu?
Answer: The nocebo effect—Latin for “I will harm”—refers to deleterious physical effects that arise from a treatment containing no active properties, produced through expectation and suggestion alone. While the placebo effect describes beneficial outcomes from inert treatments, nocebo describes harmful outcomes from the same mechanism. These effects are so common and powerful that they affect outcomes in nearly all human research, forcing scientists to blind participants and researchers to reduce the likelihood that subjects will respond based on expectation rather than actual treatment. Nocebo can arise internally through self-influence or externally through social influence, and can manifest in forms ranging from headaches to hair loss to death.
The evidence for nocebo producing illness is substantial. In one study, researchers attached electrodes to college students’ heads and told them electrical impulses would cause headaches—though no current was ever delivered, 71% developed headaches. Cancer patients receiving saline placebos they believed to be chemotherapy developed chemotherapy side effects: 31% experienced hair loss, 35% had nausea, and 22% had vomiting. A man diagnosed with terminal cancer died within months despite autopsy revealing only a two-centimetre nodule—his doctor admitted uncertainty about what killed him, speculating the expectation of cancer proved lethal. Another patient’s tumours disappeared with a treatment he believed effective, returned when he heard negative news about the treatment, disappeared again with placebo injections he believed were high-dose medication, then returned fatally when he learned the treatment was definitively useless. Doctors have known for over 100 years that nocebo can cause influenza and the common cold.
Question 25: What is mass psychogenic illness, and how can it spread symptoms through a population without any pathogen being present?
Answer: Mass psychogenic illness, also known as mass hysteria or hysterical contagion, refers to a set of signs and symptoms that spread rapidly across a group of people in the absence of any known pathological cause. It represents an extreme case of nocebo brought about by rapid and extensive social contagion—the transmission of mental content, psychological processes, or physiological states between people. When each affected person influences more than one other person, exponential growth produces an epidemic indistinguishable from an infectious disease outbreak. The mere belief that people have been exposed to something dangerous is sufficient to cause epidemic illness, making mass psychogenic illness difficult to differentiate from bioterrorism, toxin exposure, or pathogen-based outbreaks.
A striking example occurred in Belgium in 1999 when schoolchildren developed symptoms after drinking cola. Between June 8-20, over 1,400 calls flooded the poisons hotline. Chemical analysis found hydrogen sulfide and fungicide at concentrations too low to cause toxic effects. While the initial school outbreak may have involved actual contamination, investigators concluded that the “spread” to other schools was mass psychogenic illness triggered by ambulances and emergency personnel, congregating students transmitting fear during break periods, and extensive media coverage. The company recalled 15 million crates and closed three factories—yet the symptoms spread not through a contaminant but through belief. These examples demonstrate that epidemic illness can appear identical to infectious disease while having purely psychological origins, providing a viable alternative explanation for how colds and flu might spread without any pathogen being present.
Question 26: What role do humidity and temperature play in the seasonal patterns of respiratory illness?
Answer: Changes in temperature and humidity correlate so significantly with influenza activity in temperate climates that government agencies can predict outbreaks simply by monitoring absolute humidity. When absolute humidity falls below a threshold of 8-12 grams per cubic metre, there is a significant chance an outbreak will occur within one month. For every 0.5 gram decrease below this threshold, the risk of influenza increases by 58%. A drop in temperature and absolute humidity typically precedes the onset of seasonal and epidemic influenza, while increases signal the end of flu season. The relationship is not confined to any specific level but involves the change itself—the relative drop disrupts the body in ways that fixed low conditions do not, which may explain why experiments exposing people to consistently low temperatures failed to produce illness.
The mainstream explanation invokes viruses: as humidity decreases, viruses supposedly survive longer, respiratory droplets stay suspended and travel further, and inhaling cold dry air reduces barrier defences against infection. However, tropical climates present a contradiction—people fall ill when air becomes warm and wet rather than cold and dry, meaning viruses would need to be maximally contagious during opposite conditions in different climate zones. An alternative explanation focuses on how temperature and humidity changes affect respiratory tract pH and mucociliary function. Changes in air temperature and humidity impact exhaled breath pH by at least 0.5 points and influence naturally occurring atmospheric compounds like sulfur dioxide, which increases four to six-fold during winter when fossil fuel use rises. Low temperatures disrupt thermo-regulatory ability and interfere with normal respiratory tract functions directly, independent of any viral mechanism.
Question 27: How does air pollution, particularly particulate matter, correlate with respiratory illness and flu-like symptoms?
Answer: Air pollution kills approximately 10.2 million people annually—more than the 9.6 million deaths caused by cancer each year. Particulate matter, the most harmful atmospheric pollutant, refers to ultrafine solid and liquid matter suspended in the air, measured as fine (diameter ≤2.5 micrometres) and coarse (≤10 micrometres). For every increment of 50-150 micrograms per cubic metre above safe limits, the risk of respiratory tract infections doubles, and the risk of developing influenza-like illness increases substantially for up to four weeks after concentrations peak. Peak health bodies recommend exposure below 5 micrograms per cubic metre, yet as of 2021, not a single country achieved this standard, and only 0.001% of the world’s population was exposed to levels at or below this threshold.
Temperature inversions during winter trap cold air beneath warm air, acting as a lid that allows particulate matter to accumulate. In January 2013, a temperature inversion over northern China caused small particulate concentrations to rise from 24 to 375 micrograms per cubic metre within days—over 45 times the recommended daily limit—potentially quadrupling respiratory infection risk. An influenza epidemic swept across China within weeks. Experts blamed the novel avian influenza virus H7N9 while overlooking the astronomical pollution levels. A similar sequence occurred in January 2020 when major Chinese cities recorded pollution exceeding 200 micrograms per cubic metre from frequent temperature inversions. For every 1 microgram rise, SARS-CoV-2 mortality rates increased by 8%. The severity of that pandemic was tightly linked to air pollution. The question arises: to what extent are people falling ill from a virus versus reacting to polluted air?
Question 28: What is the pH hypothesis proposed by Dr. Volney Cheney, and what experimental evidence supports it?
Answer: Dr. Volney Cheney proposed that changes in respiratory tract pH cause colds and flu, based on experiments he presented to the American Public Health Association in 1927. Over an 11-year period, Cheney conducted human experiments attempting to infect thousands of healthy people with common colds by inoculating them with bodily fluids from sick people. Every contagion attempt failed. What never failed, however, was inoculating people with ammonium or calcium chloride—this reliably produced colds and flu in healthy participants. Even more remarkably, Cheney discovered he could reverse experimentally induced colds by administering high doses of sodium bicarbonate every two hours for six hours, delivered orally or rectally. Several other scientists have since published similar results, treating colds and flu with sodium bicarbonate administered orally, rectally, or nasally.
Cheney theorised that climatic conditions disturb electrolyte balance in the blood, diminishing the body’s reserves of alkaline substances like calcium, magnesium, potassium, and bicarbonate. This creates mild acidosis manifesting as acidic urine and nasal secretions—the body’s attempt to clear excess acid and re-establish optimal balance. Under normal conditions, airway surface liquid maintains pH between 6.9 and 7.1, protecting epithelial cells while keeping mucus thin and mucociliary clearance efficient. When pH drops below 6.9, epithelial cells become damaged, mucus thickens, and clearance is inhibited. Particulate matter accumulates, and if acidic conditions persist beyond 24 hours, respiratory epithelial cells begin dying and sloughing off—a hallmark attributed to viral infections. The body then releases inflammatory chemicals to assist debris clearance, producing symptoms identical to colds and flu through an entirely non-viral mechanism.
Question 29: How might respiratory symptoms represent a detoxification process rather than an infectious disease?
Answer: The word “virus” derives from Latin meaning toxin or poison. For centuries, viruses were defined in English dictionaries as “a poisonous substance produced in the body as the result of some disease”—the definition only changed to “a small, non-cellular obligate parasite” in the mid-1900s after developments in virology. If there is truth to the original definition, infectious diseases may result from toxins and poisons entering the body rather than invisible parasites. Modern humans are exposed to unprecedented levels of harmful chemicals in air, water, food, fabrics, medications, toiletries, devices, furniture, and building materials. While society obsesses over infectious germs, it remains largely indifferent to the toxic substances permeating almost every product consumed and used.
Symptoms like coughing, sneezing, mucus production, and runny nose serve to eliminate toxins, foreign particulate matter, and other irritants from the respiratory tract. Just as deciduous trees shed leaves in autumn to survive winter—reducing water loss, conserving energy, and preventing ice damage—the human body may shed parts of its respiratory apparatus in response to accumulated debris. Depression and anxiety are increasingly framed as adaptive responses rather than disorders; viewing cold and flu symptoms similarly suggests they represent primitive attempts to clear the body of accumulated matter. When airway surface liquid acidifies from pollution, temperature changes, or dietary imbalances, cells slough off and the body shifts into overdrive, releasing inflammatory chemicals that produce symptoms. Rather than viewing these as diseases to fight, they may represent the body engaging in natural detoxification—a defence mechanism periodically clearing the system in an increasingly toxic environment.
Question 30: What are the broader implications if the evidence for viral causation and contagion is as weak as presented?
Answer: If viruses do not cause disease in the manner described, if contagion has never been reliably demonstrated, and if viruses may not exist as characterised, the implications extend far beyond academic medicine. The weight of evidence available for disease-causing germs is disproportionate to the power and reverence people attribute to this idea. Despite lacking support for its core assumptions, germ theory constrains all walks of modern life and escapes scrutiny. Public health initiatives predicated on contagion—lockdowns, quarantines, masking, social distancing—may not only fail to prevent illness but actively undermine health by interfering with consumption, exercise, socialisation, sleep, and constructive thinking. The population becomes fatter, weaker, lonelier, more tired, and more neurotic while attempting to curtail outbreaks through measures that thwart the very lifestyle factors keeping people resilient.
The contagion narrative is psychologically toxic. It causes people to fear an invisible enemy, be wary of fellow humans, and externalise problems and solutions rather than take personal accountability. It encourages viewing oneself as a helpless victim awaiting rescue rather than an empowered agent capable of shaping one’s own health. Nocebo research demonstrates that belief in contagious germs can itself produce illness when lifelong conditioning piques at critical moments. If society changed its guiding narrative, people would be positioned to take control of their lives and cultivate patterns conducive to health. Looking back, it seems barbaric that scurvy and pellagra sufferers were treated as lepers when they were clean all along. Hindsight makes past errors obvious. The question becomes: what illnesses still considered contagious today might not be, and what suffering are we perpetuating through the same mistakes?
I appreciate you being here.
If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
🚨Introducing the Revolutionary “Viral Isolation™ Method” 🚨
Because Who Needs the Scientific Method When You Have Consensus™?
Are you a virologist looking to isolate a virus but don’t want to deal with pesky scientific principles? Do you long for a world where assumptions are facts, controls are optional, and results are whatever you need them to be? Well, look no further! With Viral Isolation™, you, too, can bypass every fundamental step of the scientific method and still get published!
🎉 Special Features – Now with ZERO Adherence to the Scientific Method! 🎉
🔬 Step 1: Skip Direct Observation!
Why waste time finding a virus in nature when you can just assume it exists? Don’t worry—no one in ‘virology’ has ever observed a virus as a distinct, independent entity directly from a sick person’s fluids. If they haven’t done it in over a century, why start now?
💡 Bonus: Instead of isolating a virus, just declare symptoms = virus. Got a cough? Must be a virus! Fever? Definitely a virus! Ate bad sushi? Yep - virus!!
📏 Step 2: The Hypothesis-Free Hypothesis™!
Real science requires an Independent Variable (IV) (the thing being tested), but who has time for that? Since we never actually isolate a virus, we’ll just assume it’s there. Science is hard—so let’s just skip the part where we identify our IV!
🧐 Scientific Method Violation:
✅ No purified virus? No problem! Just declare the existence of one and move on.
✅ Symptoms are vague? Who cares? A fever must mean viral infection!
✅ What about controls? HAHAHA, good one.
🧪 Step 3: Experimental Design... Or Lack Thereof!
Time to “prove” viral replication! But instead of isolating and testing a virus, let’s throw patient samples into a blender of monkey kidney cells, toxic antibiotics, fetal bovine serum, and a battery of chemicals! What could go wrong?
🧬 Pro-Tip: When the monkey kidney cells start dying from all the poison you added, just call it a Cytopathic Effect (CPE) and claim the virus did it! (Ignore the fact that control experiments show the same results without a virus—just pretend those don’t exist!)
📸 Step 4: The Electron Microscope Magic Show!
Now, let’s get some ‘proof.’ Instead of isolating and purifying a virus, just snap a picture of the cellular debris from our CPE Toxicity Soup™ and say, “See? That blob right there—totally a virus.”
🔍 Fun Fact: If someone asks why you didn’t purify and separate the virus, just roll your eyes and mutter, “You don’t understand virology.” That’ll shut them up!
📊 Step 5: Data Manipulation & Narrative Control!
Science should be about unbiased analysis... but where’s the fun in that? With Viral Isolation™, you can:
✅ Assemble ‘viral genomes’ on a computer, even if no complete ‘genome’ was found! (Computers never make mistakes.)
✅ Use PCR to ‘detect’ tiny ‘genetic fragments,’ from a ‘virus’ never proven to exist.
✅ Ignore all contradictory evidence, and call anyone who questions your methods a science denier™!
🧠 Step 6: Declare Success No Matter What!
In real science, if an experiment fails, the hypothesis should be rejected. But with Viral Isolation™, failure is never an option!
🚫 Found no actual virus? Publish anyway!
🚫 Control experiments contradict your results? Ignore them!
🚫 No reproducibility? Silence the skeptics!
🌟 SPECIAL BONUS! – Support the Digital Biosecurity State! 🌟
By believing in this groundbreaking Non-Scientific Methodology™, YOU, too, can:
💰 Enable the Biosecurity State™ – The more viruses we ‘find,’ the more lockdowns, mandates, and surveillance we can justify!
📉 Help Crush Small Businesses! – Nothing says ‘progress’ like eliminating those pesky local shops and centralizing power!
🛑 Contribute to The Great Reset™! – Because why have freedom when you can have digital IDs, carbon quotas, and endless health passports?
🚀 ORDER NOW! 🚀
For a limited time, get your Viral Isolation™ Kit for the low price of your critical thinking skills!
(Side effects include cognitive dissonance, FOIA-induced panic attacks, and an uncontrollable urge to shout, “Trust the Science!” at anyone who asks for evidence.)
💥 Viral Isolation™ – Where Assumptions Become Facts! ™ 💥
You can’t catch a cold because the cold is the cure.
The symptoms of a cold is the body’s way of returning to homeostasis - balance.
The body’s job is to survive in its environment. God made the body so that happens. We just don’t understand it.
I like Antoine Béchamp’s theory if I had to choose at this moment.