Settling the Virus Debate

By Dr Samantha Bailey

I would imagine that many if not most readers of my work accept that the institution that is Vaccination is wholly corrupt.

That it is a global, supra-national, mass poisoning, maiming and genocide enterprise.

I don’t image that is particularly controversial by now.

But Vaccination could not exist without Virology.

Vaccination is the app that operates within the operating system that is Virology.

Virology births Vaccination.

Virology births “Pandemics.”

Virology births Lockdowns.

Virology births Pandemic Preparedness.

Virology births cover narratives for industrial poisoning.

I’ll stop…I think you get the picture.

If all the children are vile, corrupt and putrid creatures, what are the odds that the parent is sound?

What are the chances that Virology isn’t also wholly corrupt.

I am of the view that it’s zero.

---

---

If you are new to the virus conversation, I would recommend reading two of my earlier stacks:

Virus

Virology

---

This is a profound passage from Breaking the Spell by Dr Thomas Cowan.

Virus - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

But even in the most clearly defined “viral” diseases, such as measles or chicken pox, the following shocking statement is still undeniably true: In the history of medicine, not one published study shows the isolation of identical particles that would represent a disease-causing virus from any bodily fluid from any sick person.

Let me make this even more clear. If one takes any person with any “viral” illness—for example, chicken pox, rabies, measles, AIDS or COVID-19—the published literature does not contain any evidence of any virus that was directly isolated from any bodily fluids from even one person suffering from these illnesses. The interesting thing about this statement is that no health institution from any government in the world disagrees. Similarly, there is no disagreement on this point from any virologist or medical doctor who works in or publishes in the field of virology. And there is no disagreement about this statement from such institutions as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Pasteur Institute or the Robert Koch Institute.

If you want to dismantle the scourge on humanity that is Vaccination, you have to be prepared to take a good hard auditors look at Virology and dismantle it if it’s found to be corrupt.

As I quoted Dr Thomas Cowan recently:

Spanish Flu - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

I want to highlight something that Thomas Cowan recently said at the start of one of his Q&As:

Sophistry – I looked up what that word means because I wasn't sure. It said subtle, tricky, superficially plausible but generally fallacious method of reasoning, which pretty much describes exactly what you'll hear from most of the people who are trying to fight back.

What's so interesting about it is they don't seem to realize that this is a tremendous gift to the perpetrators of this fraud and the whole "plandemic" sort of thing. As soon as we get rid of the virus argument, including the lab-created and lab-engineered nonsense, we end up in two places.

First, there is a lot less fear of what your neighbor or friend or crowds are going to do to you because you realize there's no virus to pass between people. You start living life a lot less fearful, which then improves your health and everybody gets better from that.

Second, at some point, people will start to investigate what actually does make people sick. There is a possibility that this leads to a much safer, healthier, and better world because people will stop doing the things that are actually making them sick and making people around the world sick, which has nothing to do with these imaginary viruses.

Also, from Breaking the Spell.

To understand what cytopathic effect is, we must revisit some pivotal events in the history of virology that occurred in the early 1950s. Around that time, virologists realized that they had the tools to see particles the size and morphology of a virus using the electron microscope; however, they also realized that they never saw a uniform particle coming from any sick person. In essence, they disproved the foundation of virology!

Fortunately for the virology profession, a man named John Franklin Enders saved the day by “discovering” the process that became known as the viral “culture,” a discovery for which he received a Nobel Prize in 1954. In 1954 and 1957, Enders wrote two papers describing how to create viral cultures (using a “minimal nutrient medium”), and this methodology became the standard for all viral proofs forevermore.

Remember, a virus is an extremely small particle, one that can be seen only with the magnification available through an electron microscope. Also remember that a virus is conceived to be a tiny particle with a protein coating encasing a small amount of genetic material, either DNA or RNA. The game is to find this unique particle and show that it causes destruction of the host on which it grows.

Bearing these aspects of the definition of a virus in mind, here are the steps Enders outlined in his 1954 paper. Enders started his experiment by taking a throat swab from seven children hospitalized with symptoms consistent with measles. He mixed the cotton swab with two milliliters of milk—interestingly, itself a source of genetic material. Then he added the throat swab in milk to a solution containing:

“Penicillin, 100ug/ml and streptomycin, 50 mg/ml were added to all throat specimens which were then centrifuged at 5450 rpm for about one hour. Supernatant fluid and sediment resuspended in a small volume of milk were used as separate inocula in different experiments in amounts varying from 0.5 ml to 3.0 ml” (4).

“Inocula” is just the sample used in the next step, which was to inoculate this material onto a culture of “trypsinized human and rhesus monkey kidney” cells. To this culture medium, he added the following:

“The culture medium consisted of bovine amniotic fluid (90%), beef embryo extract (5%), horse serum (5%), antibiotics, and phenol red as an indicator of cell metabolism” (4).

In simple language, Enders mixed his sample with six other sub- stances that are known to be sources of protein and genetic material. We now know that these substances break down into particles with the size and morphology of what are called viruses. These six sources are milk, human kidney cells, rhesus monkey kidney cells, bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract and horse serum.

To this culture, Enders’ research group next added antibiotics that are known to be toxic to the kidney cells, especially streptomycin. (Nowadays, scientists tend to use the antibiotics gentamicin and amphotericin.) Enders and colleagues then observed this brew over a number of days. When they saw a characteristic cytopathic effect (CPE) in the cells of the cultures—meaning the transition of healthy, normal-sized culture cells into giant, disorganized cells with internal holes or vacuoles—they concluded that these were proof that the virus from the throat swab was destroying the cells in the culture. To Enders, this cytopathic effect was the hallmark of dying cells, and he believed it could only have occurred because the virus in the measles sample infected and destroyed the cells in the culture.

-

What is clear from the work of Enders is that he had no idea whether the origin of the particles he claimed were the human measles virus actually came from the sick person or were the result of the breakdown of one of the sources of genetic material used in the cell culture.

Settling the virus debate was published in July 2022. I wasn’t ready for it then. I am now.

I’m republishing to amplify it’s reach.

It’s a most vital issue that needs to be settled.

With thanks to Dr Samantha Bailey and all the signatories.

---

---

SETTLING THE VIRUS DEBATE

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement - Dr Sam Bailey

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”¹

Signatories:

• Thomas Cowan, MD

• Mark Bailey, MD

• Samantha Bailey, MD

• Jitendra Banjara, MSc

• Kelly Brogan, MD

• Kevin Corbett, PhD

• Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS

• Michael Donio, MS

• Jordan Grant, MD

• Andrew Kaufman, MD

• Valentina Kiseleva, MD

• Christine Massey, MSc

• Paul McSheehy, PhD

• Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD

• Sachin Pethkar, BAMS

• Saeed Qureshi, PhD

• Stefano Scoglio, PhD

• Mike Stone, BEXSc

• Amandha Vollmer, NDoc

• Michael Yeadon, PhD

It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:

1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;

2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;

3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;

4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;

5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.

However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists…

STEP ONE

5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:

1. are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;

2. have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;

3. have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who

4. have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)

Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

STEP TWO

ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.

(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)

If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.

It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.

We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative.

---

---

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 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

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.

1. Definition of ‘virus’ from Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6