Unveiling the Illusion of Contagion

Why the Infectious Disease Paradigm Fails Scientific Scrutiny – 40 Q&As

"Learn to know the spirit of the age, study it, so whenever possible you will be able to avoid its influence." - St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

---

In the late 19th century, the infectious disease paradigm took root with the germ theory, championed by Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, asserting that microscopic pathogens—viruses, bacteria, fungi—cause illness through direct transmission. This model, solidified through the 20th century, underpinned medical practices, from smallpox vaccination to COVID-19 lockdowns, shaping a worldview where invisible agents dictate health. Yet, as we delve into Alec Zeck’s 2.5-hour presentation, Reframing the Infectious Disease Paradigm, we encounter a rigorous critique that challenges this paradigm’s foundations. Zeck exposes virology’s flawed “isolation” process, where patient samples are mixed with nephrotoxic antibiotics, antimycotics, and monkey kidney cells, starved of nutrients, and subjected to conditions that induce cell death—termed the cytopathic effect—attributed to a virus. Control experiments, like those by Stefan Lanka, replicate this effect without patient samples, suggesting the procedure itself, not a virus, produces the outcome. “We’re told viruses cause disease,” Zeck notes, “but they hadn’t isolated anything of the sort.” This echoes the analysis in Measles “Virus,” where John Franklin Enders’ 1954 measles experiments similarly yielded indistinguishable control results, undermining viral causation claims. Such methodological failures, as argued in 17 Reasons Why It Really Matters Whether Viruses Exist, confine us to a medically imposed mental prison, where fear of contagion overshadows the body’s innate wisdom.

Zeck’s critique extends beyond deconstruction, offering a holistic framework where illness arises from shared environmental and metaphysical imbalances, not contagious particles. This resonates with the exploration in The Contagion Question: If Germs Don’t Cause Disease, What Does?, which posits that group illness patterns stem from collective stressors—malnutrition, toxins, or psychological strain—rather than microbial transmission. Historical evidence supports this view: during the 1918 Spanish Flu, detailed in Spanish Flu, U.S. Navy experiments failed to transmit illness despite exposing volunteers to sick patients’ mucus and blood, suggesting chemical weapons as primary culprits. Zeck cites similar skepticism, noting Christine Massey’s 220 Freedom of Information requests found no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 isolation, a point reinforced in Interview with Kyle Young, where Young critiques viral genomics as “assumptions layered on assumptions.” Zeck’s alternative model emphasizes the body’s intelligent response to imbalance, viewing symptoms as purposeful adaptations. This aligns with the discussion in Healing Ourselves: Biofield Science and the Future of Health, where the human biofield—electromagnetic fields generated by our water-rich bodies—facilitate non-physical communication, influencing health states across individuals.

This paradigm shift finds further grounding in the properties of water, a recurring theme in Zeck’s presentation and my work. In The Hidden Messages in Water, I explore Dr Masaru Emoto’s experiments, where water forms distinct patterns in response to words, images, or intentions, suggesting it holds and transmits information. Zeck highlights Veda Austin’s egg experiments, where a free-range egg’s coherent field improved the crystallographic patterns of caged eggs overnight, illustrating how “a strong coherent field overtakes and entrains weaker incoherent fields.” This principle suggests that health, like water’s patterns, may propagate through subtle, non-material means, challenging the materialistic contagion model. By questioning virology’s unproven claims, as Zeck does, we begin to dismantle the mental prison that binds civilization to fear-based medical narratives. This realization, born from a century-long reliance on a flawed paradigm, invites us to reimagine health as a dynamic interplay of environment, consciousness, and the body’s innate intelligence, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of what truly makes us well or ill.

With thanks to Danial Alec Zeck.

Reframing the infectious Disease Paradigm featuring Alec Zeck

Analogy

The Orchestra Without a Conductor

Imagine you're attending a symphony orchestra performance. The music sounds beautiful, complex, and perfectly coordinated. You notice there's no conductor on stage, yet somehow all the musicians play in perfect harmony. You ask the person next to you how this is possible without a conductor directing everyone.

They explain that for centuries, music theorists believed orchestras required external conductors to create harmony. This theory was so entrenched that when orchestras occasionally played well without conductors, experts would insist an invisible conductor must be directing them from offstage. Elaborate theories developed about these invisible conductors—their exact movements, how they transmitted instructions to musicians, and how they traveled between concert halls causing similar performances.

Scientific-sounding experiments claimed to "isolate" these conductors by taking elements from concert halls where good music was played, combining them with various chemicals, observing reactions, and declaring the results proof of conductors. When skeptics pointed out no one had ever directly observed these conductors, they were told the burden was on them to prove conductors didn't exist.

In reality, the musicians were coordinating through their shared environment—feeling the same acoustic resonance in the hall, responding to subtle cues from each other, and following natural rhythms they all innately understood. Their instruments, being properly tuned to the same frequency standards, naturally created harmony when played together by skilled musicians.

This is similar to the presentation's view of health and illness. Rather than invisible viruses conducting the "symphony" of disease from person to person, people experience similar symptoms because they share environments, stressors, nutritional patterns, and respond to collective biological rhythms. The human body, like a skilled musician, has innate intelligence that responds to its surroundings. When multiple bodies in proximity respond similarly, it's not because an invisible conductor (virus) is directing them, but because they're responding to the same environmental concert hall with their inherent biological wisdom.

12-point summary

1. Three foundational claims questioned: The entire COVID-19 response was built on three claims: viruses are tiny infectious agents consisting of genetic material surrounded by a protein coat; COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2; and communicable diseases spread when healthy people contact sick people or their bodily fluids. The presentation argues these claims have never been scientifically validated.

2. Virus isolation procedures are problematic: What virologists call "isolation" doesn't match the common definition. Their procedure involves mixing patient samples with various substances (viral transport medium, antibiotics, antimycotics), adding this to foreign cells (typically monkey kidney cells), reducing nutrients, then claiming the resulting cell breakdown (cytopathic effect) proves a virus was present in the original sample.

[Unbekoming: This short clip from Cowan is worth watching.]

3. Scientific method violations: The scientific method requires isolating an independent variable (the presumed cause) to manipulate while controlling other variables. The presentation argues virology fails this requirement since the virus (independent variable) is never isolated from patient samples without being combined with other substances, making it impossible to determine if observed effects are caused by a virus or other factors.

4. Control experiments show identical results without patient samples: Stefan Lanka and other researchers conducted control experiments following standard virological procedures but without using any patient samples (no possible source of virus). These consistently produced the same cytopathic effect and identical-looking particles in electron microscopy as those claimed to be viruses, suggesting these effects are caused by the experimental procedure itself, not viruses.

5. COVID-19 statistics reveal non-viral factors: According to CDC data presented, 95% of COVID deaths had an average of four comorbidities, 79% of hospitalizations were in overweight/obese people, and fear/anxiety-related disorders were the second strongest risk factor for death in a study of 540,000 hospitalized patients, suggesting factors beyond a virus significantly impacted outcomes.

6. Spanish Flu experiments failed to demonstrate contagion: In 1918-1919, US Navy experiments involving 160 volunteers attempted to transmit Spanish Flu through various methods (including direct coughing from sick patients into volunteers' faces and injecting blood from sick patients). Despite using extreme exposure methods, only three men (2%) became sick, and their symptoms didn't match typical Spanish Flu, challenging the contagion narrative.

7. Mass psychogenic illness provides alternative explanation: The Tanganyika laughter epidemic of the 1960s, where uncontrollable laughter and anxiety symptoms spread to over 1,000 people across multiple villages without any physical cause, demonstrates that illness patterns can spread through social and psychological mechanisms without particle transmission.

8. Water memory experiments suggest non-material communication: Veda Austin's experiments show water forms distinct patterns reflecting stimuli it's exposed to (words, images, thoughts). In her egg experiments, one free-range egg placed among twelve caged eggs overnight caused the caged eggs' albumin to develop more coherent crystalline patterns, suggesting information transfer without physical contact.

9. Freedom of Information requests reveal lack of evidence: Christine Massey submitted over 220 Freedom of Information requests to health agencies worldwide asking for records showing isolation of SARS-CoV-2 directly from patient samples without adding other substances. Every request reportedly received the response that no such records exist, suggesting these agencies lack evidence for their fundamental claims.

10. Alternative framework for illness causation: The presentation offers a framework based on balance between physical malnutrition (lack of nutrients, movement, natural light), metaphysical malnutrition (lack of community, purpose, stillness), physical toxins (chemicals, processed foods), and metaphysical toxins (toxic relationships, chronic stress). Group illness patterns may result from shared environments and exposures rather than contagion.

11. The human biofield as a communication mechanism: Humans, being mostly water and electrically active, generate subtle electromagnetic fields that may transmit information between individuals, similar to how modern technology communicates wirelessly. The principle that "a strong coherent field overtakes and entrains weaker incoherent fields" may explain how health states influence others without particle transmission.

12. Symptoms as intelligent biological responses: Rather than viewing symptoms as problems to be suppressed, the presentation suggests they represent the body's intelligent response to imbalance. By fearing and suppressing these responses, we perpetuate suffering rather than addressing root causes of illness.

40 Questions and Answers

1. What are the three fundamental claims about viruses and infectious diseases that the presentation aims to analyze?

The presentation identifies three fundamental claims that underpin the COVID-19 response measures. The first claim is that a virus is a tiny infectious agent consisting of genetic material (either DNA or RNA) surrounded by a protein coat called a capsid, as defined by the World Health Organization. The second claim is that COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, also coming from the WHO. The third claim is that communicable diseases (also known as infectious diseases) are disorders caused by organisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites, and are spread when healthy people come into contact with sick people or their bodily fluids, a definition attributed to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the CDC.

These three central claims form the foundation upon which all the COVID-19 response measures were built - the lockdowns, school closures, business closures, masking requirements, PCR tests, vaccines, vaccine mandates, and economic impacts. The presentation sets out to examine whether these claims have actually been scientifically proven according to proper scientific methodology.

2. How does the Santa Claus analogy relate to beliefs about viruses?

The Santa Claus analogy illustrates how people can falsely attribute observed effects to an unproven cause. Children believe Santa exists because they observe effects that seem to confirm his existence - presents appear under the tree, cookies are half-eaten, there are hoofprints on the lawn, and they experience real internal emotional responses related to this belief. Children conclude these effects must be caused by Santa Claus, when adults know these effects actually have different explanations.

Similarly, the presentation argues that people attribute symptoms and illness to viruses because they observe effects (getting sick) and have been told these effects are caused by invisible viral particles, even though the actual existence of these particles hasn't been proven. Just as Santa represents "the best fit model" to explain Christmas phenomena to children, viruses represent a "best fit model" for explaining illness - but the presentation suggests that, like Santa, viruses may be an explanation that falls apart under scientific scrutiny despite the observed effects being real.

3. What is the ping-pong ball thought experiment, and how does it relate to virology?

The ping-pong ball thought experiment, attributed to Dr. Tom Cowan in "The Contagion Myth" (now called "The Truth About Contagion"), involves claiming a ping-pong ball can break down a brick wall. To "prove" this claim, corrosive acid is poured over the wall, a hammer is used to smash it multiple times, the ping-pong ball is attached to a giant boulder connected to a crane, and then hurled at the wall. When the wall collapses, the ping-pong ball is credited with causing the destruction, ignoring all other contributing factors.

This relates to virology because the presentation argues that virus isolation procedures follow a similar pattern of circular reasoning. Substances from a sick person are combined with various toxic chemicals (antibiotics, antimycotics), added to foreign cell lines, the nutrient medium is reduced, and when cells break down (cytopathic effect), the assumed virus is credited as the cause - even though the virus was never actually isolated or proven to exist in the original sample. Unlike the ping-pong ball (which is at least present), viruses are merely assumed to be in the fluids and then assumed to cause the observed cellular destruction.

4. What statistics are presented regarding COVID-19 deaths and comorbidities?

According to the presentation, CDC data shows that 95% of COVID deaths had an average of four comorbidities, with most being lifestyle or nutrition-related factors. Additionally, 79% of COVID hospitalizations occurred in people who were overweight or obese. Approximately 75% of COVID deaths were in people aged 65 and older, demonstrating the significant age-related risk factor.

Perhaps most striking was the claim about a study published partly by the CDC examining 540,000 people who were hospitalized and subsequently died with a COVID label. This study reportedly found that the second strongest risk factor for death associated with a COVID label was fear and anxiety-related disorders. This suggests that psychological factors played a significant role in COVID mortality, which challenges the mainstream narrative that the virus itself was the primary determinant of outcomes.

5. What does the term "isolation" mean to the general public versus virologists?

For the general public and most people outside virology, "isolation" means to separate something from everything else - to obtain a substance in its pure or free state. This is the common understanding of isolation: having a thing by itself, separate from other things. This definition aligns with the ordinary dictionary meaning and common usage of the term.

In contrast, virologists use the term "isolation" to describe a process that doesn't actually isolate a virus in the conventional sense. Their procedure involves taking fluids from a sick person (assumed but not validated to contain viruses), adding them to viral transport medium (containing antibiotics, antimycotics, and fetal serum), introducing this mixture to foreign cells (typically monkey kidney cells), adding more substances like fetal bovine serum (while reducing the nutrient concentration), and applying more antibiotics and antimycotics. When cells break down, they claim this "isolates" a virus, though nothing has actually been separated or purified according to the conventional meaning of isolation.

6. What substances are typically used in virus isolation procedures?

Virus isolation procedures typically begin with snot, blood, or other fluids from a sick person, which are assumed to contain virus particles though this is never validated. These samples are added to viral transport medium, which at minimum contains antibiotics, antimycotics, and fetal serum. This mixture is then added to foreign cells, which are typically monkey kidney cells, though sometimes human embryonic kidney cells or cancer cells are used.

Additional substances are then incorporated into the culture, including fetal bovine serum (used as a nutrient source but reduced from the normal 10% to as low as 0-2%), more antibiotics (typically gentamicin or geneticin, sometimes penicillin/streptomycin), and more antimycotics like Amphotericin B. These substances are added to supposedly keep the environment sterile and free of bacterial and fungal growth, though the presentation notes these substances are known to be nephrotoxic (toxic to kidneys) and cytotoxic (toxic to cells generally), which is problematic since they're typically added to kidney cells.

7. What is the cytopathic effect, and why is it significant in virus research?

The cytopathic effect (CPE) refers to cell injury or death that occurs when cells break down in culture. In virus research, when cells experience the cytopathic effect after being exposed to the mixture of patient samples, viral transport medium, antibiotics, antimycotics, and other substances, virologists interpret this as evidence of viral activity. They claim that the cell injury or death is caused by viruses infecting and damaging the cells.

This is significant because the cytopathic effect serves as the primary evidence that virologists use to claim a virus is present. However, the presentation argues this interpretation is fundamentally flawed because the exact same cytopathic effect can be observed in cultures where no patient sample (and therefore no possible virus) is present, as demonstrated in control studies by Stefan Lanka and others. According to the American Society for Microbiology, cytopathic effect appearing within 4-5 days is considered indicative of virus presence, yet the control studies showed the same effect occurring within the same timeframe without any possible source of a virus.

8. How are antibiotics and antimycotics like Amphotericin B and Gentamicin relevant to virus isolation procedures?

Antibiotics and antimycotics are added to cell cultures in virus isolation procedures ostensibly to keep the environment sterile and free from bacterial and fungal growth. However, their relevance extends beyond this stated purpose, as they are known to be nephrotoxic (toxic to kidneys) and cytotoxic (generally toxic to cells). This is particularly problematic since they're typically added to kidney cells in these procedures.

The presentation cites studies showing that Amphotericin B "may facilitate influenza virus isolation and production in Vero cells," and that gentamicin "has a significant cytotoxic and adverse effect on cell viability." Zeck quotes AI responses confirming it is "well established that Amphotericin B, gentamicin, and geneticin are toxic to kidneys" and can lead to renal failure. This suggests these substances themselves could be causing or contributing to the cell damage (cytopathic effect) that virologists attribute to viruses, representing a major confounding variable in virus isolation procedures.

9. What is fetal bovine serum, and how is it harvested?

Fetal bovine serum (FBS) is a nutrient source used in cell cultures during virus isolation procedures. It is harvested from bovine fetuses taken directly from pregnant cows during slaughter. The harvesting process involves cardiac puncture without any form of anesthesia, where blood is extracted directly from the heart of the bovine fetus.

The presentation states that fetuses are "probably exposed to pain and/or discomfort" during this process, though Zeck amends this to say it's "definitely" the case rather than "probably." Zeck describes the current practice of fetal blood harvesting as "inhumane" and leaves it to the audience to come to their own conclusions about the ethical implications of this practice. In virus isolation procedures, the concentration of fetal bovine serum is typically reduced from the normal level of 10% down to 2%, 1%, or sometimes 0%, which reduces the nutrients available to the cells in culture.

10. How does natural science and the scientific method relate to virus research?

Natural science is defined as the systematic study of natural phenomena, aiming to determine the causes of observed phenomena. The scientific method is the process of discovering knowledge about the natural world through making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing theories that match known data from repeatable physical experimentation. The key steps include observing a natural phenomenon, formulating a hypothesis (if X, then Y), designing and conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, and analyzing data to validate or invalidate it.

The presentation argues that virus research fails to adhere to the scientific method on multiple fronts. First, it doesn't start with observing a natural phenomenon, as taking bodily fluids out of their natural context and exposing them to various substances creates an artificial situation. Second, it lacks an independent variable, as viruses are assumed but not established to exist in the fluids of sick people. Without having isolated the presumed cause (virus), researchers cannot manipulate it to test whether it produces the observed effect. Third, the presence of confounding variables (toxic antibiotics, antimycotics) is ignored, and proper control experiments are not conducted. According to the presentation, this means virology is fundamentally pseudoscientific rather than following proper scientific methodology.

11. What is required to properly test a hypothesis according to the scientific method?

To properly test a hypothesis according to the scientific method, you must first have the independent variable (the presumed cause) isolated by itself so you can manipulate it while controlling for other variables. The presentation emphasizes that in order to test whether X causes Y, you need X by itself to vary and manipulate. This is described as "the most important part of a scientific experiment" - having the thing you think is the cause available to manipulate independently to see if it produces the effect in question.

The presentation argues that virology fails at this fundamental requirement because viruses are merely assumed to exist in patient samples without first being established to exist. Since the virus (the presumed independent variable) has never been taken directly from the fluids of a sick person without being combined with other substances, there is no actual independent variable to manipulate. Without an isolated independent variable, it's impossible to determine whether any observed effects are caused by the presumed virus or by other factors in the experimental setup.

12. Why does Zeck claim virology doesn't follow the scientific method?

Zeck claims virology doesn't follow the scientific method for several key reasons. First, virology doesn't begin with observing a natural phenomenon, since taking something out of its natural context and exposing it to various substances creates an artificial situation. The moment researchers take bodily fluids from a sick person and add them to various chemicals and cell cultures, they're no longer observing a natural phenomenon.

Second, virology lacks an independent variable (the presumed virus) that can be isolated and manipulated. The virus is assumed to exist in patient samples but has never been directly isolated from these samples without being combined with other substances. Third, virology ignores numerous confounding variables, such as the toxic effects of antibiotics and antimycotics used in cell cultures. Fourth, proper control experiments are not conducted, as the "mock infected cultures" often use different procedures than the virus isolation cultures. Based on these failures to adhere to basic scientific methodology, Zeck concludes that virology is pseudoscientific rather than scientific.

13. What did the conversation with AI systems reveal about virus isolation papers?

Zeck's conversations with AI systems like Meta AI and ChatGPT revealed several striking admissions about virus isolation papers. When asked if there was any paper in the entire field of virology that claims to isolate a virus from a human sample without first combining it with other substances (viral transport medium, antibiotics, antimycotics, foreign cell lines, fetal bovine serum), Meta AI responded that after "an extensive search" it "couldn't find a single paper" meeting this criteria.

The AI systems acknowledged that according to the scientific method, the independent variable (the virus) would need to be isolated to properly establish causation, yet this hasn't been done in virology. When directly asked whether viruses have been shown to exist in reality, both AI systems eventually answered "no." The AIs further acknowledged that if viruses haven't been shown to exist, it would have profound implications for virology, vaccinology, public health policies, and the global economy, with financial ramifications estimated between 2.3-5.2 trillion dollars (Meta AI) or 10-20 trillion dollars globally (ChatGPT).

14. What did John Franklin Enders' experiments with measles show about virus isolation?

John Franklin Enders' claimed isolation of the measles virus involved taking throat washings, blood, and feces samples from measles patients and mixing them with numerous substances including milk, penicillin, streptomycin, heparin, bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, horse serum, more antibiotics, phenol red, soybean trypsin, formalin, hematoxylin, and eosin - all applied to rhesus monkey kidney cells. A cytopathic effect was observed, and Enders claimed the resultant particles were measles viruses.

Critically, Enders also conducted what Zeck calls a control study, following the exact same procedure but without including any sample from a sick patient (meaning no possible source of measles virus was present). In his own paper, Enders stated that the cytopathic changes observed in this control "could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles." Despite getting the same results without any possible virus present, Enders' technique became the foundation for all modern virology. Zeck argues this essentially disproved Enders' own claims about virus isolation, yet his methodology became the standard for the field.

15. What were Stefan Lanka's control studies designed to demonstrate?

Stefan Lanka, a virologist mentioned in the presentation, conducted control studies designed to demonstrate that the cytopathic effect (cell breakdown) and resultant particles observed in virus isolation procedures are not evidence of viruses but rather artifacts of the experimental method itself. He followed the exact same procedure that modern virologists use, including reducing the nutrient serum and using the same concentration of antibiotics, but critically, he did not include any patient sample (no possible source of virus).

Lanka's experiments showed that when following the standard virological procedures without any patient sample, he still obtained the exact same cytopathic effect and resultant particles that virologists claim are evidence of viruses. This suggests that the cell breakdown and particles seen in virus isolation studies are caused by the experimental procedure itself (reduction of nutrients, addition of toxic antibiotics and antimycotics) rather than by any virus. Lanka's work challenges the fundamental assertion that the particles seen in electron microscopy after cell cultures break down are viruses.

16. What did the team of biochemists and geneticists find in their control studies?

A team of 30 experienced biochemists and geneticists conducted what Zeck calls "the world's most comprehensive control studies to falsify the virological methodology." Following American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) protocols (the same protocols used by virologists), they performed 90 experiments using human embryonic kidney cells (HEK 293T), which are considered more robust cell lines, and penicillin/streptomycin, which are considered less harsh antibiotics.

In each experiment, despite not using any human sample (no possible source of virus), they consistently achieved the cytopathic effect within the same timeframe that the American Society for Microbiology considers indicative of virus presence (4-5 days). To objectively verify the cytopathic effect, they used laser spectrometry and cell viability analyzers rather than subjective visual assessment. They found that simply reducing the nutrient serum from 10% to 2% or 1% (as virologists do) was sufficient to cause significant cell death, with 30-36% of cells experiencing cytopathic effect by day four, completely independent of any presumed viral presence.

17. What do electron microscopy images show in control studies without human samples?

Electron microscopy images from control studies where no human samples (and therefore no possible source of virus) were present show particles that are indistinguishable from what health agencies claim are viruses. The presentation displays side-by-side comparisons of CDC images of supposed SARS-CoV-2, HIV, and measles viruses alongside images from control studies where no human samples were used.

These comparisons reveal particles of the same size, shape, and morphological appearance in both sets of images. The particles in the control studies are identical to what the CDC and other health agencies refer to as viruses, despite there being no possible source of these viruses in the cultures. This suggests that the particles seen in electron microscopy that are claimed to be viruses are actually just normal cellular components or artifacts produced by the cell culture and preparation process itself, not evidence of viruses.

18. What issues does Harold Hillman raise about preparing tissue for electron microscopy?

Harold Hillman, a biologist quoted in the presentation, raises serious concerns about the preparation process for electron microscopy in his paper "Cell biology is currently in dire straits." Hillman explains that when tissue is prepared for electron microscopy, "an animal is killed, the tissue is excised, it is fixed or frozen, it is embedded, sectioned, stained, and is irradiated by electron beams."

Zeck argues that this extensive processing would drastically alter the appearance of any tissue from its natural state, making it impossible to know whether what's being observed is representative of living tissue or merely artifacts of the preparation process. After the initial virus "isolation" procedure (which involves mixing patient samples with various substances, adding them to cell cultures with antibiotics and antimycotics, and observing cell breakdown), the resulting material undergoes this additional extensive processing for electron microscopy. This creates numerous opportunities for artifacts - structures that appear in the images but aren't present in living organisms. Hillman's critique suggests it's inappropriate to claim these highly processed images represent what exists inside a living organism.

19. What is the affirming the consequent logical fallacy, and how does it relate to symptoms like loss of taste and smell?

The affirming the consequent logical fallacy occurs when someone claims the antecedent (cause) is true because the consequent (effect) is true. It takes the form: "If X, then Y. Y occurred, therefore X." Zeck uses a basketball game analogy where someone hears the crowd go "ooh" and assumes a dunk occurred, when in fact many things could cause that crowd reaction (like a referee being punched).

This fallacy relates to symptoms like loss of taste and smell because many people conclude they had COVID-19 specifically because they experienced these symptoms. Zeck argues this is fallacious reasoning because while loss of taste and smell might occur with COVID-19 (if Y, then X), experiencing those symptoms doesn't prove COVID-19 was the cause, as many other factors can cause the same symptoms. The presentation shows that loss of taste and smell has been documented with flu and respiratory infections since at least 1988, citing a Los Angeles Times article from that year discussing this exact phenomenon, demonstrating that this symptom is neither new nor specific to SARS-CoV-2.

20. What alternative explanations are offered for loss of taste and smell symptoms?

Several alternative explanations are offered for loss of taste and smell symptoms, beyond the presumed viral cause. Mass psychogenic illness or social contagion is suggested as one possibility - where symptoms spread through psychological mechanisms after being heavily reported in media. Zeck suggests we may have undergone "collective amnesia" about the fact that loss of taste and smell has long been associated with respiratory illnesses.

Other potential explanations include exposure to non-native electromagnetic fields (particularly novel or increased exposure to technologies like 5G), general mineral imbalances (such as zinc deficiency or copper toxicity), weather changes (differences in humidity and temperature affecting mucous membranes), and what German New Medicine calls a "stink conflict" (experiencing a conflict that metaphorically "stinks" triggering biological responses). Zeck emphasizes they're not making definitive claims about what causes this symptom but presenting possible explanations beyond the viral paradigm, noting there could also be numerous other factors not yet considered.

21. What is the burden of proof fallacy, and how does it apply to virus existence claims?

The burden of proof fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim that needs justification but then demands that opponents justify the opposite claim. The presentation emphasizes that in both science and law, "the burden of proof lies on the individual bringing forth the positive claim." When someone claims a virus exists and causes illness, the burden is on them to prove both the existence of the virus and its causal relationship to the illness.

The fallacy applies to virus existence claims when proponents ask skeptics to prove viruses don't exist. Zeck likens this to claiming a "unicorn with lasers for eyes" exists and caused damage, then demanding skeptics prove such creatures don't exist. Since one cannot prove a negative, this demand is illegitimate. The proper approach is to falsify the positive claim by showing its evidence is insufficient or flawed. The presentation argues that the burden to demonstrate virus existence has never been met by the scientific establishment, yet skeptics are incorrectly tasked with disproving their existence.

22. What logical fallacies are identified in arguments supporting virus existence?

The presentation identifies several logical fallacies in arguments supporting virus existence. Besides the affirming the consequent and burden of proof fallacies already discussed, these include: ad hominem (attacking the person rather than their arguments), appeal to authority (citing experts like Robert Malone or Steve Kirsch rather than addressing the evidence), bandwagon fallacy (claiming viruses must exist because most experts believe they do), reification fallacy (attributing characteristics to hypothetical constructs that haven't been proven to exist), and begging the question/circular reasoning (assuming viruses exist in premises used to prove their existence).

The circular reasoning example is particularly emphasized: the premise assumes "viruses are present in the patient" and "virus causes CPE," then after performing the isolation procedure and observing cytopathic effect (CPE), concludes "CPE was caused by viruses that were present in the patient." This circular logic assumes what it's trying to prove, making the entire reasoning process fallacious.

23. What experiments were conducted during the Spanish Flu of 1918-1919?

Between November 1918 and March 1919, the US Navy conducted a series of experiments on sailors to determine the cause and transmission of Spanish Flu. These experiments took place on Deer Island, Angel Island, and Gallops Island, involving over 160 volunteer sailors. The experiments used multiple methods to attempt to transmit illness from sick to healthy individuals.

These methods included: inoculating healthy sailors with pure cultures of Pfeiffer's bacillus obtained from Spanish Flu patients, spraying unfiltered mucus secretions from influenza patients directly into the nasal passages and throats of healthy sailors, applying unfiltered mucous secretions into the eyes and nasal cavities of healthy sailors, injecting filtered mucous secretions into healthy sailors, injecting blood from Spanish Flu patients into healthy sailors, and exposing healthy sailors to sick patients through direct interactions (having sick patients open-mouth cough directly into volunteers' faces, shake hands, and interact at close range).

24. What were the results of the Spanish Flu contagion experiments?

The results of the Spanish Flu contagion experiments were striking: across 25 experiments involving 160 volunteers, only three men became sick (less than 2%). Two developed what was classified as influenza, and one developed what was called an "influenza-like illness." Notably, the symptoms these three men experienced did not match the hallmark Spanish Flu symptoms, despite researchers using various unnatural methods of transmission.

The presentation emphasizes that a large portion of the volunteers were within the 20-40 age range, which is significant because nearly half of Spanish Flu deaths occurred in this demographic. Despite this age-related vulnerability and the extreme exposure methods used during what was allegedly "the most infectious and deadly pandemic in human history," 98% of the volunteers remained completely healthy. The principal researcher, Milton Rosenau, was quoted as saying: "We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease."

25. What factors were present during the Spanish Flu that might explain symptoms?

The presentation notes several significant factors present during the Spanish Flu period (1918-1919) that might explain the symptoms attributed to the flu. World War I was occurring concurrently, during which approximately 150,000 tons of chemical weapons were produced, with 125,000 tons deployed on battlefields. These were gaseous chemical weapons that could cause respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, doctors during this period were prescribing extremely high doses of aspirin to patients - 8,000 to 15,000 mg per day, equivalent to consuming 25 aspirin tablets daily. The presentation includes side-by-side comparisons showing that the symptoms of gas poisoning (cyanosis, cough, fever, headache, malaise, respiratory distress, etc.) and aspirin poisoning (bleeding, delirium, difficulty breathing, fever, pulmonary edema, etc.) were virtually identical to the symptoms attributed to Spanish Flu. While Zeck explicitly states they are "making no claims here," the implication is that chemical weapons exposure and aspirin overdoses could potentially explain many of the symptoms attributed to the Spanish Flu.

26. What was the Tanganyika laughter epidemic, and what does it demonstrate?

The Tanganyika laughter epidemic occurred in the 1960s in what is now Tanzania, starting in an all-girls school. The symptoms included uncontrollable laughter and crying lasting from minutes to hours, along with feelings of being chased. This "illness" spread rapidly, affecting 95 out of 159 students (58%) at the initial school. When the school was temporarily closed and then reopened, 57 more students were affected, leading to another closure.

The epidemic spread beyond the school, impacting over 200 people in a nearby village. When affected students returned to their homes, villages began experiencing the same uncontrollable laughter and feelings of being chased. The epidemic lasted 18 months, spreading to numerous villages and affecting over 1,000 people. No physical cause was ever identified, and it's considered a classic example of mass psychogenic illness. Zeck uses this as evidence that what appears to be contagion can occur without any physical particles or microbes being transmitted, suggesting psychological and social factors can create contagion-like patterns of illness spread.

27. What framework does Zeck offer for why people get sick?

Zeck offers a framework for illness that centers on balance between four categories: physical malnutrition, metaphysical malnutrition, physical toxins, and metaphysical toxins. Physical malnutrition includes lack of nutrient-dense food, coherent water, movement, natural light, and time in nature - physical things humans require but aren't getting enough of. Metaphysical malnutrition includes lack of community, stillness, prayer, laughter, and purpose - non-physical needs that aren't being met.

On the other side, physical toxins include substances we're overexposed to like glyphosate, fluoride, folic acid, pharmaceuticals, and ultra-processed foods. Metaphysical toxins include toxic relationships, limiting beliefs, perpetual fight-or-flight states, non-native electromagnetic fields, and dishonesty. Zeck suggests illness results from imbalances across these four domains, with each person's situation being unique. Additional factors might include structural imbalances or acute injuries. This framework replaces the viral/germ paradigm with a holistic approach focusing on environmental, nutritional, and psychological factors.

28. What explanations are offered for why people get sick in groups?

The presentation offers several explanations for why people get sick in groups without invoking contagious particles. First, shared exposure to environmental factors - people in the same household or workplace are exposed to the same physical and metaphysical conditions including poor nutrition, environmental toxins, stressful situations, and emotional dynamics. Weather and seasonal changes are another factor, with less sunlight, more time indoors, less movement, and less sweating during winter potentially leading to toxin accumulation.

Additional explanations include potential communication through pheromones, biophotons, or what Zeck calls "ether-based transmission of some sort of energetic imprint," mirror neurons, and other mechanisms not yet understood. Zeck suggests our bodies might signal us to cleanse when we've reached a certain threshold of toxins, particularly during seasonal transitions, which could explain patterns of illness commonly attributed to "flu season." While not making definitive claims about which mechanisms are responsible, Zeck argues these explanations are more plausible than the viral model.

29. What unexplained human phenomena does Zeck list as evidence for non-physical communication?

Zeck lists several unexplained human phenomena as evidence for non-physical communication between people: how women's menstrual cycles synchronize when spending time together; how we can feel when someone is looking at us; how we can sense when someone is lying; how we can tell when someone is talking about us even from thousands of miles away; how we sense danger before it occurs; how we detect when someone has ill intentions; how parents can feel when their child is in distress even when not nearby.

Zeck shares a personal anecdote about his son approaching his wife and nonchalantly stating "Mom, you're pregnant" before there were any physical signs or missed periods. Zeck asks rhetorically how his son could have known this information without some form of non-physical communication. These examples are offered to suggest that human beings have capacities for information exchange beyond the material realm, which might relate to how illness patterns spread in groups without physical transmission of particles.

30. What is the human biofield according to the presentation?

The human biofield, a term coined by the National Institute of Health according to the presentation, refers to the subtle magnetic field that surrounds our bodies as a result of our electrical activity. While Zeck admits they can't personally see biofields (though notes some friends claim to perceive them), they state it's "pretty well established" that anything with an electrical current produces a magnetic field, meaning humans have a biofield surrounding their bodies.

Zeck draws a parallel between this biofield and modern technology, noting that our devices communicate via signals, electromagnetic fields, and overlapping frequencies to transmit complex information. Since we are "electrical beings" and technology can share information through non-material means, Zeck suggests it's probable that human bodies have similar mechanisms embedded within them for non-material information exchange. This biofield concept is presented as a potential mechanism for how health states might be communicated between individuals without physical particle transmission.

31. What were Veda Austin's water experiments, and what did they show?

Veda Austin has been studying how water responds to various stimuli using a simple petri dish freezing technique. She exposes water in petri dishes to different influences including written words, music, pictures, thoughts, feelings, frequencies, and dreams. Her method involves freezing water for approximately 5 minutes and 20 seconds - capturing it in a partially frozen state. She has collected over 45,000 photographic examples showing that water responds to both physical and metaphysical stimuli by forming distinct patterns visible to the naked eye.

Her experiments demonstrate that when water is exposed to a written number, image, or other stimulus, the resulting ice formations often visibly reflect that stimulus. For example, water exposed to a written number "4" formed ice patterns clearly showing the number 4; water exposed to images of braids, faces, or leaves formed ice patterns resembling those images. Zeck argues these experiments suggest water has its own "symbol-based language" and communicates in unique ways. Austin's methods have been taught in workshops worldwide, with others reportedly achieving similar results, which Zeck suggests shows water changes its physical structure when exposed to different inputs.

32. What happened in Veda Austin's experiments with free-range and caged eggs?

Veda Austin conducted experiments comparing the crystallography patterns in frozen albumin (egg white) from free-range eggs versus caged eggs. She consistently found that free-range eggs (from chickens raised naturally) showed six distinct beautiful, coherent crystalline patterns when their albumin was frozen. In contrast, caged eggs (from chickens kept in poor conditions with hormones and antibiotics) showed no coherent crystallography patterns.

In her most striking experiments, Austin placed one free-range egg surrounded by twelve caged eggs and left them overnight. The next day, she cracked open and froze the albumin from each egg. The results showed that while the free-range egg maintained its beautiful crystallography, all twelve caged eggs now showed improved coherence in their crystallography compared to control caged eggs from the same batch. She repeated this experiment with consistent results - the caged eggs developed more beautiful, coherent patterns simply by being in proximity to the free-range egg overnight. Zeck interprets this as an example of "a strong coherent field overtaking and entraining weaker incoherent fields."

33. What is fourth phase water/exclusion zone water according to Dr. Gerald Pollack?

According to Dr. Gerald Pollack's research as described in the presentation, fourth phase water (also called exclusion zone water or EZ water) forms when water is exposed to hydrophilic (water-loving) surfaces such as cell membranes. This fourth phase is neither solid, liquid, nor gas, but rather a gel-like, highly structured form of water with unique properties. It's called "exclusion zone" water because it forms a zone that pushes away (excludes) impurities, solutes, particles, and anything positively charged to its perimeter.

The inner portion of this structured water develops a high negative charge (high potential energy), while the outer perimeter becomes positively charged. This separation of charges creates what Dr. Pollack describes as a "liquid battery" or capacitor that can store potential energy. Zeck notes that humans are composed of approximately two-thirds water by weight and 99% water at the molecular level, suggesting that if our bodies contain this fourth phase water, it might have significant implications for how information is communicated between cells and potentially between individuals.

34. How might water experiments relate to human health according to the presentation?

The presentation suggests that since the human body is mostly water (two-thirds by weight, 99% molecularly), and given the possibility that our bodies contain fourth phase water, the water experiments might explain how health information is transmitted between people. Zeck draws a direct parallel between Veda Austin's egg experiments and human health, proposing that just as one free-range egg positively influenced twelve caged eggs nearby, a person with a "strong coherent field" might similarly influence those around them.

Zeck theorizes that when someone undergoes detoxification, the water in their body might communicate with waters in others who also need detoxification. When water in our bodies becomes stagnant due to physical or metaphysical factors, this information could be communicated outward through our biofield, interacting with others' biofields. This could explain why multiple people in proximity experience similar symptoms without physical particle transmission. Zeck finds this "a much more beautiful possibility" for explaining group illness patterns than the viral model, suggesting it represents a "brilliant communicative mechanism" between bodies.

35. What is the significance of the quote "a strong coherent field overtakes and entrains weaker incoherent fields"?

This quote, attributed to Zeck's friend Eileen, is presented as a principle that might explain how health states can influence others without physical particle transmission. Zeck finds this concept so significant that they end almost every podcast episode with it and describes Veda Austin's egg experiments as a perfect demonstration of this principle in action - where the coherent field of the free-range egg positively influenced the incoherent fields of the caged eggs.

Applied to human health, this principle suggests that people who maintain coherent, balanced health states (through proper nutrition, reduced toxin exposure, emotional well-being, etc.) might positively influence the health of those around them who are in less coherent states. Rather than viewing illness as something to be feared and avoided through isolation, this perspective suggests healing ourselves and becoming more coherent could help others. Zeck describes this realization as "life-changing," saying they think about it "literally every single day," as it offers a more empowering and beautiful framework for understanding group health dynamics.

36. What does Zeck suggest about Christine Massey's Freedom of Information requests?

Christine Massey, described as someone Zeck "admires greatly," has submitted over 220 Freedom of Information requests to various government health institutions worldwide asking for proof of a virus coming directly from the fluids of a sick person without being combined with other genetic material. These requests specifically asked for records showing the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 (or other viruses) directly from patient samples, using isolation "in the everyday sense of the word" - separating a thing from everything else.

Zeck reports that in every single one of these Freedom of Information requests, regardless of which agency was asked, the response was essentially the same: "A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request." Zeck considers this significant because these are the very agencies making claims about viruses causing disease, yet they apparently cannot provide evidence that the virus has been isolated directly from patient fluids. This is presented as further evidence that the foundational claims about virus existence and causation lack proper scientific substantiation.

37. How does Zeck address gain of function research and viral genomics?

Zeck briefly addresses gain of function research, acknowledging they don't have time to fully explore it in the presentation. They challenge the narrative that gain of function research was heavily censored until recently, showing that from November 2019 through May 2020, mainstream articles openly discussed the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. They suggest this idea was initially "seeded" among the masses before being censored, which they find suspicious.

Regarding viral genomics, Zeck notes that the human genome has never been fully mapped despite humans being visible and tangible, yet scientists claim to know the exact genomes of viruses that haven't been proven to exist. They reference an interview with Dr. David Martin (episode 40 of their podcast), where Martin reportedly stated there "is not and never has been a transmissible particle being passed from person to person." Zeck recommends additional resources for those interested in these topics, including a podcast with Jernej Tomšič, PhD on PCR, and books, papers, and films that address viral genomics in greater detail.

38. Why does Zeck claim the current understanding of health is problematic?

Zeck argues the current understanding of health is problematic because it rests on unproven foundational claims about viruses and contagion. Since these claims haven't been scientifically validated according to proper methodology, everything built upon them - from allopathic medicine to vaccine programs - is fundamentally flawed. Because the mainstream remains "myopically focused" on this "unproven, dare I say disproven paradigm," we aren't adequately exploring alternative explanations for disease.

Even natural health approaches like chiropractic, Ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and naturopathy, which Zeck considers "better than allopathic medicine," are criticized for often operating within a "flawed germ-based paradigm." Zeck claims we're "remaining entrenched in a very materialistic paradigm" that fails to explore "the true nature of health as well as the true nature of reality." They call for "upending this whole paradigm" to discover how the human body really works, what we're truly capable of, and what truly causes disease and maintains wellness.

39. What books and resources are recommended for further study?

Zeck recommends several books and resources for further study. Their eight favorite books on the topic include: "The Truth About Contagion" by Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell, "The Final Pandemic" by Mark and Sam Bailey, "An End to Upside Down Medicine" by Mark Gober, "Virus Mania" by multiple authors including Sam Bailey, "Breaking the Spell" by Tom Cowan, "Pasteur vs. Béchamp" by Ethel Hume, "Can You Catch a Cold" by Daniel Ryu (described as the recommended first read for beginners), and "What Really Makes You Ill" by Dawn Lester and David Parker (described as "the Bible for this topic").

Additional recommended resources include viroliegy.com by Mike Stone, Dr. Sam Bailey's website, Steve Falconer's video series "A Farewell to Virology" on BitChute, Zeck's own podcast "The Way Forward with Alec Zeck," and their educational series "The End of COVID" (108 hours of content at theendof.com). Zeck also mentions an upcoming membership platform called "The Way Forward" where people can connect with like-minded individuals, farms, schools, and practitioners in their local area.

40. What is Zeck's ultimate message about symptoms and the body's intelligence?

Zeck's ultimate message is that symptoms are not something to fear but rather the body "doing exactly what it's designed to do." They argue that when we fear, manipulate, or suppress our body's innate intelligence by treating symptoms as the problem, we only perpetuate our own suffering. Instead of viewing symptoms as something to be eliminated, they should be understood as the body's intelligent response to imbalance.

This perspective reframes the entire approach to health - rather than fighting against the body's processes or attempting to suppress symptoms through medications, we should support the body's inherent wisdom and address root causes of imbalance. Zeck emphasizes that they're not claiming to know with certainty what is true regarding health and disease, but encourages viewers to explore for themselves and "always trust your own judgment before you even trust mine or anyone else's." This empowering message places trust in the body's intelligence and the individual's discernment rather than external authorities.

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.