Virology

Interview with Mike Stone

I published Virus last month and the comments section exploded.

I’ve had more comments on this article than any other of the 350+ posted so far.

Virus

I pinned my comment in that article saying this:

I think the best description of my current state on this question is:

Covid and its vaccine was brought to me by the same charlatans that created virology. On that basis, what are the chances that virology is wholly or substantially untrue and corrupt. I think pretty damn high. Bordering on a certainty.

On that basis I would like to try to figure out what and where the untruths are. Cowan makes some very specific points. If they can be refuted, then I welcome the refute.

This is important stuff. The whole globalist plan is built around the idea of public health. The primary threat to global public health is viruses, we are told. The primary solution to that threat are vaccines (a virology product).

So, said another way, the whole world is now being run on ideas birthed out of virology. If there is any subject at all, that merited rigorous interrogation, seeking its truth; this is it.

In my quest to understand more I came across Mike Stone and his Substack.

ViroLIEgy Newsletter | Mike Stone | Substack

I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading his articles and have decided that I found a subject matter expert. He thinks and writes with a great critical mind, is widely and deeply read, and supports all his points with references. And, just for good measure, he can explain this stuff to a layperson.

So, I approached him for a written interview and as you will see below, I think he has produced something that is frankly magnificent.

I think, like Cowan, in my Virus article, Stone lays out considerable evidence for his views and positions. To the extent that one wants to disagree or dispute these positions, I think the onus is on us to refute his evidence with better evidence.

I've always maintained that if the inputs cannot be refuted, then the output stands.

In the interview Stone quotes William Summers from a 2014 article Inventing Viruses:

“In a very real way, a virus is what virologists say it is.”

This reminds me of a great documentary I watched many years ago:

Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? (2006) - IMDb

Where a couple buy a painting at a garage sale and then spend years trying to get it authenticated as a Pollock. At the end of the documentary, the pre-eminent expert on Pollock’s paintings is interviewed, and he says, with an edge in his voice:

“It’s a Pollock when I say it’s a Pollock.”

This issue, encompassing Virology, Immunology, and Vaccinology, is a matter of gatekeeping. The gatekeepers, both individuals and institutions, have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

Born of this justified distrust, it is now only fair and reasonable to question Virology, for that is what they, the Gatekeepers, have deservedly brought onto themselves.

Without further ado, and with much gratitude and appreciation I give you Mike Stone.

[Note: Any errors in the footnotes are mine and are based on the Official Story.]

---

Tell us a bit about your background and journey to this point.

Regarding my educational background, I earned my BA in Exercise Science in 2004 from the University of Northern Iowa. I was a personal trainer for a few years until a back injury in 2007 unfortunately left me unable to continue pursuing that career. I adjusted by becoming a Health Coach, which utilizes a conversational approach focused on reflective listening to help clients to discover the root issues affecting their health. We work to uncover and ignite the intrinsic motivation within to help clients achieve success in accomplishing their health-related goals.

Regarding my awakening, there are three major events that woke me up to the madness that is our “healthcare” industry as well as the fraud of germ “theory” and virology. The first was dealing with shady practices within the medical industry while trying to resolve issues with chronic pain stemming from my back injury. This over 10-year journey left me frustrated and disenfranchised with our “healthcare” system, and it nearly killed me with pain medications.

The second event was the birth of my son in 2013. Upon taking him for his childhood vaccinations, he experienced bad reactions on two separate occasions, and these reactions woke me up to the vaccination lie. We immediately stopped vaccinations after my son's first birthday, and this compelled me to start to really examine the approach that our system used to make us “healthy.”

The most pivotal event that shook me awake was when my mother-in-law finally came to the US to live with us in 2017. Unfortunately, due to a perfect storm of circumstances, she fell ill within a few weeks of her arrival. My mother-in-law was then given multiple inaccurate diagnoses as to the cause of her illness, and she was subjected to toxic treatments that left her in a worse stare than before. I witnessed the system murder my mother-in-law over a three-year period, and my faith in it was utterly shattered.

However, during this time, I began to research how accurate disease diagnosis was due to a fraudulent HIV test result my mother-in-law had received. This led to my learning about the HIV/AIDS lie due to the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka, the Perth Group, David Crowe, Kary Mullis, Peter Duesberg, Jon Rappoport, and many others. I learned that HIV had never been purified and isolated nor ever demonstrated to be the cause of AIDS. Once the HIV/AIDS domino fell, I started to understand that the same issues with HIV were present in all “viruses.” While I researched quietly in the background for my own knowledge, the “Covid-19 pandemic” created a sense of urgency within me to speak out. I started ViroLIEgy.com (and eventually the Antiviral Substack) in order to bypass censorship and reach a wider audience in order to spread awareness.

Why is the process of viral isolation critical in the study of viruses and their impact on human health?'

The issue of isolation is of major importance in order to actually study a thing properly. If a researcher is going to examine and attempt to learn about the particles that they believe are a “virus,” they would need to have only those particles that they believe to be the “virus” on hand. They would need to separate the assumed “virus” from everything else that is contained within the fluids of the host. This includes host materials and constituents, bacteria and fungi, cellular debris and extracellular vesicles, and any other microbes or organisms both known and unknown. Only then could they actually study the assumed “viral” particles effectively by determining which ones they believe are the assumed “virus” from a sea of similar and identical particles of the same size and density. Only then would the researchers have a proper independent variable (i.e. the cause - the assumed “viral” particles) to vary and manipulate during experimentation in order to determine what influence it has on the dependent variable (i.e. the effect - the specific symptoms of disease). Only then could they attempt to prove pathogenicity naturally by subjecting a healthy host to nothing but the isolated particles believed to be the “virus” without any other confounding variables present.

The problem for virology is that they have completely debased the meaning of the word “isolation.” Instead of separating one thing from everything else, they add multiple things together into a petri dish and assume that a “virus,” which they have never isolated or identified prior to any experiment taking place, exists within the fluids. In other words, rather than isolation via subtraction as it should be done logically, virologists do “isolation” via addition which is not logical in the slightest. This process consists of taking the unpurified fluids containing host materials and other contaminants and adding them to a solution called “viral” transport media. This solution itself is a mixture of nutrients, chemicals, and fetal bovine serum (the blood from the heart of a baby cow). This is then added to a cell culture which is also contained in its own media consisting of similar components. The cell utilized is usually taken from the kidneys of an African green monkey, but they also use cells from dog kidneys, cells from cancer patients, and cells from aborted fetuses. Antibiotics and antifungals known to be toxic to cells, especially kidney cells, are also added at various stages. The researchers will incubate this toxic unpurified mixture until they see signs of a cell dying, and then claim that the cell death, known as the cytopathogenic effect (CPE), was brought about by the “virus” that was assumed to exist, but never identified, from the start.

One major problem for virologists is that this cytopathogenic effect is known to occur due to various factors, including:

1. Bacteria

2. Amoeba

3. Parasites

4. Antibiotics

5. Antifungals

6. Chemical contaminants

7. Age and cell deterioration

8. Environmental stress

Thus, this effect that is used to claim that a “virus” is present within a cell culture is not specific to any “virus” and does not require any “virus” whatsoever as an explanation.

Regardless, here is how the cell culture process was described by Zhou et. al in one of the foundational papers for “SARS-COV-2:”

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin | Nature

“Human samples, including oral swabs, anal swabs, blood and BALF samples were collected by Jinyintan hospital (Wuhan, China) with the consent of all patients and approved by the ethics committee of the designated hospital for emerging infectious diseases. Patients were sampled without gender or age preference unless indicated. For swabs, 1.5 ml DMEM containing 2% FBS was added to each tube. The supernatant was collected after centrifugation at 2,500 rpm, vortexing for 60 s and a standing period of 15–30 min. The supernatant from swabs or BALF (no pre-treatment) was added to either lysis buffer for RNA extraction or to viral transport medium for isolation of the virus. The viral transport medium was composed of Hank’s balanced salt solution (pH 7.4) containing BSA (1%), amphotericin (15 μg ml⁻¹), penicillin G (100 units ml⁻¹) and streptomycin (50 μg ml⁻¹). Serum was separated by centrifugation at 3,000g for 15 min within 24 h of collection, followed by inactivation at 56 °C for 1 h, and was then stored at 4 °C until use.

Virus isolation, cell infection, electron microscopy and neutralization assay

The following cell lines were used for virus isolation in this study: Vero E6 and Huh7 cells, which were cultured in DMEM containing 10% FBS. All cell lines were tested and free of mycoplasma contamination, submitted for species identification and authenticated by morphological evaluation by microscopy. None of the cell lines was on the list of commonly misidentified cell lines (by ICLAC).

Cultured cell monolayers were maintained in their respective medium. The PCR-positive BALF sample from ICU-06 patient was spun at 8,000g for 15 min, filtered and diluted 1:2 with DMEM supplemented with 16 μg ml⁻¹ trypsin before it was added to the cells. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, the inoculum was removed and replaced with fresh culture medium containing antibiotics (see below) and 16 μg ml⁻¹ trypsin. The cells were incubated at 37 °C and observed daily for cytopathogenic effects. The culture supernatant was examined for the presence of virus by qRT–PCR methods developed in this study, and cells were examined by immunofluorescence microscopy using the anti-SARSr-CoV Rp3 N antibody that was generated in-house (1:1,000). Penicillin (100 units ml⁻¹) and streptomycin (15 μg ml⁻¹) were included in all tissue culture media.”

As can be seen, at no point is a “virus” ever isolated from the fluids of the sick host and identified, which should be the very first step in this entire process. The cell culture is an invalid pseudoscientific experiment where the IV (the assumed “virus) is not identified until after the experiment takes place, and where the effect (CPE in this case) is known to be caused by factors other than a “virus.” For more on this fraudulent process, please see this article.

Given the complexities in isolating viruses directly from bodily fluids, how do you assess the reliability of current viral isolation methods in accurately identifying and understanding viruses?

The isolation methods are admittedly unreliable. The purification methods that are used for “viruses” such as centrifugation, filtration, precipitation, chromatography, etc. are all unable to separate the particles of the same size and density, even when they are combined together. From a 2020 review, it was stated that the technology to separate extracellular vesicles from “viral” particles does not exist:

The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses

“Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension [56,57]. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs [56,58,59]. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.”

As there are both “viral” and “non-viral” particles that share the same size and density, they sediment and are co-pelleted together. A 2016 article stated that these particles are either similar or indistinguishable from “defective viruses.”

Extracellular vesicles and viruses: Are they close relatives? - PMC (nih.gov)

“Because EVs are produced by virtually all cells, probably every viral preparation is in fact a mixture of virions and EVs. To study their respective functions, it is necessary to separate EVs and virions. This is very difficult with some viruses, such as retroviruses, because both EVs and retroviruses are comparable in size (EVs ranging from 50 to 100 nm, virions being ∼100 nm) and buoyant density (EVs: 1.13–1.18 g/L; most retroviruses: 1.16–1.18 g/L). Other membrane-derived materials may also have similar characteristics. Therefore, density gradients, which are often used to separate EVs from contaminating protein aggregates on the basis of differences in buoyant densities (40), are not always reliable for separation of EVs from viral particles.”

“A growing body of evidence indicates that cells infected with enveloped or nonenveloped viruses release EVs that contain viral components. Here, we aimed to create awareness that virus preparations may never be pure but rather are contaminated with diverse subpopulations of EVs, and some of these EVs may be either indistinguishable from or very similar to so-called defective viruses.”

Thus, the mixtures claimed to be “purified” and isolated “viruses” are neither as there are many similar and identical particles remaining within the sample even after purification procedures are performed. This means that it would be impossible to determine which particles are the assumed “virus” and which particles are not, especially when dealing with a “novel virus.” For more on the purification procedures, please see these articles. For more on the inability to separate “viruses” from similar and identical particles such as “exosomes,” please see these articles.

Given the historical debate about whether filterable ‘viruses' were microscopic entities or merely effects of toxins, what implications does this have for our current understanding of viral pathogenesis?

The issue is that the debate over what a “virus” is centered on a concept that was not based on any observed natural phenomenon. According to Field's Virology textbook, the concept of the invisible “virus” was born once the researchers studying bacteria realized that they were unable to satisfy Koch's Postulates, the criteria considered absolutely necessary to fulfill in order to prove that microbes cause disease:

“These studies formalized some of Jacob Henle's original ideas in what are now termed Koch's postulates for defining whether an organism was indeed the causative agent of a disease. These postulates state that (a) the organism must be regularly found in the lesions of the disease, (b) the organism must be isolated in pure culture, (c) inoculation of such a pure culture of organisms into a host should initiate the disease, and (d) the organism must be recovered once again from the lesions of the host. By the end of the 19th century, these concepts became the dominant paradigm of medical microbiology. They outlined an experimental method to be used in all situations. It was only when these rules broke down and failed to yield a causative agent that the concept of a virus was born.”

As they were unable to identify and blame bacteria, the researchers assumed that there must be something even smaller than bacteria that were the cause of disease. This idea of a filterable “virus” was born primarily from the work of three men: Dmitri Ivanovski¹, Martinus Beijerinck², and Friedrich Loeffler³. Their work consisted of creating experimental disease using various unnatural methods that damaged the host. You can find out more detail on their studies in the article “The Virus Concept.”

The concept of the “virus” existed only as an idea. The “virus” is a fictional entity used to explain disease. As there was no observation of any “virus” in nature as well as no verified independent variable in purified and isolated “viral” particles to study and experiment with, “viral” pathogenesis is a fraudulent model that was established based upon various forms (cell cultures, antibodies, electron microscopy, genomes) of indirect pseudoscientific evidence.

With the evolving definition of viruses throughout the 20th century, what were the key challenges and controversies that scientists faced in reaching consensus on what constitutes a virus?

The "virus” concept evolved greatly throughout the first half of the 20th century as the researchers had no actual physical entity that they were working with as well as no standardized methods with which to perform their research. Thus, there were many conflicting and contradictory ideas and findings throughout this period. Some believed “viruses” to be either toxic proteins or enzymes. Others, as documented by biochemist and historian of science Ton van Helvoort’s⁴ 1996 paper When Did Virology Start?, believed “viruses” to be simply smaller bacterial forms. As the “virus” concept lacked clarity and certainty over the first half of the 20th century, and the link between bacteriology and “viruses” was so strong at this time, these unseen entities were not considered conceptually distinct from bacteria:

“I have come to believe that, despite its widespread appearance in textbooks and journals of that era, the early concept of the “filterable virus” lacked clarity and certainty. More importantly, I also believe that during the 1930s and 1940s, the links between the study of filterable viruses and bacteriology were so strong that viruses were still considered merely another form of bacteria-not conceptually distinct, as they now are.”

With a lack of standardized methods, the findings of effects associated with a specific “virus” from one group of researchers could not be reproduced nor replicated by other groups of researchers. In fact, results were often contradictory towards what was considered established evidence. As such, researchers could not agree on what exactly a “virus” was nor whether the experimental evidence offered was in fact valid or not. A great summary of this rift was presented in a 1999 essay On the history of early virus research by Karlheinz Lüdtke⁵:

“With the “filterable” virus, something had been discovered which, according to the traditional concepts, which after all had mostly proved their worth in research into infectious diseases, could not be described in a way that all researchers could have shared. Very different interpretations of the nature of this phenomenon arose, which were put forward against each other. No experimental evidence for this or that concept, which all researchers should have accepted, could be presented by any side. In other words, the decision as to whether this or that explanation most accurately expresses the “true” nature of the virus could not be “objectified” empirically. Every version of the interpretation of the phenomenon remained open to attack, facts presented to the expert public could often be reinterpreted into fictions by opponents, who brought into play the dependence of the findings on the conditions of observation, the local situation of the experiments, the research-related nature of the attributions of characteristics, etc. as sources of error. For example, findings often reported by certain virus researchers at the time were not confirmed by other researchers as a result of their own experiments, or the observations could not be reproduced by all scientists working with the virus. Often, findings to the contrary were reported, or the findings that had been examined were considered artefacts. As with justification, reasons of various kinds could be invoked to reject the positions debated. Findings that were used to empirically confirm a suspected connection were often soon joined by negative findings reported by other researchers. However carefully and deliberately the techniques used in the experiments were employed, and despite the fact that each party could offer credible reasons for defending their respective positions and provide empirical evidence – which explains why “the various opponents ‘constructed’ widely diverging research objects which they identified as the ‘virus'” (van Helvoort 1994a: 202) – at no time did they offer compelling reasons that would have led the other party to finally abandon artifact accusations.”

In a 2014 article Inventing Viruses by William Summers⁶, a retired Professor of Therapeutic Radiology, Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, and History of Medicine, he stated that “viruses” are whatever a virologist says that they are, and that the concept is continually reinvented.

“In a very real way, a virus is what virologists say it is. It is a product of the way virologists talk about viruses—that is, the way facts about viruses are organized in their discourse. It can be said that virologists invent (and continually reinvent) the concept of a virus as part of the normal progress of their science.”

Sharing similar sentiments as van Helvoort, Summers stated that the “virus” concept is an unstable one that “evolved,” not due to an accumulation of facts, but rather due to an ongoing reformulation of the “virus” concept on the basis of “scientific” focus at a given time. This reinvention was determined by technological advances rather than scientific understanding. Thus, the answer as to what a “virus” is will depend upon the discourse at the time more so than the “known” characteristics of “viruses:”

While there was plenty of data about “viruses” accumulated in the early 1900s, even virologist Thomas Rivers⁷ acknowledged that the accumulated data was “distinctly lacking in quality,” and that “enough reliable data have not been acquired to establish the nature of the viruses.” It wasn't until 1957 when French microbiologist Andre Lwoff⁸ smashed together highly debated competing concepts regarding the nature of bacteriophages, claiming that phages were “viruses” of bacteria, that a manufactured “consensus” opinion was formed. Animal and human “viruses” were then modeled after bacteriophages.

How does Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability apply to the field of virology, and what are its implications for distinguishing between scientific hypotheses and pseudoscientific theories?

The concept of falsifiability was introduced by scientific philosopher Karl Popper⁹ in 1935 in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Essentially, what falsifiability means is that, in order for a hypothesis or theory to be scientific, it must have the ability to be disproven. Someone should be able to conceivably design an experiment that could prove the hypothesis or theory wrong. If a hypothesis or theory is capable of being proven wrong and yet it is supported by experimental evidence of its truth, then it can be considered as a scientific hypothesis or theory. As explained by Popper in his 1963 book Conjectures and Refutations, falsification was an attempt to draw a line between science and pseudoscience.

For virology to be considered a scientific field, the underlying hypotheses must be falsifiable. For example:

Hypothesis: If a “coronavirus” is the cause of atypical pneumonia, then it will cause the same symptoms of disease when healthy hosts are exposed via aerosol.

This is a falsifiable hypothesis, as long as purified and isolated “viral” particles are obtained and identified prior to experimentation, as it can be tested experimentally and falsified when healthy hosts do not come down with atypical pneumonia. However, it becomes an unfalsifiable hypothesis if the “coronavirus” is allowed to be the cause of atypical pneumonia even though it is shown experimentally not to produce the same disease in animals and humans.

Virology is full of unfalsifiable concepts that allow for falsified hypotheses to remain as supporting evidence for the unproven “theory:”

1. The concept of the asymptomatic carrier is an unfalsifiable concept as it allows for supposed disease-causing agents to be considered as such even when they are “found” not causing disease.

2. Relying on “antibodies” and the “immune” system to explain away why people are not getting sick through experimentation creates an unfalsifiable scenario to explain away contradictory results, as many have tried to do when brushing off the findings of Milton Rosenau's¹⁰ Spanish flu experiments.

3. Allowing for the presence of a “virus” in a cell culture even though no cytopathogenic effect is observed is another unfalsifiable concept, as this effect is supposed to signal the presence of a “virus” in a culture.

4. The existence of “virus-like” particles such as multivesicular bodies, clathrin-coated vesicles, the rough endoplasmic reticulum, and/or other extracellular vesicles found in those without disease, even though these same particles are identified as “pathogenic viruses” when seen in those with disease.

By looking at the examples of unfalsifiable concepts present in virology, it should be clear to see how variable and vague the concepts of virology truly are. As stated by Oxford Reference, pseudoscience “provides no room for challenge and tends to dismiss contradictory evidence or to selectively decide what evidence to accept.” They conclude that pseudoscience is “nothing more than a claim, belief, or opinion that is falsely presented as a valid scientific theory or fact.” There is an inability to challenge virology experimentally as there are numerous unfalsifiable concepts available as escape hatches that can be used by virologists in order to dismiss contradictory findings that should falsify the hypothesis. Thus, virology is a pseudoscience.

Considering the variability and non-specific nature of antibody responses, how reliable are antibody tests in confirming or refuting the presence of viral infections?

Antibody tests are unreliable and the results are uninterpretable. For example, early during the “Covid pandemic,” the CDC stated that antibody tests could be wrong over 50% of the time, and that the results from these tests should not be used for policy decisions as they are not accurate enough.

Antibody tests for Covid-19 wrong half the time, CDC says | CNN

“The CDC explains why testing can be wrong so often. A lot has to do with how common the virus is in the population being tested. "For example, in a population where the prevalence is 5%, a test with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity will yield a positive predictive value of 49%. In other words, less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies," the CDC said.”

Another article from CNN from May 2020 stated that antibody results cannot be trusted as the tests are unreliable due to a high number of false positives.

'Immunity passports' are a terrible idea that could backfire, experts warn | CNN

The tests can’t be trusted: Then there’s the fact that while antibody tests are crucial in determining past exposure to coronavirus, not all available antibody tests are reliable. Some antibody tests had high rates of false positives in screenings performed by a consortium of California laboratories. A false positive means someone would be told they’d been previously exposed to coronavirus when they had not.

The reason that the tests are not accurate, as well as non-specific as stated in your question, is due to the fact that, like “viruses,” antibodies have never been purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a host and had the functioning determined via the scientific method. The tests are not calibrated and validated to something that exists and has any real scientific meaning. Thus, the results vary and are essentially meaningless. For more on antibodies, please see these articles.

How does the existence of non-cytopathogenic viruses, which do not produce a cytopathic effect in cell cultures, complicate the process of virus detection and identification?

The existence of non-cytopathogenic “viruses” is one of the many unfalsifiable concepts related to virology. The cytopathogenic effect is supposed to be the sign that a “virus” is present within a culture. According to Axion Biosystems, looking at the damage a “virus” causes to a cell is a practical way of “seeing” and indirectly measuring a “viral infection.” John Franklin Enders¹¹, who coined the term cytopathogenic effects while working on polio tissue cultures in 1949, described it as such in his 1954 paper Cytopathology of Virus Infections:

By "viral cytopathogenicity" is understood the capacity to induce any demonstrable departure from the normal either in the morphological or functional properties of cells. Cellular changes are referred to as "cytopathogenic effects" of the virus or "cytopathic" changes.

These effects are attributed to the presence of a “virus.” Enders further discussed this process in his 1957 paper Comments on Viral Cytopathogenicity:

“The multiplication of viruses, so far as is known, is dependent upon an extremely intimate association with living cells of higher forms. During the course of viral multiplication, which takes place within the cell, the cell is frequently, although not invariably, injured or destroyed. This capacity of viruses to injure and destroy cells, i.e., to cause cellular disease, is now often referred to as "viral cytopathogenicity," and the resultant changes are designated as "cytopathogenic effects."

The CPE is supposed to be a sign of “viral” multiplication and the ability to cause cellular disease. The culture is observed under a microscope in order to see if CPE is present or absent. If a cell culture does not produce this effect, it is supposed to be negative for the presence of a “virus.” This is how the cell culture, if it was a valid scientific experiment based upon a valid hypothesis, should be falsified. However, virology has allowed for the lack of any observable CPE to still signify a “viral” presence if other indirect methods (antibody results, hemadsorption tests, PCR) “show” the “virus” is in there. Thus, we have an unfalsifiable concept for a pseudoscientific experiment bolstered by the usual escape hatches.

What would you like to tell people about exosomes, particularly in the context of virology and disease transmission?

The entities referred to as exosomes are just another name that has been given to the same random particles of cellular debris claimed to be “viruses.” The particles were actually considered to be nothing but cellular debris when they were originally discovered. However, it was eventually decided to give these particles, which are identical to “viruses” in nearly every way, the job of transporting proteins and mRNA throughout the body. Thus, instead of being cellular garbage bags, these random particles created from cell cultures without “viral” material present, were given an unobservable, hypothetical job. In other words, exosomes are just another fictional concept explaining the same exact particles observed after culturing.

Is the science around exosomes solid and reliable, or do you see elements of pseudoscience influencing the research and understanding in this area?

The same problems that occur in virology also occur in exosome research. The researchers are unable to purify and isolate the particles of the same size and density from each other. Thus, there is no valid independent variable to use for any experimentation. This excerpt from the article Extracellular Vesicles and Viruses – Two Sides of the Same Coin? details the problem brilliantly (the article link is sadly broken):

“How can we be sure that we are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped viruses present in the sample? Equally, how can viral researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized non-viral vesicles or empty vectors during vaccine production?”

As exosomes and “viruses” are unable to be separated from each other (as they are the same particles), there is no way to be able to study either independently, distinguish them from any of the other particles, or to characterize the particles properly. A 2019 study highlighted the issues of the similarity of composition and function between exosomes and “viruses” while stating that there are particles that blur the line even further by containing both host and “viral” components, making it impossible to classify them as either one or the other.

“The generic characterization of extracellular vesicles could also be used as a descriptor of enveloped viruses, highlighting the fact that extracellular vesicles and enveloped viruses are similar in both composition and function. Their high degree of similarity makes differentiating between vesicles and enveloped viruses in biological specimens particularly difficult.”

“However, as previously reviewed, exosomes and viruses do not conform to strict definitions [22]. Intermediate particles exist on the spectrum between virus and exosome that contain both host and viral components, making it nearly impossible to classify these vesicles as either defective viruses or exosomes that contain viral components [22]. Intermediate particles are often classified as a virus or exosome derivative, depending on the preference of the investigator, but once these vesicles deviate from strict definitions they may be more accurately defined as an assortment of lipid-encased particles that cannot be easily differentiated [22].”

When one investigates the origins of the exosome concept, it is clear that researchers found the exact same “viral” particles in their cultures that contained no “viral” materials. Rather than allow these findings to tear down the “virus” lie, a new fictional entity was created in order to explain away the contradictory findings. For more on the exosome fraud, please see these articles.

Based on your critique of conventional methods used in studying viral transmission, could you elaborate on what you see as the major flaws in the current understanding of how viruses are transmitted between individuals?"

I would say that the major flaws begin with the assumption that one human can transmit disease to another human (or animal to human), and that this occurs due to invisible floating lifeless boogeymen that somehow enter a body, bypass any defenses, and highjack the cells in order to replicate and cause disease. This is not a naturally observed phenomenon. No one has ever witnessed one human passing a “virus” on to another human in order to cause disease. As will be addressed in the next question, there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that any such transmission ever occurs.

Can you comment on the history of experiments that failed to demonstrate virus transmission. Could you elaborate on why you believe these experiments are critical to understanding the current state of virology?

There have been numerous attempts to take the fluids of a sick person, as well as pure cultures of bacteria, in order to try and make healthy hosts sick with the expected disease. These attempts regularly failed to produce disease in healthy hosts, especially when exposing them via natural routes of “infection” such as by breathing in aerosols, ingesting the pure cultures, or simply being around and interacting with those who are sick.

The most famous example is the Milton Rosenau Spanish flu experiments that took place on opposite coasts at different times. Keep in mind that the Spanish flu is considered the deadliest “virus” of all time. Volunteers at Gallops Island in Boston were subjected to one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus cultured from Spanish flu patients by spray and swab into their noses, throats and eyes. When these attempts failed to produce disease, new volunteers were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. These attempts also failed, so the researchers used the blood from influenza patients and injected this into volunteers. When that failed to produce disease as well, thirteen volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to ten influenza patients each. True to form, this final attempt also failed to produce disease. These same experiments were repeated at Angel Island in San Francisco, and they, too, were entirely unsuccessful in transmitting the “virus” in every single case.

There are many other examples of the failed “infection” and “contagion” studies that I have collected in the Infectious Myth Busted series that include influenza, HIV, measles, polio, smallpox, and various bacterial diseases such as cholera, diphtheria, tuberculosis, glanders, and typhoid. Today, it is considered unethical to expose human volunteers to “infected” individuals via natural exposure routes. This is obviously because these experiments regularly failed to produce the desired results in the past. If they do attempt human challenge trials today, researchers use engineered cell cultured soups containing various additives and expose volunteers in unnatural ways, such as inoculating in the nose and holding this in place with a clothespin while lying down). However, even with these unnatural methods, they still fail to demonstrate human-to-human transmission of disease.

A 2003 review of the published experimental literature stated:

“Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza.”

This is true not just for influenza, but for all “infectious” diseases. Without the ability to demonstrate that one human can be “infected” and transmit disease naturally to another human, the germ hypothesis fails. In fact, based upon the available experimental evidence, the germ hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified.

In your writings, you challenge the established views on contagion and viral transmission. Could you propose an alternative model or method that, in your opinion, would more accurately explain and demonstrate the process of disease transmission?'

I don't believe that disease can be transmitted from one human to another human. Beyond anecdotal stories of chicken pox and measles parties that have no scientific backing, the concept of disease transmission has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false. From my research, disease is multifactorial and develops by the actions of the individual. Thus, I lean heavily towards the terrain theory of disease. This theory, developed by Claude Bernard¹² and Antoine Bechamp¹³ in the mid-1800s, states that dis-ease is not caused by invading pathogens from outside of the body. Instead, the dis-ease process begins from within due to the status of the internal environment of the body. If there occurs an imbalance within the internal environment and the body becomes too toxic, which could be brought about by a combination of many factors such as what we eat, drink, think, feel, etc., this would materialize in symptoms of dis-ease as the body initiates a detoxification process in an attempt to restore balance.

There are many factors that can lead to dis-ease, such as:

1. Increased exposure to air pollution

2. Consuming non-organic, genetically modified, pesticide-laden foods

3. Drinking unclean, fluoridated, and chlorinated water

4. Living a sedentary lifestyle without regular exercise

5. Consuming alcohol and recreational drugs

6. Taking prescription medications and toxic vaccines

7. Interrupted or inconsistent sleep cycle

8. Lack of direct sunlight

9. Long-term exposure to EMF’s and other radiation

10. Overabundance of stress

11. Regular use of cleaning supplies and other chemicals

12. Overaccumulation of heavy metals, plastics, or poisons

While it could be just one of these factors that initiates a detox, it is usually a combination of many of them acting together, along with the mistaken belief that the detoxification process, itself a healing phase, needs to be suppressed and stopped, that leads to worsening states of dis-ease. Unlike the germ “theory” which takes power away from the individual and chalks illness up to bad luck brought about by defective genes or outside invisible invaders, the terrain theory puts the power back onto the individual to take care of himself or herself in order to clean up the factors that are damaging the terrain. It is not on the doctor and the toxic pharmaceuticals to heal us (as if they truly could), it is within our own power to restore and create health. You can read more about the terrain theory here.

What are your thoughts on electromagnetic transmission of disease patterns. Can you explain how this challenges the conventional understanding of disease transmission?

While I do believe that electromagnetic radiation in the form of EMFs and different frequencies such as 5G can impact our health, I have not done enough research into the topic in order to speak on it in-depth. However, I have heard very good reviews on the book The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg¹⁴, so I would recommend anyone interested in exploring the connection between disease outbreaks and the introduction of electromagnetic radiation to begin by reading that book.

What are your thoughts on informational transmission from person to person? If viruses do not exist and as such are not a means of information transfer, do you think there is evidence for other forms of information transfer?

I think that it is a vastly understudied and unexplored area. While I do not believe that disease can be transmitted from one person to another, there may be some form of communication that initiates a detox in the same way that women can sync up menstrual cycles. It could be brought on by a visual and/or auditory cue in the same way that one yawns after witnessing another person yawn. While yawning appears contagious, no one is claiming that a “virus” is being transferred from the first person to the second. There are visual and auditory cues that are picked up on, and if one needs to yawn, the body will initiate the process. This could be the same for someone whose body is in a toxic state and witnesses another person going through a detox. The visual and auditory cues could potentially initiate the individuals own cleansing response if the necessary internal conditions are present. It is definitely something that needs to be explored further over invisible boogeymen.

How can we understand childhood illnesses such as measles and chickenpox without attributing them to viruses? What alternative explanations might exist?

I tend to view chickenpox and measles similarly to how Rudolf Steiner¹⁵ viewed childhood diseases. Steiner seemed very much inclined to believe that disease occurred from spiritual conflict from within and that childhood diseases were caused by the child adapting to the physical world. He believed that the mind played a significant role in “catching” and preventing disease. He felt that the symptoms of disease experienced by children were a natural part of childhood development as the child ages.

“Rudolf Steiner generally portrayed the traditional childhood diseases as signs, aids, trials, and accompaniments of the natural process of child development and maturing immune systems.”

Here is a direct quote from Steiner from the same source.

“The risk of infection is actually great in diphtheria-related disorders, but why? It is because they develop in direct connection with learning to speak, and occur therefore most widely in children aged between two and four. After this age children are less susceptible. But every process in the human organism that arises in the normal course of things at any particular period can also arise abnormally. This process, therefore, that is really simply a natural process of childhood development can also occur at a later age, albeit in a somewhat modified form, a metamorphosis. When diphtheria occurs at a later age this is in a sense an infantile condition that works on in a person.”

These dis-eases very well could be a part of a normal developmental process that children go through, just as acne tends to be a normal condition when kids start going through puberty.

Regarding historical practices like measles parties for local children to ‘catch’ measles and recover simultaneously, what is a better explanation of the 'catching' process in your view, especially without the virus concept?

The issues with chickenpox and measles parties is that they are anecdotal. There is no scientific evidence experimentally demonstrating that one child can pass on either condition to another child. Just because kids go through the same detoxification process via skin eruptions does not mean that this was the result of an “infectious virus” transmitted between them. We wouldn't claim that because some kids at a party started breaking out in pimples after attending, that this was caused by other pimply-covered kids who were at the same party. We understand that kids at a certain age start to experience acne breakouts, whether due to hormones, stress, the foods that they eat, etc. There is no need for a pimple vaccine to stop the pimple “virus.” Eventually, the skin will clear up, especially if the underlying issues are addressed.

The causes for these detoxification symptoms in children is most likely multifactorial. It likely involves the environment that the children are in, the age and development of the child, the foods/drinks they consume, the mental and physical stressors that they experience, etc. As stated earlier, there could be some sort of visual and/or auditory cues that may help initiate this process in some children if the body requires it. However, it could just be that they are all at the same age and at similar developmental cycles, thus they experience the same detoxification protocol around the same time. One thing that is for certain is that there is no scientific evidence that either chickenpox or the measles are caused by a “virus” and that these symptoms can be transmitted from one child to another. Please click on the links for more on chickenpox and measles.

How can interested individuals stay updated with your latest work and research in the field of virology?

For those who are interested and want to follow my work, they can do so via my two sites.

1. ViroLIEgy.com

2. Mikestone.substack.com

Thank you for your interest and support. 🙂

For those seeking to understand the complexities and critiques of virology, could you recommend some key authors, researchers, or specific resources to explore?

Absolutely! The key authors I would recommend include:

1. Dawn Lester and David Parker's What Really Makes You Ill?

2. Dr. Mark Bailey's A Farewell to Virology

3. Dr. Tom Cowan's The Truth About Contagion

4. Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Sam Bailey

5. The Perth Group

6. Ex-virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka

You can find plenty of other great authors and resources here.

Are there any documentaries or lectures you would suggest for a deeper insight into the problems and debates surrounding modern virology?

Yes, I have plenty of documentaries as well as presentations and interviews.

I will highlight a few great presentations and documentaries for beginners.

1. Dr. Jordan Grant's Science, Pseudoscience, and the Germ Theory of Disease

2. Debunking the Nonsense

3. The End of Germ Theory

4. The End of Covid

5. The Viral Delusion

6. Virology's Unproven Assumptions

---

Thank You for Being Part of Our Community

Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content enriching, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work.

Discover Our Free Libraries:

Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.

Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.

Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:

I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.

Resources for the Community:

For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.

Books as a Beacon of Knowledge: Recommend 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.

Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.

1. Dmitri Ivanovski (1864-1920) was a Russian botanist and microbiologist who is credited with contributing significantly to the foundations of virology. In 1892, he conducted pioneering research on the Tobacco Mosaic Disease. His most notable work involved experiments in which he demonstrated that a disease in tobacco plants could be caused by an agent smaller than bacteria, which could pass through a fine porcelain filter that was known to retain bacterial cells.

Ivanovski's discovery was instrumental in the later identification of viruses as a new class of infectious agents, fundamentally different from bacteria. His work laid the groundwork for further research by other scientists such as Martinus Beijerinck, who later coined the term "virus" to describe the infectious agent. Ivanovski's findings were critical in establishing the concept of non-cellular infectious agents, which challenged the prevailing scientific understanding of the time and opened up a new field of study in microbiology and infectious diseases.

2. Martinus Beijerinck (1851-1931) was a Dutch microbiologist and botanist who played a crucial role in the early development of virology and microbiology. He is best known for his work in identifying and understanding viruses as distinct entities separate from bacteria.

Beijerinck's most significant contribution came in 1898 when he studied the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, the same agent earlier researched by Dmitri Ivanovski. Beijerinck conducted experiments that confirmed Ivanovski's findings about the infectious agent's ability to pass through filters that would trap bacteria. However, Beijerinck went a step further in his interpretation. He concluded that the agent was not a bacterium, but something entirely different, which he called a "virus," a term derived from the Latin word for "poison."

Beijerinck's work established the concept of viruses as a new type of infectious agent, laying the foundation for the field of virology. He also made significant contributions in other areas of microbiology, including his work on nitrogen fixation by bacteria in soil, which had a profound impact on agriculture and our understanding of the nitrogen cycle.

Martinus Beijerinck is often considered one of the founders of virology and environmental microbiology due to his pioneering research and innovative approach to studying microscopic life.

3. Friedrich Loeffler (1852-1915) was a German bacteriologist and a pioneering figure in the field of microbiology, particularly known for his contributions to the study of infectious diseases. He is best recognized for his work in the discovery of the diphtheria bacillus (Corynebacterium diphtheriae) in 1884, alongside Edwin Klebs.

Loeffler's most significant contribution to virology came in 1898 when, together with Paul Frosch, he discovered the first animal virus, the agent causing foot-and-mouth disease in cattle. This was a landmark discovery because it was the first time a disease in animals was attributed to a viral pathogen. Their work involved demonstrating that the causative agent of foot-and-mouth disease could pass through filters that were known to retain bacteria, similar to the earlier discoveries in plant viruses by Dmitri Ivanovski and Martinus Beijerinck.

This discovery by Loeffler and Frosch not only had a major impact on veterinary medicine but also played a crucial role in the development of virology as a scientific discipline. It helped in establishing the understanding that viruses could infect animals as well as plants, thereby broadening the scope of virology significantly. Loeffler's work laid important foundations for the field and opened up new avenues for research into viral diseases.

4. Ton van Helvoort is a historian of science, particularly known for his contributions to the history of virology and microbiology. Unlike Dmitri Ivanovski, Martinus Beijerinck, and Friedrich Loeffler, who were scientists directly involved in the discovery and study of viruses, van Helvoort focused on the historical and philosophical aspects of these fields.

His work often involves analyzing the development of scientific concepts and the evolution of scientific understanding over time. One of his notable contributions is his research on the history of early virology, where he examines how the concept of viruses evolved from the late 19th century onwards. This includes exploring the debates and discussions among scientists about the nature of viruses and their role in diseases.

Van Helvoort's work is important for understanding the context in which scientific ideas develop and change. By examining the history of virology, he provides insights into how scientific communities negotiate and construct knowledge in fields that are new and evolving. His research contributes to a deeper understanding of the processes and dynamics that shape scientific disciplines.

5. Karlheinz Lüdtke is a historian of science, recognized for his contributions to the study of the history of virology and other scientific fields. His work, like that of Ton van Helvoort, focuses on the historical development of scientific concepts and the evolution of scientific understanding, rather than direct scientific discovery or experimentation.

Lüdtke's research often delves into how scientific ideas and theories have developed over time, examining the changes in scientific thought and the factors that influence these changes. He has contributed to the understanding of how scientific consensus is formed, how scientific theories evolve, and how various scientific, cultural, and social factors impact the development of scientific fields.

While not as widely known as some of the pioneering virologists like Dmitri Ivanovski or Martinus Beijerinck, historians of science like Lüdtke play a crucial role in contextualizing scientific advancements. They help us understand not just the scientific discoveries themselves, but also the broader context in which these discoveries were made, including the social, economic, and philosophical environments that shaped scientific research.

6. William Summers is a historian and professor emeritus known for his work in the history of science and medicine. He has a particular focus on the history of virology and microbiology, and his research has contributed to understanding the development and evolution of these scientific fields.

Summers' work often involves analyzing the historical context of scientific discoveries, exploring how scientific ideas are formulated, evolve, and are accepted or challenged within the scientific community. His research delves into the historical development of concepts in virology and microbiology, examining the changes in scientific thought and the influences that have shaped these disciplines over time.

His contributions are valuable for providing insights into the complex processes of scientific discovery and the evolution of scientific knowledge. By exploring the history of these fields, Summers helps to illuminate the paths that have led to our current understanding of viruses and microorganisms, as well as the societal and cultural impacts of these discoveries. His work underscores the importance of viewing scientific advancements not just as isolated events, but as part of a broader historical and cultural narrative.

7. Thomas Milton Rivers (1888-1962) was an eminent American virologist and bacteriologist, often referred to as the "father of modern virology." He made significant contributions to the field, particularly in the early to mid-20th century.

Rivers' impact on virology is notable for several reasons:

1. Standardization of Virus Study: Rivers played a key role in standardizing the methods used to study viruses. He was influential in establishing virology as a distinct scientific discipline, emphasizing the need for specific techniques and approaches to study viral pathogens.

2. Poliovirus Research: He made significant contributions to the understanding of poliovirus and was involved in early efforts to develop a vaccine against polio.

3. Influenza Research: Rivers also conducted extensive research on influenza, contributing to the understanding of its causative agent and how it spreads.

4. Laboratory Techniques: He developed and refined many of the laboratory techniques that are foundational to virological research, including methods of growing viruses in laboratory cultures.

5. Leadership in Science: Rivers held prominent positions in scientific societies and institutions. For instance, he was the director of the Rockefeller Institute Hospital and served as president of the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the Society of American Bacteriologists.

6. Education and Training: He was also known for his role in educating and training a generation of virologists, many of whom went on to make their own significant contributions to the field.

Rivers' work in virology helped lay the groundwork for many of the advancements in the study and treatment of viral diseases that followed in the latter half of the 20th century.

8. André Lwoff (1902-1994) was a prominent French microbiologist who made significant contributions to the field of virology and microbiology. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965, shared with François Jacob and Jacques Monod, for their discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis.

Lwoff's major contributions include:

1. Viral Lysogeny: Lwoff, along with his colleagues at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, extensively researched bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria). He was instrumental in elucidating the phenomenon of lysogeny, where a bacteriophage integrates into the bacterial genome and remains latent until it is later induced to enter a lytic cycle, where it replicates and causes cell lysis.

2. Virus Classification and Biology: He made significant advances in our understanding of the nature and classification of viruses. Lwoff proposed criteria for defining viruses, which helped in distinguishing them from other biological entities.

3. Research on Poliovirus: Lwoff's work on the poliovirus contributed to the understanding of viral replication and the development of polio vaccines.

4. Influence on Molecular Biology: His work laid the foundations for many aspects of molecular biology, influencing the understanding of how genetic information is expressed and regulated in cells.

Lwoff's research was pivotal in demonstrating that viruses are genetic entities and can have complex interactions with their host cells. His work significantly advanced the understanding of viral life cycles and genetics, which has had lasting implications for virology, microbiology, and molecular biology.

9. Karl Popper (1902-1994) was an Austrian-British philosopher of science who is widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, particularly in the realm of scientific methodology and the philosophy of science. He is best known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on scientific method in favor of empirical falsification.

Key Contributions and Concepts:

1. Falsifiability: Popper's most significant contribution to the philosophy of science is the criterion of falsifiability. He argued that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and potentially refuted by empirical evidence. In other words, a scientific theory should make predictions that could be shown to be false under certain conditions. If a theory is not falsifiable, then it falls into the realm of pseudoscience.

2. Critique of Inductivism: Popper was critical of the traditional inductive reasoning approach in science, where generalizations are made based on a series of observations. He argued that no amount of empirical data could ever fully prove a theory, but a single counter-example is sufficient to falsify it.

3. Problem of Demarcation: Popper's work on falsifiability stemmed from his attempt to solve the 'demarcation problem' - distinguishing between what is and isn’t genuinely scientific. He used the criterion of falsifiability to demarcate scientific theories from non-scientific theories.

4. Open Society: Apart from his contributions to the philosophy of science, Popper was also known for his political philosophy. In his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies," he critiqued the totalitarianism of his times and advocated for liberal democracy and the importance of critical discussion and debate in society.

5. Philosophical Pessimism: Popper emphasized the 'fallibilism' of human knowledge – the idea that any of our beliefs could, in principle, be wrong. Thus, scientific theories should always be subjected to rigorous testing and should never be accepted as absolutely certain.

Karl Popper's ideas have had a profound impact on scientific thought, emphasizing the importance of critical testing and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. His work continues to influence various fields, including philosophy, science, sociology, and political theory.

10. Milton Joseph Rosenau (1869-1946) was an American public health official, physician, and pioneering epidemiologist. He made significant contributions to public health, particularly in the areas of infectious disease control and preventive medicine.

Key Contributions and Aspects of Rosenau's Career:

1. Public Health Work: Rosenau served as a director at the United States Hygienic Laboratory, the precursor to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He played a crucial role in the development of public health services in the United States.

2. Research on Infectious Diseases: Rosenau conducted important research on various infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and diphtheria. He was involved in the development of strategies for controlling these diseases, which had a significant impact on public health policies.

3. Role in Epidemiology: He is noted for his contributions to the field of epidemiology, particularly in understanding the transmission and control of infectious diseases.

4. The Spanish Flu Experiments: Rosenau is particularly remembered for his experiments during the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919. He conducted studies to understand the transmission of the influenza virus. In a series of experiments, healthy individuals were exposed to secretions from patients with influenza to see if the disease could be transmitted to them. These experiments, which failed to transmit the disease, were critical in shaping understanding of influenza transmission.

5. Educational Contributions: Rosenau was also a professor and later the director of the Harvard School of Public Health. He was instrumental in training a generation of public health professionals.

6. Publications: He authored several influential books and papers on public health and preventive medicine, which were widely used as textbooks and references in the field.

Rosenau's work in public health and epidemiology was pivotal in the early 20th century, contributing to the development of public health as a scientific discipline.

11. John Franklin Enders (1897-1985) was a prominent American biomedical scientist, often referred to as the "Father of Modern Vaccines." His work in virology and immunology led to significant breakthroughs in vaccine development and the study of infectious diseases.

Key Contributions:

1. Cultivation of Poliovirus: One of Enders' most notable achievements was the successful cultivation of the poliovirus in non-neural tissue cultures. This breakthrough, achieved with colleagues Thomas Weller and Frederick Robbins in 1949, was a pivotal moment in virology. It enabled the large-scale production of the poliovirus and laid the groundwork for the development of the polio vaccine.

2. Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: Enders, along with Weller and Robbins, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1954 for their work on culturing the poliovirus. This work was crucial in advancing the field of virology and vaccine development.

3. Measles Vaccine: Enders and his team also played a key role in the development of the measles vaccine in the early 1960s. They were able to isolate and grow the measles virus, leading to the creation of an effective vaccine that has significantly reduced the incidence of measles worldwide.

4. Research in Infectious Diseases: Apart from polio and measles, Enders conducted extensive research on other infectious diseases, including mumps and chickenpox. His techniques for growing viruses in tissue cultures revolutionized the study of infectious diseases.

5. Impact on Public Health: The work of Enders and his team had a profound impact on public health, leading to the near-eradication of polio in many parts of the world and greatly reducing the prevalence of other infectious diseases.

Enders' contributions to virology and immunology, particularly his methods for culturing viruses, have had a lasting impact on medicine and public health, making him a key figure in the history of medical science.

12. Claude Bernard (1813-1878) was a renowned French physiologist and a pivotal figure in the history of medicine and biology. He is best known for his work in the field of physiology and for introducing the concept of homeostasis, as well as his methodological approach to scientific investigation.

Key Contributions and Concepts:

1. Concept of Homeostasis: Bernard's most significant contribution to physiology was his introduction of the concept of the "internal environment" (milieu intérieur) of the body. He proposed that the stability of this internal environment is essential for the maintenance of life, and that all the vital mechanisms of the body, however varied, have only one objective: to maintain the constancy of the internal environment. This idea later evolved into the concept of homeostasis, a fundamental principle in physiology.

2. Experimental Methodology: Bernard is also famous for his rigorous approach to scientific experimentation and research. He advocated for the use of the scientific method in physiological studies, emphasizing the importance of hypothesis, observation, and experimentation. His approach significantly advanced the study of physiology and the biological sciences.

3. Studies on the Digestive System: Bernard conducted extensive research on the digestive system, discovering the role of the pancreas in digestion and the liver's function in sugar metabolism. He was one of the first to describe the process of glycogen storage in the liver.

4. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine: In 1865, Bernard published "An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine," a seminal work in which he outlined his views on the scientific method in biology and medicine. This book had a profound influence on the development of scientific methodology.

5. Ethics in Animal Experimentation: While Bernard conducted animal experiments, he also contributed to the discourse on the ethics of animal testing. His work prompted discussions on the moral implications of using animals in scientific research.

Claude Bernard's contributions have had a lasting impact on the fields of medicine and physiology. His methodological approach and insights into the functioning of the body's internal environment have been fundamental to the development of modern medical science.

13. Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908) was a French scientist whose work spanned multiple disciplines, including chemistry, biology, and pharmacy. He is less well-known than some of his contemporaries like Louis Pasteur, but his contributions to science, particularly in the late 19th century, were significant in several areas.

Key Contributions and Controversial Theories:

1. Pleomorphism Theory: Béchamp was a proponent of the concept of pleomorphism, the idea that bacteria can change form (morphology) in response to their environment. This contrasted with the more widely accepted theory of monomorphism, which states that each bacterial species has a fixed shape.

2. Microzymas: Béchamp's most controversial theory was his belief in 'microzymas' - tiny particles he believed were the basic form of life and could survive in a dormant state in conditions that would kill other organisms. He theorized that these microzymas were involved in both the creation of cells and in pathological conditions like disease.

3. Challenge to Germ Theory: Béchamp's ideas were often at odds with those of Louis Pasteur. While Pasteur is famous for the germ theory of disease, which posits that specific diseases are caused by specific microorganisms, Béchamp believed that the health of the host's body (the "terrain") was more important in determining disease development.

4. Chemistry Contributions: Apart from his work in biology, Béchamp made significant contributions to chemistry. He was one of the first to note the presence of an enzyme in yeast and helped in understanding the process of fermentation.

5. Influence on Alternative Medicine: Béchamp's ideas have been influential in alternative medicine circles. His emphasis on the internal environment of the body and the conditions that allow pathogens to cause disease has resonated with practitioners who focus on holistic and natural approaches to health.

His emphasis on the internal environment of the body and its role in health and disease continues to influence certain areas of alternative medicine.

14. Arthur Firstenberg is an American author and activist known for his work and advocacy related to the health impacts of electromagnetic radiation.

Key Points:

1. Book "The Invisible Rainbow": Firstenberg is best known for his book "The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life," which explores how electricity and electromagnetic fields have been major environmental factors impacting health throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. In the book, he links the proliferation of electrical technology with various health issues, including pandemics.

2. Views on Electromagnetic Radiation: Firstenberg argues that electromagnetic radiation from power lines, Wi-Fi, cell phones, and other sources of EMFs pose significant risks to human health and the environment. He asserts that this radiation contributes to a variety of health problems, including chronic diseases and other medical conditions.

3. Advocacy and Activism: Firstenberg has been active in campaigning against the expansion of wireless technology, including 5G networks, due to his concerns about their health impacts. He has been involved in various groups and movements advocating for stricter regulation of EMF-emitting technologies.

15. Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) was an Austrian philosopher, social reformer, architect, and esotericist. He is best known as the founder of anthroposophy, a spiritual movement that posits the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to human experience through inner development. Steiner's work and ideas had a profound impact on various fields, including education, agriculture, medicine, and the arts.

Key Contributions:

1. Anthroposophy: Steiner's core philosophy, anthroposophy, integrates the spiritual with the scientific. His approach was holistic, focusing on the development of human creativity, freedom, and individuality. Anthroposophy aims to extend the scientific method to include inner experiences as well as external observations.

2. Waldorf Education: Steiner is perhaps best known for founding the Waldorf School movement, an educational approach that emphasizes the role of imagination in learning and aims to develop pupils' intellectual, artistic, and practical skills in an integrated and holistic manner. Waldorf schools are known for their focus on creativity, spirituality, and individuality.

3. Biodynamic Agriculture: Steiner also pioneered biodynamic agriculture, a method of farming that emphasizes spiritual and cosmic perspectives, including the influence of lunar and astrological cycles. Biodynamics predates the organic farming movement and includes unique practices such as herbal and mineral additives for compost and soil.

4. Anthroposophical Medicine: In the realm of medicine, Steiner introduced a holistic approach that combined spiritual insight with practical treatment. Anthroposophical medicine uses a variety of therapies, including diet, exercise, massage, and medications made from natural substances.

5. Philosophy and Spirituality: Steiner wrote extensively on a wide range of subjects, including philosophy, the arts, sociology, and spirituality. His works include "The Philosophy of Freedom," which explores concepts of free will and human creativity.

6. Architecture and the Arts: Steiner also made contributions to architecture, designing several buildings, including the Goetheanum in Switzerland, the headquarters of the Anthroposophical Society. His influence extends to drama, sculpture, painting, and movement arts (Eurythmy).

Rudolf Steiner's legacy is broad and diverse, influencing thousands of Waldorf schools worldwide, numerous biodynamic farms, and various cultural and artistic institutions. His influence on alternative education, agriculture, and holistic medicine remains significant.