'Science has known for a long time that these mutations in flu viruses happen so fast that trying to make a shot containing something in it that would make an antibody that would block a mutation they cannot predict is almost impossible'
They of course knew this when they insisted that taking the Covid 'vaccine' would stop people from contracting the virus - and we'd have herd immunity if enough people bought in (I was taken to task over this by a number of CovIDIOTS when I told them I was not about to inject an experiment -- they were very upset because I was refusing to do my part)
If one searches 'using leaky vaccines during pandemics' filtering pre 2018 results we find numerous papers indicating this is a no-no... that is can enhance the lethality of virus... surely they knew this as well when they unleashed the covid 'vaccine'
I have a question. I’m a 69yo male that’s had asthma for my entire life. It’s been under control for the past 20+ years. I’ve had pneumonia twice. I’m on a steroid maintenance inhaler. I’ve taken an annual flu shot all my life. I haven’t had flu symptoms in decades. From your article it would appear that I should be fairly immune so I’m not planning on getting a flu shot this year. And I certainly am never getting another Covid-19 gene therapy injection. Do you see anything wrong with my logic?
Great article and analysis, as usual, Dr. Kevin! Thanks so much. I'm seriously considering sending this to my naive family. Maybe they'd think twice before getting another flu shot.
If we are wrong on any of them -- that's ok because we've let the zombies take all of them so if any of them work they've provided us with herd immunity.
We want to keep this a very exclusive club... which is easily done because even if one tells the zombies what we are up to and why --- they'll call us crazy anti-vaxxers... and move their Booster Shot appointments ahead because they fear people like us and need more protection.
That’s why I worry about being UN-exposed to viruses. If I quarantine myself or oversterilize, I worry I’ll miss a mutation and my immune system will have to work harder to catch up when exposed. Maybe it doesn’t work like that, but that’s my intuition/superstition.
Call me crazy, but I’d rather be out in the virus world than in hiding.
You cannot have specific tests for a virus without knowing the components of the virus you are trying to detect. And the components cannot be known without having previously isolated/purified that virus.
None of the seven "human coronaviruses" have actually been isolated and all the sequences of the primers of their respective PCRs as well as those of a large number of fragments of their supposed genomes are found in different areas of the human genome and in genomes of bacteria and a long list of others.
Coronavirus 229E.
Reference article: Dorothy Hamre and John Procknow. A new virus isolated from the human
respiratory Tract. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 121: 1:
190-193. January 1, 1966.
Since the authors refer to other articles to explain the method of isolation - which they call
Complement Fixation - we consulted a reference article for that method: that of Janet W. Hartley
et al. Complement Fixation and tissue culture assay for mouse leukaemia viruses PNAS, 53(5):
931-938, May 1965. This is a procedure already in disuse that uses the antigen-antibody reaction
to detect either one or the other. In the case we are dealing with, the aim was to detect the
antigens of the supposed new virus but, as we have already explained, specific antibodies are
needed which cannot be obtained the first time a virus is detected.
Coronavirus OC43.
Reference article: Paul Lee. Molecular epidemiology of human coronavirus OC43 in Hong Kong.
Thesis for the Department of Microbiology, University of Hong Kong, August 2007. The HKU
Scholars Hub.
What was considered to be viral RNA was extracted from cultures without any proof that the
RNA belongs to a virus. The tool used - a QIAamp kit - removes reagents, inhibitors and
contaminants but what it cannot do is determine where the extracted RNA comes from. And
there are no controls. It is then amplified by PCR and sequenced assuming (!) that it is genetic
information of a virus. Finally, the author speculates about mutations, recombinations, genotypes,
molecular evolution, strains and other jargon that conveys the idea -unproven- that a "virus" is
being worked with.
SARS-CoV Coronavirus.
Reference article: J. S. M. Peiris and others. Coronavirus as a possible cause of SARS. Lancet
361: 1319-25, April 2003.
There is no mention of purification in the article. There is not even any mention of filtration or
centrifugation. It is only stated that "the viruses were isolated in fetal monkey liver cells from
nasopharyngeal aspirates and lung biopsies of two patients". There are no controls. The only
mention is of a "cytopathic effect" that is attributed to a virus and that PCR was done for known
viruses and retroviruses without obtaining results. Finally, RT-PCR was done with "random
initiators" and a sequence "of unknown origin" is detected to which "a weak homology with the
coronaviridiae family" is found. Then they designed primers for that sequence and when testing 44
samples from SARS patients only 22 were positive.
Coronavirus NL63.
Reference article: Lia van der Hock and others. Identification of a new human coronavirus. Nature Medicine, 10, 4 April 2004.
The authors state that "the identification of unknown pathogens using molecular biology tools is
difficult because the target sequence is not known so that PCR-specific initiators cannot be
designed".
What they used is a tool they developed themselves called VIDISCA which, they claim, does not
require prior knowledge of the sequence! Is that possible? Let's see how it works: first the culture
is prepared and it is assumed that a virus is present due to the evidence of "cytopathic effect".
The novelty introduced by this method is that "restriction enzymes" are added, enzymes that cut
the nucleic acid molecules at certain locations and always by the same length. In this way, if after
the action of these enzymes they observe many fragments of DNA or RNA that are the same or
very similar, they deduce that it comes from a virus, since the host genome would present random
cuts, while the virus genome presents a large number of copies that are the same due to the replication of the virus. And is such a deduction correct? Of course not! This assumption (which
adds to the previous assumption that there is a virus) does not take into account that there are
"extracellular" particles and even mitochondrial DNA. In denial, there are a multitude of particles
that possess the same reproductive characteristics in large quantities as "viruses" and therefore
can falsify results by producing large numbers of identical copies when cut by enzymes as
recognised in an article on the VIDISCA technique entitled Enhanced bioinformatic proSling of
VIDISCA libraries for virus detection and Discovery. It was published in volume 263 of Virus
Research on April 2, 2019, and its authors-Cormac M. Kinsella et al.-recognise that "no
redundancy is expected in the VIDISCA insert from the host background nucleic acid except in
the case of 'virus-like' characteristics, i.e., high copy numbers as in mitochondrial DNA.
Coronavirus HKU1.
Reference article: Patrick C. Y. Woo and others. Characterisation and Complete Genome
Sequence of a Novel Coronavirus, Coronavirus HKU1, from Patients with Pneumonia. Journal of
Virology, 79, 2, January 2005.
The article, incredibly, begins with these words: "Despite extensive research in patients with
respiratory tract infections, no microbiological cause has been identified in a significant
proportion of patients. RNA is extracted from non-purified cultures.” And a PCR with coronavirus
genes is used. For the sequencing they use two protein databases organised in families, domains
and functional sites -PFAM and INterProScan- combined with two computer programs that carry
out "predictions" on how nucleotides should be combined. The text adds: "The sequences were
manually assembled and edited to produce a final sequence of the viral genome". And once
again there are no controls.
MERS-CoV Coronavirus.
Reference article: Ali Moh Zaki and others. Isolation of a Novel Coronavirus from a Man with
Pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367:19, November 2012.
The genetic material is extracted directly from the culture supernatant and sputum sample with
a tool called High Puré Viral Nucleic Acid Kit and then tested with different PCRs for various
known microorganisms. There is no mention of purification and there are no controls.
The so-called "cytopathic effect" is actually an effect caused by the conditions of the culture itself. This is recognised for example in the article Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA.
Dr. S, you've mentioned many times on Jane Ruby "natural infection with Covid", can you give us a purified/isolated, pathogen proving paper with a control to show us that a sars-cov-2 virus particle has been found?
1. Can you produce one paper showing that any flu virus has been purified/isolated from density gradient from a person's lungs or from lungs to cell culture then purified, proven to be purified by E-M, proven to be a pathogen by placing of purified virus into same animal/person thru respiratory inhalation, and with a control group of no human sample undergoing the same type of lab procedure?
Please exclude non-virus particle purified cell cultures because then we havn't identified a particle and we don't know what's causing what, and exclude metagenomic/next generation sequencing because those are not finding a particle either and can at best only give a taxonomy of pre-programmed gene sequences in a mix of many possible things, and exclude the finding of hemagglutinin or neuraminidase because those are not specific and themselves do not prove the existence of a full influenza virus particle.
2. On Jane Ruby, you said the spike proteins made from the shots (mRNA) were causing havoc. Do you have an article proving using chemical identification procedures that these substances are found in a Covid vax vial, and a relationship between mRNA dose and spike protein amount which would show that mRNA is indeed making a spike protein.
Is it just me or does vaccination (for any illness) seem to be causing more of and spreading the illness it's supposed to be preventing? I know not all vaccines contain the live virus, so not sure why this seems to happen (exosomes?) We've obviously seen this in regards to Covid, with the cases tripling since the vaccines rolled out but also with the flu. I honestly wonder what would happen if we stopped all vaccines all together.....When man keeps messing with nature, they make everything worse...
Who wants to be injected with any of the inevitable contaminants, including formaldehyde and ethoxylate, all grown on fertilized chicken eggs that constitute a flu jab And, on an admonitory note, mRNA flu jabs are in our future.
FORGIVE MY STUPID QUESTION: What is your opinion of taking zinc, etc. to stop the attachment of the virus? Will we some how contribute to the mutation of future viruses?
I sent your post to computer friends. Thanks again!
An excellent and very insightful article, I really enjoyed reading this and it again proves very well that the flu shots everyone rushes to push in to their arms each year are useless and worse still they're dangerous. Great article !
'Science has known for a long time that these mutations in flu viruses happen so fast that trying to make a shot containing something in it that would make an antibody that would block a mutation they cannot predict is almost impossible'
They of course knew this when they insisted that taking the Covid 'vaccine' would stop people from contracting the virus - and we'd have herd immunity if enough people bought in (I was taken to task over this by a number of CovIDIOTS when I told them I was not about to inject an experiment -- they were very upset because I was refusing to do my part)
If one searches 'using leaky vaccines during pandemics' filtering pre 2018 results we find numerous papers indicating this is a no-no... that is can enhance the lethality of virus... surely they knew this as well when they unleashed the covid 'vaccine'
https://www.google.com/search?q=using+leaky+vaccines+during+pandemics&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2000%2Ccd_max%3A2018&sxsrf=ALiCzsagqVs80AB_RjR_105bO0VAiPBnwA%3A1665003568338&ei=MPA9Y-qgFPOQz7sPl_e84AY&ved=0ahUKEwjq-PXR_cn6AhVzyHMBHZc7D2wQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=using+leaky+vaccines+during+pandemics&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBwgAEB4QogQ6BwgjELACECc6BAgjECdKBAhBGAFKBAhGGABQmAhYoB1gkB9oAXAAeAGAAf8BiAHeEZIBBDItMTCYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz
Sinister music... https://youtu.be/JCOJS1wWmeo?t=366
Thanks for the article Dr. Stillwagon.
I have a question. I’m a 69yo male that’s had asthma for my entire life. It’s been under control for the past 20+ years. I’ve had pneumonia twice. I’m on a steroid maintenance inhaler. I’ve taken an annual flu shot all my life. I haven’t had flu symptoms in decades. From your article it would appear that I should be fairly immune so I’m not planning on getting a flu shot this year. And I certainly am never getting another Covid-19 gene therapy injection. Do you see anything wrong with my logic?
Great article and analysis, as usual, Dr. Kevin! Thanks so much. I'm seriously considering sending this to my naive family. Maybe they'd think twice before getting another flu shot.
Oh and btw - REJECT ALL VACCINES.
If we are wrong on any of them -- that's ok because we've let the zombies take all of them so if any of them work they've provided us with herd immunity.
We want to keep this a very exclusive club... which is easily done because even if one tells the zombies what we are up to and why --- they'll call us crazy anti-vaxxers... and move their Booster Shot appointments ahead because they fear people like us and need more protection.
“constantly transmitting”
That’s why I worry about being UN-exposed to viruses. If I quarantine myself or oversterilize, I worry I’ll miss a mutation and my immune system will have to work harder to catch up when exposed. Maybe it doesn’t work like that, but that’s my intuition/superstition.
Call me crazy, but I’d rather be out in the virus world than in hiding.
Thank you for sharing this information, Dr. Stillwagon.
If doctors and health experts knew how mucosal immunity works, not one shot would have been given.
https://twitter.com/GauteNilsen/status/1588133085647970305
Hi Kevin.. Steve Kirsch interviewed president of "Xlear" .. See what you think.. I think it has good merit..
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/xlear-a-simple-cheap-nose-spray-can
Any thoughts on the rabies vaccine?
NOT ONE OF THE SEVEN SUPPOSED HUMAN CORONAVIRUS HAS BEEN ISOLATED.
Copied and redacted from: https://pastebin.com/PsXCQmGZ
Unofficial English translation of ‘Frauds and falsehoods in the medical field’
https://www.dsalud.com/reportajes/fraudes-y-falsedades-en-el-ambito-medico/
You cannot have specific tests for a virus without knowing the components of the virus you are trying to detect. And the components cannot be known without having previously isolated/purified that virus.
None of the seven "human coronaviruses" have actually been isolated and all the sequences of the primers of their respective PCRs as well as those of a large number of fragments of their supposed genomes are found in different areas of the human genome and in genomes of bacteria and a long list of others.
Coronavirus 229E.
Reference article: Dorothy Hamre and John Procknow. A new virus isolated from the human
respiratory Tract. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 121: 1:
190-193. January 1, 1966.
Since the authors refer to other articles to explain the method of isolation - which they call
Complement Fixation - we consulted a reference article for that method: that of Janet W. Hartley
et al. Complement Fixation and tissue culture assay for mouse leukaemia viruses PNAS, 53(5):
931-938, May 1965. This is a procedure already in disuse that uses the antigen-antibody reaction
to detect either one or the other. In the case we are dealing with, the aim was to detect the
antigens of the supposed new virus but, as we have already explained, specific antibodies are
needed which cannot be obtained the first time a virus is detected.
Coronavirus OC43.
Reference article: Paul Lee. Molecular epidemiology of human coronavirus OC43 in Hong Kong.
Thesis for the Department of Microbiology, University of Hong Kong, August 2007. The HKU
Scholars Hub.
What was considered to be viral RNA was extracted from cultures without any proof that the
RNA belongs to a virus. The tool used - a QIAamp kit - removes reagents, inhibitors and
contaminants but what it cannot do is determine where the extracted RNA comes from. And
there are no controls. It is then amplified by PCR and sequenced assuming (!) that it is genetic
information of a virus. Finally, the author speculates about mutations, recombinations, genotypes,
molecular evolution, strains and other jargon that conveys the idea -unproven- that a "virus" is
being worked with.
SARS-CoV Coronavirus.
Reference article: J. S. M. Peiris and others. Coronavirus as a possible cause of SARS. Lancet
361: 1319-25, April 2003.
There is no mention of purification in the article. There is not even any mention of filtration or
centrifugation. It is only stated that "the viruses were isolated in fetal monkey liver cells from
nasopharyngeal aspirates and lung biopsies of two patients". There are no controls. The only
mention is of a "cytopathic effect" that is attributed to a virus and that PCR was done for known
viruses and retroviruses without obtaining results. Finally, RT-PCR was done with "random
initiators" and a sequence "of unknown origin" is detected to which "a weak homology with the
coronaviridiae family" is found. Then they designed primers for that sequence and when testing 44
samples from SARS patients only 22 were positive.
Coronavirus NL63.
Reference article: Lia van der Hock and others. Identification of a new human coronavirus. Nature Medicine, 10, 4 April 2004.
The authors state that "the identification of unknown pathogens using molecular biology tools is
difficult because the target sequence is not known so that PCR-specific initiators cannot be
designed".
What they used is a tool they developed themselves called VIDISCA which, they claim, does not
require prior knowledge of the sequence! Is that possible? Let's see how it works: first the culture
is prepared and it is assumed that a virus is present due to the evidence of "cytopathic effect".
The novelty introduced by this method is that "restriction enzymes" are added, enzymes that cut
the nucleic acid molecules at certain locations and always by the same length. In this way, if after
the action of these enzymes they observe many fragments of DNA or RNA that are the same or
very similar, they deduce that it comes from a virus, since the host genome would present random
cuts, while the virus genome presents a large number of copies that are the same due to the replication of the virus. And is such a deduction correct? Of course not! This assumption (which
adds to the previous assumption that there is a virus) does not take into account that there are
"virus-like particles", "retrovirus-like particles", "endogenous retroviruses", "exosomes",
"extracellular" particles and even mitochondrial DNA. In denial, there are a multitude of particles
that possess the same reproductive characteristics in large quantities as "viruses" and therefore
can falsify results by producing large numbers of identical copies when cut by enzymes as
recognised in an article on the VIDISCA technique entitled Enhanced bioinformatic proSling of
VIDISCA libraries for virus detection and Discovery. It was published in volume 263 of Virus
Research on April 2, 2019, and its authors-Cormac M. Kinsella et al.-recognise that "no
redundancy is expected in the VIDISCA insert from the host background nucleic acid except in
the case of 'virus-like' characteristics, i.e., high copy numbers as in mitochondrial DNA.
Coronavirus HKU1.
Reference article: Patrick C. Y. Woo and others. Characterisation and Complete Genome
Sequence of a Novel Coronavirus, Coronavirus HKU1, from Patients with Pneumonia. Journal of
Virology, 79, 2, January 2005.
The article, incredibly, begins with these words: "Despite extensive research in patients with
respiratory tract infections, no microbiological cause has been identified in a significant
proportion of patients. RNA is extracted from non-purified cultures.” And a PCR with coronavirus
genes is used. For the sequencing they use two protein databases organised in families, domains
and functional sites -PFAM and INterProScan- combined with two computer programs that carry
out "predictions" on how nucleotides should be combined. The text adds: "The sequences were
manually assembled and edited to produce a final sequence of the viral genome". And once
again there are no controls.
MERS-CoV Coronavirus.
Reference article: Ali Moh Zaki and others. Isolation of a Novel Coronavirus from a Man with
Pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367:19, November 2012.
The genetic material is extracted directly from the culture supernatant and sputum sample with
a tool called High Puré Viral Nucleic Acid Kit and then tested with different PCRs for various
known microorganisms. There is no mention of purification and there are no controls.
The so-called "cytopathic effect" is actually an effect caused by the conditions of the culture itself. This is recognised for example in the article Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557920/pdf/41598_2017_Article_8392.pdf
explains that certain substances -such as antibiotics- added to in vitro experiments can stress
the cell cultures so that they generate new sequences that had not been previously detected. This
had already been noticed by none other than Dr. Barbara McClintock in 1983 during her Nobel
Prize lecture, as can be seen at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/mcclintocklecture.
Dr. S, you've mentioned many times on Jane Ruby "natural infection with Covid", can you give us a purified/isolated, pathogen proving paper with a control to show us that a sars-cov-2 virus particle has been found?
Hello Dr. S.
1. Can you produce one paper showing that any flu virus has been purified/isolated from density gradient from a person's lungs or from lungs to cell culture then purified, proven to be purified by E-M, proven to be a pathogen by placing of purified virus into same animal/person thru respiratory inhalation, and with a control group of no human sample undergoing the same type of lab procedure?
Please exclude non-virus particle purified cell cultures because then we havn't identified a particle and we don't know what's causing what, and exclude metagenomic/next generation sequencing because those are not finding a particle either and can at best only give a taxonomy of pre-programmed gene sequences in a mix of many possible things, and exclude the finding of hemagglutinin or neuraminidase because those are not specific and themselves do not prove the existence of a full influenza virus particle.
2. On Jane Ruby, you said the spike proteins made from the shots (mRNA) were causing havoc. Do you have an article proving using chemical identification procedures that these substances are found in a Covid vax vial, and a relationship between mRNA dose and spike protein amount which would show that mRNA is indeed making a spike protein.
Thank you for your time.
Have a newsletter on Polio yet?
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/first-time-released-to-the-public-preprint-study-reveals-shocking-truth-of-1954-poliomyelitis-vaccine-field-trial-results-8675abe9
Is it just me or does vaccination (for any illness) seem to be causing more of and spreading the illness it's supposed to be preventing? I know not all vaccines contain the live virus, so not sure why this seems to happen (exosomes?) We've obviously seen this in regards to Covid, with the cases tripling since the vaccines rolled out but also with the flu. I honestly wonder what would happen if we stopped all vaccines all together.....When man keeps messing with nature, they make everything worse...
Thank you!
Who wants to be injected with any of the inevitable contaminants, including formaldehyde and ethoxylate, all grown on fertilized chicken eggs that constitute a flu jab And, on an admonitory note, mRNA flu jabs are in our future.
FORGIVE MY STUPID QUESTION: What is your opinion of taking zinc, etc. to stop the attachment of the virus? Will we some how contribute to the mutation of future viruses?
I sent your post to computer friends. Thanks again!
An excellent and very insightful article, I really enjoyed reading this and it again proves very well that the flu shots everyone rushes to push in to their arms each year are useless and worse still they're dangerous. Great article !