Seriously Though, Where Is the Virus?

by | Jun 27, 2021 | Editorials

If you’ve been following the COVID antics for the last 18 months, you’ll know that there are three main schools of thought regarding the ‘virus’. The first is that the virus is real, it’s more dangerous than flu and it’s rapidly mutating into ungodly numbers of variants.

The second school of thought agrees that there is a virus but says that it’s not any more deadly than flu, variants are no big deal and what we really need to fight it is vitamin D, zinc, and all that good stuff.

The third school of thought says no, there is no virus, there are no variants and this entire charade is a sick fantasy dreamt up by a group of psychopaths serving as priests in the Church of Germ Theory (A.K.A the pharmaceutical-medical industrial complex).

So, what’s real and what’s not? Is there a virus? What is a virus? Well, thanks to this ‘pandemic’, the previously gated walls of the virological establishment have been forced open, and, for the first time, ‘outsiders’ are taking an interest in what’s inside.

People who’ve entered the gates have found themselves in a strange land where there exist invisible enemies, like ghosts or demons, only visible to those who have special visionary powers.

Much is written about these strange beings, yet no one can explain how or why they cause sickness, from where they originally come, or what their true purpose is. But one thing is for sure, their existence benefits vaccine manufacturers, globalists, and the world elite, and therefore, it must not be questioned.

A Reminder – The HIV Hoax

If you didn’t think it was possible to fool the world into believing in a pathogenic virus causing death and destruction, then you may be unaware of the HIV/AIDS phenomenon.

Rosemary Frei, in one of her latest articles titled “HIV Now Sets the Pace in the Bogus-vaxx Race”, sums up the research on the HIV ‘virus’:

“HIV has not been detected by anything other than indirect methods such as antibody, T-cell, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. HIV also has not been clearly shown to cause disease. Nor has it been isolated or rigorously imaged via electron microscopy.”

What the world now knows as ‘AIDS’ was first reported in 1981, as two distinct diseases – PCP (A chronic fungal pneumonia) and KS (Kaposi’s Sarcoma). These were not new diseases at the time, but what was new was their increasing rate of incidence among a small group of drug-abusing, homosexual men.[1]

Eventually, more and more diseases were categorized as ‘AIDS indicator diseases’, including Tuberculosis, Candida infection, cervical cancer, and lymphoma.

In the 1970s, a time when much research was being done to prove that cancer was caused by a virus, retrovirologist Robert Gallo from the US National Institutes of Health, proposed a viral theory of AIDS.

But there was a problem. It couldn’t possibly be the case that some 29 separate diseases were caused by a single pathogenic agent. Hence, it was proposed that the HIV ‘virus’ destroyed a person’s T4 cells, inevitably leading to the appearance of PCP, KS, and other opportunistic infections.

Then, in 1983, scientists at the Pasteur Institute in France, led by Luc Montagnier, published a paper claiming to have isolated the AIDS virus (‘HIV’). A year later, Robert Gallo and his team published their own research, claiming the same thing, and the viral theory of AIDS was hastily accepted by the scientific establishment (much to the delight of the pharmaceutical industry).

But not all scientists were in such a rush to accept the viral cause of AIDS. In fact, heavyweights of the scene such as Dr. Peter Duesberg (see his book, ‘Inventing the AIDS Virus‘) and Karry Mullis, Nobel Prize winner and inventor of PCR, both rejected the claim.

An intelligent group of researchers from Australia, led by Eleni Papadopulos (dubbed “The Perth Group”), dissected the research done by both Montagnier and Gallo, exposing it for the trickery that it was.

“In the five 1983/84 Science papers, Montagnier and Gallo and their colleagues claimed to have purified HIV using density gradient centrifugation, “characterised” (identified) the HIV particle proteins, showed that the particles are infectious and proved (Gallo) HIV the cause of AIDS.”

The 1.16 g/ml density band material was declared to be “purified”, “pure”, retrovirus particles, despite the fact neither group published electron microscopic images to substantiate this claim. Neither have they nor any other scientist since published such images.”

HIV – A virus like no other, The Perth Group, 2017.

While the mainstream clings on to the “one germ, one disease” fallacy, it’s wise to remember that AIDS is not one disease, but a collection of diseases, with a number of causes, grouped under a single label.

Based on the research of Peter Duesberg, Jon Rappaport, The Perth Group, Jon Lauretsen, and others, the real causes of AIDS include toxicity from AZT and other meds given to people who (falsely) test positive for HIV, severe malnutrition, poverty, lack of indoor plumbing, toxicity from recreational drugs like nitrite inhalants (‘poppers’), and overuse of antibiotics.

Where Do We Stand With SARS-Cov-2?

The alleged ‘proof’ for the existence of Sars-Cov-2 relies on the following claims:

  1. SARS-Cov-2 has been isolated and imaged under an electron microscope
  2. SARS-Cov-2 has been characterized and sequenced
  3. SARS-Cov-2 has been clearly shown to cause disease

Each and every one of these claims is false.

Viruses are microscopic particles that consist of DNA or RNA encased in a protein coat. All virologists accept that to prove the existence of a virus, one must purify the viral particles.[2][3] The purification process is required for a number of reasons. These include:

  1. To separate viral particles from cellular material. Since viruses and cells are composed of the same biological components, purification is crucial in order to determine which nucleic acids and proteins are viral.
  2. To prove that the particles are infectious. Otherwise, it cannot be ruled out that other factors are responsible for the production of new particles in cell cultures.
  3. To be able to demonstrate the pathogenicity of the virus (i.e. to fulfill Koch’s third postulate).
  4. To obtain viral proteins and nucleic acid sequences for use in developing reliable tests.

Yet in every paper claiming to have ‘isolated’ SARS-Cov-2, you will find that researchers have done nothing of the sort. Instead, they have used cell cultures to supposedly ‘grow’ the virus and then observed damaged cells under the microscope.

PCR tests are often used to ‘confirm’ the presence of SARS-Cov-2, yet this is meaningless as the original ‘viral’ sequence did not come from purified viral particles.[4]

Although not published yet, Dr. Stefan Lanka’s latest study has replicated this process to show that cell damage occurs without the presence of a virus.

But what about those images we’ve all seen? No, not the computer-generated animations shown on mainstream news, I’m talking about the electron microscope images of round little particles.

It has been known for some time that viruses are structurally and morphologically indistinguishable from extra-cellular vesicles (‘exosomes’), harmless particles produced by our cells with numerous important functions.

In fact, in a 2016 study titled “Extracellular vesicles and viruses: Are they close relatives?”[5], Robert Gallo himself admits that:

“It has recently been found that EVs [extra-cellular vesicles] can have important biological functions and that in both structural and functional aspects they resemble viruses.”

In her April 2021 paper, Sara Miller, one of the world’s experts in electron microscopy, also failed miserably to differentiate between regular constituents of cells and the virus labeled ‘Sars-Cov-2’.[6]

In the paper titled ‘Difficulties in Differentiating Coronaviruses from Subcellular Structures in Human Tissues by Electron Microscopy’, the researchers state that (emphasis added):

“In attempts to attribute pathology of COVID-19 patients directly to tissue damage caused by SARS-CoV-2, investigators have inaccurately reported subcellular structures, including coated vesicles, multivesicular bodies, and vesiculating rough endoplasmic reticulum, as coronavirus particles.

The researchers state that knowledge of coronavirus ultrastructure is important in order to correctly identify coronavirus particles, and they reference a 1967 paper by June Almeida as the first-ever visualization of a coronavirus.

“The name coronavirus was coined by June D. Almeida, who visualized the virus by EM in 1967 (35). The name was derived from the surface peplomers or spikes that give the viral particles the appearance of having a solar corona. These spikes are one of the more distinctive features for a coronavirus.”

However, in our article titled “Modern Medicine is Currently in Dire Straights“, we showed that early studies done on so-called ‘coronaviruses’, including the above-referenced paper by June Almeida, did not show proof of purification or infectivity, and so those early images cannot be said to show coronaviruses.

Even more damning is a paper titled “Appearances Can Be Deceiving – Viral-like Inclusions in COVID-19 Negative Renal Biopsies by Electron Microscopy”[7], which states that (emphasis added):

“Since the discovery of the causative agent for the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)–like pneumonia syndrome pandemic that started in China in 2019 (1,2), a coronavirus named SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), electron microscopy images have populated the medical literature (2) and media outlets alike displaying the characteristic 60–140 nm round particles surrounded by a “corona” of 9–12 nm distinctive spikes (2)”.

“Although many of these images were obtained after “in vitro” infection of cultured cells with SARS-CoV-2 (2) and are thus likely a true representation of viral particles, we have observed morphologically indistinguishable inclusions within podocytes and tubular epithelial cells both in patients negative for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as well as in renal biopsies from the pre–COVID-19 era.”

In other words, these researchers observed the EXACT SAME particles in patients who tested negative for COVID and those who they biopsied long before COVID became a thing.

Incredibly, the researchers go on to say that:

“A number of potential natural mimickers that can generate intracellular groups of round vesicles mimicking SARS-CoV-2 virions could be listed, the most likely being endocytic vesicles and endosomal components such as microvesicular bodies containing exosomes, among others.”

“Endocytosis leads to the formation of 60-120 nm vesicles, which is within the size range described for SARS-CoV-2 (60-140nm).  These endocytic vesicles may be coated by different proteins, one of the most common being clathrin. The presence of coating proteins may be responsible for the presence of an electron-dense area surrounding these vesicles, giving the appearance of a viral corona.”

Although not explicitly stated, one may interpret this paper as evidence for the theory that extracellular vesicles (‘exosomes’) and ‘viruses’ are the exact same thing. The researchers also provide an explanation for the presence of the outer ‘spikes’, by explaining that the coating protein, clathrin, may result in electron-dense areas surrounding the vesicles, thereby giving the appearance of outer corona/’spike proteins’.

So, with all this new research coming to light, it would seem that virologists are, unwittingly, arriving ever closer to the same conclusion made by Dr. Stefan Lanka some years ago. namely that:

“All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way.”

Lanka, S., The Misconception Called “Virus”. January 2020. WissenchafftPlus Magazin.

If you disagree with the assertion that Sars-Cov-2 has not been proven to exist, then can you find the following?

  • An electron micrograph of a purified, fully characterised virus, shown clearly to be different from any and all subcellular structure and extra-cellular vesicles.
  • The primary scientific paper in which the virus is illustrated and its full genetic sequence described.
  • The primary scientific paper that provides proof that the virus is the sole cause of COVID-19.

Think you’ve found all three? @ us on Twitter.


[1] Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E et al. HIV – A virus like no other. Posted at the Perth Group website July 12th 2017.
[2] White DO, Fenner FJ. (1986). Medical Virology. San Diego, Academic Press. pp. 655.
[3] In a nutshell. Page 37 of the Perth Group’s commentary on Brent Leung’s documentary The Emperor’s New Virus?
[4] Zhou, P et al. Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin. February 3, 2020.
[5] Nolte-‘t Hoen, E., Cremer, T., Gallo, R. C., & Margolis, L. B. (2016). Extracellular vesicles and viruses: Are they close relatives?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(33), 9155–9161.
[6] Bullock HA, Goldsmith CS, Zaki SR, Martines RB, Miller SE. Difficulties in Differentiating Coronaviruses from Subcellular Structures in Human Tissues by Electron Microscopy. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Apr;27(4):1023-1031. doi: 10.3201/eid2704.204337. Epub 2021 Feb 18. PMID: 33600302; PMCID: PMC8007326.
[7] Clarrisa A. Cassol, et al. Kidney360 1:824-828, 2020.

Did you find this article valuable? Leave a rating below.

Average rating / 5.

Latest Articles

The CBDC gaslighting campaign

The CBDC gaslighting campaign

In an insightful analysis of Central Bank Digital Currencies, “Shinobi” asks some important questions, including whether it’s even feasible to create one? …just to replace the average volume of cash transactions alone a CBDC would need to process 246 times...

The Fed announces “pilot” ESG social credit system

The Fed announces “pilot” ESG social credit system

The fed has announced that 6 of the nation’s largest banks will participate in a climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate related financial risks. So, what’s the big deal? Well… This is...

Join Our Newsletter

Get the 5-minute, weekly newsletter keeping thousands of free thinkers informed and inspired.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This Post

Share this post on social media