Well, with this being the third installment of my new “Sabbath Ramblings” feature (you can read the first here and the second here), I guess I'm on a bit of a roll. This could actually become a regular thing. Let me know in the comments section below if you dig these posts, which tend to be more focused on my big picture thoughts and the spiritual disciplines rather than, say, attachments such as biohacking, fitness or smoothie and steak recipes. If you do, I'll keep writing them.
Anyways, today I've got something special for you: in the first section of today's post, my thoughts on fear and the coronavirus, and in the second, some pretty shocking anecdotes from a new book I've been immersed in, also viral and pandemic related.
Part 1: Why I'm Not Afraid Of The Coronavirus.
I'm pretty much over being afraid of the coronavirus.
Look, we could get wiped off the face of this planet at a moment's notice.
You think a virus is bad?
What about a solar flare that destroys all our electrical devices we've grown so attached to and dependent upon? Imagine a world shocked instantly with no internet, no smartphones, no electrical cars, no television and a non-existent smart grid. Catastrophic climate change could reach an unanticipated tipping point and nearly wipe out our plant and animal food supplies. Nuclear war incited by a random, insane terrorist organization could case world temperatures to fall dramatically and quickly, disrupting food production and potentially rendering human life impossible.
You get the idea. It's possible to imagine at least a dozen scenarios that could keep one awake worrying all night long.
It seems that pretty much every grand plan we have could be disrupted at the drop of a hat. Anybody who has made intentions for a fantastic weekend and woken up on Saturday morning with a splitting headache, sore throat and sniffles, or debilitating gut issue knows what I mean. In the Bible, James 4:13-15 says: “Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”
So what do we do? Avoid risk at all costs so that we stay as safe and comfortable as possible? Avoid stepping foot into a grocery store, onto a hiking trail or into a church for fear that we may be stricken with a viral pandemic? Hoard cash, gas, gold and shotguns while keeping our neighbors at a distance should they make us ill or discover our hidden toilet paper supply?
Or do we trust God and embrace the risk that is built into life on this planet – the risk that human beings have lived with since the beginning of time?
See, risk is woven into the fabric of our lives. John Piper elegantly points out in his fantastic book “Don't Waste Your Life” that “All of our plans for tomorrow's activities can be shattered by a thousand unknowns whether we stay at home under the covers or ride the free ways.” Piper goes on to point out that complete avoidance of risk sets one up for a scenario in which they very well could be wasting their life's calling by choosing the safest, most comfortable route possible for their entire existence.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to be on my deathbed thinking back to all the times I missed my chance to make maximum impact with my life because I was afraid of risk. Elon Musk took a big risk on SpaceX and Tesla, concepts that were initially laughed at but are now a smashing success. Sylvester Stallone took a big risk with writing and producing Rocky, a movie nobody wanted that now inspires people worldwide. J.K. Rowling took a risk with sticking by Harry Potter, a book no publisher initially wanted.
The apostle Paul – one of the most impactful figures in all of human history – is a perfect example of living a life full of risk. Heck, Paul's entire life was just one big risk after another. In 2 Corinthians 11:24-28 he points out: “Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.”
Every single day, this guy risked his life for the cause of God. But he had two choices: waste his life by neglecting his true calling and running away like a scared little boy, or live with risk to make maximum impact with the brief amount of time he had to live on this planet. The desire for constant comfort and security, though a natural desire, can often paralyze us from taking the risks that are going to move us one step forward towards achieving our maximum purpose in life.
Risk, discomfort and suffering are a natural part of life. In verse 23 of Romans 8 (which, aside from Proverbs 3, is one of my favorite chapters of the entire Bible) says: “Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.”
That's right. We're wandering across the surface of this Earth with broken bodies, groaning, putting up patiently with the imperfection of human form, and hoping towards the promise of eventually passing away into eternal bliss after living a life as fully and completely as we can with maximum excellence for the glory of God.
After all, Romans 8:35-39 goes on to show us – should we believe that we are saved by the blood of Jesus and live a life of loving God and loving others – that none of this groaning or suffering or risk or death can ultimately separate us from experiencing this final love, bliss and eternal risk-free life: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
That's quite the promise. I'd rather be a brave conqueror who takes on risk and meaningfully impacts this world than a trepidated weakling who flees at the first sign of danger and lies on their deathbed having accomplished far less in life than I was capable of or called to. And should that risk result in anxiety, stress or insomnia? I simply need shift my trust to God to care for me. As a matter of fact, one of my favorite “sleep tips” in Scripture goes like this:
Psalm 4:8: “In peace I will lie down and sleep, for you alone, Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
So am I going to take prudent measures to protect myself and my family from sickness?
I'll continue to keep our immune systems strong and supported with methods such as Vitamin C, glutathione, chaga and turkey tail mushroom, ozone, zinc lozenges, sauna, breathwork, cold thermogenesis, sunshine, nourishing whole foods and sleep. I'll take these steps not because I'm deathly afraid of a virus or any other risk, but instead to wisely equip myself and my family to make maximum impact and live out our purpose that God has called us to as fully as possible.
While I do that, I'll keep trusting that the Lord will allow me to dwell in safely, and that should he decide to pluck me from this planet at a moment's notice, then that's the mysterious glory of His plans for me, and I won't complain if that death is ultimately gain.
But am I going to stay holed up, paralyzed with fear, stricken with worry, and glued to the negative coronavirus news cycle? Absolutely not. Am I going to let a constant fear of a virus plague and infect the back of my mind 24-7? I don't think so. Am I going to stop investing in my business and spending to support the economy in fear of a global economic collapse? I'm not convinced burying all one's money in the ground is such a great idea, either.
Instead, I'll place my trust in God and step up to the plate of life with as big a bat as I can, with prudence and forethought, but without fear and hesitation.
How about you? Scroll down and leave your comments below.
Part 2: What Really Makes You Ill?
But wait. I ain't done yet. As I mentioned in the introduction, I've been reading a quite good, quite thick and quite shocking book entitled “What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong” by Dawn Lester and David Parker. While I plan on hosting the authors on a podcast soon, I found their section on viruses and the 1918 flu pandemic so interesting and so contrary to much of what you may have been led to believe regarding viruses, germs and the flu, that I received the authors' gracious permission to feature the same sections I've been furiously highlighting and taking notes in.
This book basically explains what really makes you ill and why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong. It defies quite a few of the assumptions that ‘medical science’ has made significant advances since the 18th century and that 21st century doctors therefore possess a thorough, if not quite complete, knowledge of medicines, diseases and the human body. Unfortunately, however, this would be a mistaken assumption; as the book quite elegantly demonstrates.
Pardon me for the length, but here is what is written in the quite thorough section on viruses, which is quite relevant to what I've written above when you begin to realize that you are in more control than you may think – meaning that caring for your body and immune system is going to vastly reduce the risk of you being debilitated by a virus, and furthermore, if you've done that and you do contract a virus, it's not very likely to slow you down for long:
“The establishment definition of a virus refers to it as,
“a minute particle that is capable of replication but only within living cells.”
All viruses have a basic structure described by the definition as follows,
“Each consists of a core of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) surrounded by a protein shell.”
In addition, some types of virus have a lipid ‘envelope’, which gives rise to their classification as ‘enveloped’; viruses without this structure are called ‘non enveloped’.
The definition also claims that viruses are the causes of many diseases, as if this has been definitively proven. But this is not the case; there is no original scientific evidence that definitively demonstrates that any virus is the cause of any disease. The burden of proof for any theory lies with those who propose it; but none of the existing documents provides ‘proof’ that supports the claim that ‘viruses’ are pathogens.
Although Dr Leverson and Dr Beddow Bayly wrote their comments exposing the lack of scientific proof prior to the invention of the electron microscope, Dr Hillman’s work was subsequent to its invention; he exposed many flaws that arise from the use of that particular piece of technology for the study of viruses.
The fundamental problem lies with the use of the term ‘virus’ and the idea that it refers to a pathogenic microorganism.
During the 19th century, scientists who believed in the ‘germ theory’ had been able to discover a variety of bacteria that appeared to be associated with a number of the diseases they were investigating. However, they were unable to find a bacterial or even fungal agent associated with some of those diseases. This led them to the belief that there had to be some other ‘organism’ that was responsible for those other diseases. They believed that it must be an organism that was too small to be seen through the optical microscopes of the period.
It was only after the invention of the electron microscope in the 1930s that particles smaller than bacteria could be observed in samples taken from people with certain diseases. It was these tiny particles that became known as ‘viruses’ and assumed to be the causal agents of all diseases that could not be attributed to bacteria.
The discovery of ‘particles’ in samples taken from people with a disease, and the assumption that this represents a causal relationship, is akin to blaming firemen as being the causes of fires, because they are directly associated with fire and often found at premises that are ablaze. This analogy serves to highlight the potentially dire consequences that can result from the misinterpretation of an observed phenomenon, and from incorrect assumptions about an association between the different factors involved.
It may be claimed that the association between viruses and human disease has been experimentally observed and scientifically established; but, as will be demonstrated, this would be an incorrect claim.
The word ‘virus’ had been used for centuries in connection with diseases, and was certainly in use long before the particles now called ‘viruses’ were first seen or even theorised; this situation is a major source of much confusion on the topic. It is however, incorrect to assume that the particles that are now called ‘viruses’ are the same ‘entities’ to which the earlier writings referred.
All the evidence indicates that the early writings used the word ‘virus’ in the context of its original meaning, which is from the Latin for a ‘poison’ or ‘noxious substance’. Careful reading of 18th and 19th century writings, particularly those that refer to smallpox inoculation and vaccination, show that the use of the word ‘virus’ is clearly intended to refer to some kind of ‘noxious matter’. This can be demonstrated by the practice of inoculation, which used the ‘pus’ from sores on the skins of people with the disease called smallpox; this pus was often referred to by the word ‘virus’. The same word was also used to refer to the ‘pus’ from the sores on the udders of cows with the disease called cowpox. The ‘pus’ from sores bears a far closer resemblance to the original meaning of ‘virus’ as a poison or a noxious substance than to an ‘infectious’ particle.
The word ‘infection’ was also used in many of the writings of the 18th and 19th centuries, but not in the context in which it is now used to refer to the invasion of a ‘germ’. In those writings the word was used in the context of referring to something that contaminates or pollutes. Taking the ‘pus’ from a person’s skin sores and ‘inoculating’ it into cuts made in the skin of a healthy person, will certainly contaminate and pollute that person’s bloodstream; there is no need to invoke the existence of a minute particle to explain an ensuing illness resulting from blood poisoning.
The definition of a ‘germ’ refers to it as a microorganism; the definition of an organism refers to a ‘living thing’. Interestingly the establishment definition of a virus does not refer to it as an ‘organism’, which would tend to suggest that a virus is not considered to be alive. There is an ongoing, lively debate on the issue of whether viruses are alive or not; but there are some basic functions that an ‘entity’ must exhibit in order for it to be defined as ‘living’, which shows that the issue cannot be one of differing opinions; it is a matter of ascertaining the facts.
Dr Lynn Margulis PhD, a renowned biologist and member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) from 1983 until her death in 2011, provides an explanation in her book entitled Symbiotic Planet, of the distinction between living and non-living. She refers to viruses as non-living and explains that,
“They are not alive since outside living cells they do nothing, ever. Viruses require the metabolism of the live cell because they lack the requisites to generate their own. Metabolism, the incessant chemistry of self-maintenance, is an essential feature of life. Viruses lack this.”
An August 2008 Scientific American article entitled Are Viruses Alive provides an interesting insight into the changing perception of viruses,
“First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then as biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and non-living…”
Although categorising viruses as being in a ‘gray area’, the article nevertheless asserts that they are pathogenic,
“In the late 19th century researchers realized that certain diseases, including rabies and foot-and-mouth, were caused by particles that seemed to behave like bacteria but were much smaller.”
This assertion tends to support the idea that viruses must be alive because they are claimed to behave like bacteria, which are living entities, as will be discussed in the next section. The use of the word ‘realised’ is intended to convey the impression that these diseases have been proven to be caused by those smaller particles; this impression is however, misleading.
There is clearly a significant effort to promote the view that viruses are living entities; the main reason for this is because this view helps to justify the claims that viruses are ‘infectious agents’ that can be transmitted between people and cause deadly diseases. But there is a major problem with the idea that viruses can be transmitted between people, because, as Dr Margulis states,
“…any virus outside the membrane of a live cell is inert.”
Widespread public knowledge that viruses are ‘non-living’ particles that are inert outside of the host cell, would make it a great deal more difficult for the medical establishment to justify their claims that these particles are dangerous and cause many ‘deadly’ diseases.
The revelation that viruses are not living particles clearly raises two fundamental questions about their alleged functions: the first is how inert particles are able to move and be transmitted between people; the second is how viruses are able to enter the body and ‘infect’ cells.
The description of a virus as inert means that it lacks the ability to move by itself. This lack of self-propelled motion is acknowledged by the medical establishment that refers to viruses as ‘not motile’. Nevertheless, they attempt to explain the apparent ability of viruses to ‘move’ and be transmitted between people by the claim that they ride, or ‘hitchhike’ on various other particles that can travel through the environment. This ‘ride’ is said to cease when the virus particle makes contact with a new host to ‘infect’.
The problem with this explanation is that it fails to explain how a virus escapes from the host cell if it is ‘not motile’. It also fails to explain how the ‘virus’ is able to find and ‘hitch’ itself to the appropriate particle that is going to be ejected from the body during a sneeze or a cough.
The second question requires an explanation of the method by which a virus is claimed to be able to ‘infect’ a cell. The web page of UCMP (University of California Museum of Paleontology) Berkeley entitled Introduction to Viruses, states that,
“When it comes into contact with a host cell, a virus can insert its genetic material into its host…”
The purported mechanism is described in a little more detail in a July 2007 article entitled, Imaging Poliovirus Entry in Live Cells, the abstract of which begins,
“Viruses initiate infection by transferring their genetic material across a cellular membrane and into the appropriate compartment of the cell.”
This ‘insertion’ or ‘transfer’ assumes that the virus takes an active part in these mechanisms, but the idea that a virus can be active is contradicted by Dr Margulis and others who state categorically that a virus is inert outside of a living cell. The 2007 article makes the highly revealing statement that,
“The mechanisms by which animal viruses, especially non enveloped viruses, deliver their genomes are only poorly understood.”
The article also reveals that,
“How non enveloped viruses, such as poliovirus, enter target cells is not well understood.”
These statements are not only profoundly revealing but also astounding, considering that the idea of ‘viral infection’ rests on the theory that viruses enter cells in order to cause disease. These statements clearly demonstrate how little is actually known about viruses and their alleged mechanism of action in causing an ‘infection’. It should be obvious that a great deal of the ‘information’ about viruses promulgated by the medical establishment is based on a collection of unproven assumptions and suppositions.
The lack of known facts about viruses can be demonstrated by the example of a cold ‘virus’ that is claimed to be transmitted via saliva or mucous particles when a person sneezes or coughs. These particles are said to be inhaled by another person, who then becomes ‘infected’ by the virus, which travels through the person’s body to the appropriate cells of their lung tissues. The transmission of any viral particle attached to saliva or mucous travelling through the air has never been observed; viral particles are only ever observed in a laboratory under an electron microscope. The transmission of viruses in the air is an assumption; as is their ability to travel through a human body.
A further contradiction of the theory that viruses are transmitted between people can be seen from another common ‘infectious disease’, namely, influenza or ‘the flu’. The worst outbreak of this disease is reported to have occurred during 1918 and to have killed many tens of millions of people. The number of people reported to have died as the result of this epidemic varies widely from about 20 million to about 100 million people, which raises many questions about the veracity of these claims and about the number of genuine casualties from the flu rather than from the effects of WWI. There are also many reports that claim the real duration of the ‘epidemic’ to have been far longer than a single year. The reason that a huge number of people died during this period is claimed to be because the disease was highly contagious; there are however, many problems with such claims; the ‘1918 Flu’ is discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.
The epidemic of 1918 is usually referred to as a ‘viral’ disease, although initially there were ideas that it was caused by a bacterium. Herbert Shelton describes some of the early experiments conducted on volunteers from the US Naval Detention camp to determine the alleged bacterial cause and to test the transmission of the disease. In his book entitled The Hygienic System: Vol VI Orthopathy, he describes one of the experiments conducted to test the transmission of the disease and explains that,
“Ten other men were carried to the bedside of ten new cases of influenza and spent 45 minutes with them. Each well man had ten sick men cough in his face.”
He records that the results of these experiments were that,
“None of these volunteers developed any symptoms of influenza following the experiment.”
It may be suggested that 10 is too small a number to be a statistically significant sample size, but this argument would miss the salient point, which is that each healthy man had ten sick men cough in his face and none of them became ill; a fact that contradicts the idea that viral particles ‘hitchhike’ onto saliva or mucous that is ejected from the body during a sneeze or cough. According to the ‘germ theory’, all of the healthy men should have been ‘infected’ by the viruses and become ill. The fact that they did not fall ill poses a direct and serious challenge to the basic assumption that ‘flu’ is infectious.
Exceptions to any rule is an indication that the ‘rule’ is flawed and needs to be re-examined; the empirical evidence is primary.
The lack of understanding by the medical establishment about the mechanism for the viral ‘infection’ of cells has not improved since the publication of the 2007 poliovirus article previously referred to; there remain both a lack of understanding about and an absence of proof of the mechanism involved. This lack of progress is indicated by an August 2015 article entitled A Non-enveloped Virus Hijacks Host Disaggregation Machinery to Translocate across the Endoplasmic Reticulum Membrane, which states that,
“How non-enveloped viruses penetrate a host membrane to enter cells and cause disease remains an enigmatic step.”
Dr Hillman identified the ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ as one of the artefacts that are generated as the result of the preparation procedures necessary to view viruses under an electron microscope.
The website of the Encyclopedia of Life (EoL), a project that promotes the medical establishment view, contains a page about ‘viruses’ and refers to them as ‘microscopic organisms’, which demonstrates the efforts to present the case that viruses are ‘alive’. To further promote this view, the EoL web page provides information about the stages in a ‘viral life cycle’, the first stage of which is claimed to be one in which a virus attaches itself to a cell; the page states that,
“Attachment is the intermolecular binding between viral capsid proteins and receptors on the outer membrane of the host cell.”
The problem with this explanation is that Dr Hillman also identified ‘receptors’ as cellular artefacts that are generated by the preparation procedures used in such experiments.
It is claimed that once a virus has penetrated the cell, it will replicate, which is said to initiate the ‘disease’ process. The EoL web page refers to numerous mechanisms involved in this process that include cell lysis and the ultimate death of the cell. The page makes the significant statement that,
“In multicellular organisms, if sufficient numbers of cells die, the whole organism may suffer gross metabolic disruption or even mortality.”
There is a huge problem with this statement, which is that many billions of human cells die every day; ‘cell death’ is a normal part of the processes of human life. The idea that cell death is synonymous with ‘disease’ is therefore highly misleading; it completely contradicts known biological functions of the human body.
The reason that cell death is perceived to be a ‘disease process’ is because this is what is likely to have been observed during laboratory experiments. However, there are genuine reasons for cells to die after tissue samples have been subjected to the various preparation procedures used in laboratory experimentation; as explained by Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr Köhnlein in Virus Mania,
“This phenomenon is particularly virulent in bacterial and viral research (and in the whole pharmaceutical development of medicines altogether) where laboratory experiments on tissue samples which are tormented with a variety of often highly reactive chemicals allow few conclusions about reality. And yet, conclusions are constantly drawn – and then passed straight on to the production of medications and vaccines.”
This explanation exposes the fundamental error in conducting laboratory research without an adequate understanding of the living organism that is the human body. It also clearly supports the conclusions drawn by Dr Hillman, that laboratory procedures affect the samples being investigated to the point that they bear no resemblance to ‘reality’.
Yet most scientific information about viruses is derived from laboratory experiments of this nature. In these experiments ‘viruses’ are reported to have replicated inside a cell, after which the cell dies. This process does not prove that the ‘virus’ killed the cell nor does it prove that the ‘virus’ initiates any disease processes; it merely proves that the cell died after the processes used in the experiments. These points are also raised in Virus Mania, in which the authors state that,
“Another important question must be raised: even when a supposed virus does kill cells in a test-tube (in vitro) … can we safely conclude that these findings can be carried over to a living organism (in vivo)?”
The assumption that a particular ‘viral particle’ causes a particular ‘infection’ is solely based on the claim that certain antibodies have sometimes been found in samples extracted from some people exhibiting certain symptoms; in other words, there appears to be a correlation between symptoms and antibodies. It should be noted that viruses are not detected directly.
However, many people are diagnosed as suffering from a ‘viral illness’ without any investigations or tests having been conducted to ascertain whether they have been infected by an allegedly pathogenic virus. A diagnosis is frequently based on the different symptoms that a patient experiences and reports to their doctor. People can also be discovered to have a ‘virus’ in their bodies without exhibiting the specific symptoms of the disease it is alleged to cause; this is claimed to represent the ‘dormant’ stage of the virus, as discussed on the EoL web page that states,
“Although viruses may cause disruption of normal homeostasis resulting in disease, in some cases viruses may simply reside inside an organism without significant harm.”
Although the virus may be ‘dormant’ and therefore harmless, it is claimed that there is a potential for the virus to be ‘activated’ and to initiate the relevant disease. In their efforts to justify the existence of an allegedly ‘dormant’ virus in the body, the medical establishment has created the term ‘latent infection’. The following extract from the Yale Medical group website page entitled All About Viruses shows how the medical establishment attempts to explain what is clearly an anomaly,
“Varicella viruses are examples of viruses that cause latent infections. The varicella-zoster virus remains in the body after causing the initial infection known as chicken pox. If it is re-activated, it travels through nerves to the skin, where it causes the blister-like lesions of shingles. The virus then returns to its dormant state.”
Despite the claim that they explain ‘all about viruses’, these statements are made without any supportive evidence; there is no explanation for any of these stages of an allegedly ‘latent infection’; nor is there any explanation for the mechanisms by which a virus becomes ‘dormant’ or is re-activated. Yet the ‘germ theory’ is still claimed to have been scientifically proven, and to provide a comprehensive and compelling explanation for ‘viruses’ and the ‘infectious diseases’ they are alleged to cause.
There are only a very few brave scientists who have been prepared to contradict the medical establishment and acknowledge publicly that viruses are not pathogenic. One such scientist is Dr Lynn Margulis, who states in Symbiotic Planet that,
“The point that bears mentioning, however, is that viruses are no more ‘germs’ and ‘enemies’ than are bacteria or human cells.”
Another of these brave scientists is Dr Stefan Lanka PhD, a German biologist who studied virology as well as molecular biology, ecology and marine biology.
An interview with Dr Lanka was conducted in 2005 for the online German newspaper Faktuell. The interview, which has fortunately been translated into English, reveals that the topics of discussion included bird flu and vaccination. During the interview Dr Lanka referred to his studies in molecular biology and made the bold claim that,
“In the course of my studies, I and others have not been able to find proof of the existence of disease-causing viruses anywhere.”
He continues to discuss his research and further explains that,
“Later we have discoursed on this publicly and have called on people not to believe us either but to check out themselves whether or not there are disease causing viruses.”
He also stated in the interview that he and a number of other people had been questioning the German authorities for the ‘proof’ of pathogenic viruses. He reports that the result of their efforts revealed that,
“…the health authorities are no longer maintaining that any virus whatsoever purportedly causing a disease has been directly proven to exist.”
This statement that no ‘disease-causing’ virus has been directly proven to exist highlights another crucial fact, which is that the ‘presence’ of a virus in the body is not determined directly, but only through the detection of antibodies that the body is alleged to have produced against the virus; there is no test that is able to directly detect the presence of a ‘whole virus’. The real purpose and function within the human body of these particles of genetic material contained within a protein coating are unknown; the claim that they cause disease remains entirely unproven.
Dr Lanka was also interviewed in April 2016; this time by David Crowe for his internet programme, The Infectious Myth, on the Progressive Radio Network. In this interview Dr Lanka again asserted that there is no evidence that proves any virus to be the cause of any disease, and that the theories about infectious diseases are wrong. He also discussed the details of his recent court case that arose from a challenge he had set a number of years earlier. This challenge was that a certain sum of money would be paid to anyone who produced genuine scientific ‘proof’ of the existence of the measles virus. The purpose of this challenge was to expose the fallacy of the claim that measles is caused by a virus.
In 2015 a German doctor accepted the challenge; the basis of his ‘proof’ was a set of six published papers that he claimed provided the necessary evidence. Dr Lanka, however, claimed that the papers did not contain the required evidence, and refuted the doctor’s claim to the ‘reward’ money. This dispute resulted in a court case that found in favour of the German doctor. The court’s decision that the papers provided the required ‘proof’ and that Dr Lanka had therefore ‘lost’ his case were widely reported in many media outlets, some of which also contained disparaging comments about Dr Lanka personally.
However, Dr Lanka maintained his claim that the papers did not provide the required proof and appealed against the court’s decision. The appeal was heard in early 2016 and the decision this time found in favour of Dr Lanka; in other words, it was found that the papers failed to provide the necessary ‘proof’. The mainstream media, however, were noticeably silent about the result of the appeal. The lack of media coverage of Dr Lanka’s successful appeal is revealing, especially as it coincided with reports about a number of ‘outbreaks’ of measles cases in the early months of 2016. But these reports studiously avoided making any reference to the court case that had demonstrated that no evidence exists that proves measles to be caused by a virus.
It should be clear from this discussion that no disease is caused by a virus.
In his interviews, Dr Lanka urges people to investigate for themselves if there is any genuine evidence for any ‘disease-causing viruses’. The authors of this book make the same request and ask people to investigate for themselves whether any ‘virus’ has been conclusively proven to be the cause of any infectious disease. Any investigation of this nature should involve contact with the organisations that claim viruses to be the cause of disease to ask them the following questions:
Is there an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus?
What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which the virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described?
What is the name of the primary publication that provides proof that a particular virus is the sole cause of a particular disease?
It is vitally important that any documents referred to by the organisation, should they reply, must be primary papers; textbooks or other reference materials that are not primary documents are not acceptable; they must provide primary evidence.
It should be noted that investigations of this nature, including those undertaken by virologists such as Dr Lanka, have failed to unearth any original papers that conclusively prove that any virus is the cause of any disease. In addition, as this discussion has demonstrated, the functions attributed to viruses in the causation of disease are based on assumptions and extrapolations from laboratory experiments that have not only failed to prove, but are incapable of proving, that viruses cause disease. The inert, non-living particles known as viruses do not possess the ability to perform such functions because they lack the necessary mechanisms.”
The authors then go on, after reasoning elsewhere in the book that there is no scientific basis for the idea that ‘germs’ cause disease, to point out how the 1918 flu pandemic is a perfect example the questions the actual transmissibility of viruses.
“Our previous article, entitled The Germ Theory: A Deadly Fallacy, revealed that there is no scientific basis for the idea that ‘germs’ cause disease.
This revelation raises a fundamental question about the transmission of diseases claimed to be infectious; a question that is answered by the statement that because diseases are not caused by germs, they cannot be transmissible.
The vast majority of people will consider this statement to be highly controversial as it contradicts their everyday experience of seeing people with the same symptoms at the same time; an experience that is invariably interpreted to provide ‘proof’ that those people have all ‘caught’ the same disease that has been spread by germs. Although a popular interpretation of simultaneous ill-health, it is nevertheless an erroneous one.
This statement will inevitably raise yet further questions in people’s minds, the main ones being: why do diseases appear to be infectious; and what causes them if not germs? The answer to the first question is that appearances are deceptive. The answer to the second question is that people are exposed to complex combinations of harmful substances and influences that induce the symptoms associated with disease. Furthermore, as we explain in our book What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong, symptoms represent the body’s innate self-healing processes; they are the body’s efforts to expel toxins, repair damage and restore health. The reason that people in close proximity to each other experience similar symptoms is because they have been exposed to similar combinations of harmful substances and influences.
The best way to expand on these explanations is through an example: the most pertinent example, in view of the current alleged ‘pandemic’, is the 1918 Flu.
Influenza is defined on the November 2018 WHO fact sheet entitled Influenza (Seasonal) as a seasonal illness that is said to be characterised by certain symptoms, especially fever, cough, headache, muscle and joint pain, sore throat and runny nose. Although not regarded as inherently dangerous, influenza is said to be potentially fatal for people ‘at high risk', which refers to children under 5, adults over 65, pregnant women and people with certain other medical conditions.
It is claimed that the pandemic of 1918 was responsible for the deaths of 20 to 100 million people. However, unlike the ‘seasonal’ variety, the 1918 flu affected a completely different demographic; the majority of deaths occurred in adults in the 20 to 40 age range. In addition, the symptoms they experienced are reported to have been very different from those described by the WHO. A Stanford University article entitled The Influenza Pandemic of 1918 refers to physicians’ reports and states that,
“Others told stories of people on their way to work suddenly developing the flu and dying within hours.”
Nevertheless, this illness is claimed to be merely a variation of ordinary influenza; as indicated by a 2006 CDC article entitled 1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics that claims,
“All influenza A pandemics since that time, and indeed almost all cases of influenza A worldwide…have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus…”
It should be emphasised that viruses are not alive; they cannot therefore have descendants.
A significant aspect of the 1918 ‘pandemic’ is that it occurred towards the end of WWI. Although military personnel are usually amongst the fittest and healthiest members of the population, it is reported that soldiers were often the most severely affected, especially in the US; as indicated by a 2014 article entitled Death from 1918 pandemic influenza during the First World War that states,
“Pandemic influenza struck all the armies, but the highest morbidity rate was found among the Americans as the disease sickened 26% of the US Army, over one million men.”
The article also claims that,
“The origin of the influenza pandemic has been inextricably linked with the men who occupied the military camps and trenches during the First World War.”
There are reasons that these men became ill or died; one key reason is the use of medicines and vaccines, both of which have been directly linked to morbidity and mortality. In her booklet entitled Swine Flu Exposé, Eleanor McBean refers to the 1918 Flu and explains that,
“It was a common expression during the war that ‘more soldiers were killed by vaccine shots than by shots from enemy guns.’ The vaccines, in addition to the poison drugs given in the hospitals, made healing impossible in too many cases. If the men had not been young and healthy to begin with, they would all have succumbed to the mass poisoning in the Army.”
The medicine commonly prescribed for the treatment of influenza during the early 20th century was aspirin, the dangers of which were unknown at the time, but have since been recognised to include respiratory problems; as indicated by a November 2009 article entitled Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918-1919 Pharmacology, Pathology and Historic Evidence that states,
“Pharmacokinetic data, which were unavailable in 1918, indicate that the aspirin regimens recommended for the ‘Spanish influenza’ predispose to severe pulmonary toxicity.”
The disease was originally believed to be caused by a bacterium, against which a number of vaccines were developed; as discussed in a 2009 article entitled The fog of research: Influenza vaccine trials during the 1918-19 pandemic which states that,
“Bacterial vaccines of various sorts were widely used for both preventive and therapeutic purposes during the great influenza pandemic of 1918-19.”
In his book, The Hygienic System: Vol VI Orthopathy, Herbert Shelton refers to epidemics as ‘mass sickness’ and adds that,
“In the training camp where the writer was stationed, hundreds of cases of mumps developed during the influenza pandemic. But these did not make the front page. During this pandemic there were as many or more colds as ever, but almost nobody had a cold. Colds were influenza. Influenza was a blanket term that covered whatever the patient had.”
The similarity to the 2020 ‘pandemic’ is striking!
Although the vaccines of the early 20th century differed from those of the early 21st century, their ingredients share many characteristics, most notably toxicity and neurotoxicity. The 20th century vaccines were associated with many adverse effects, including lethargic encephalitis; as described by Annie Riley Hale in her book entitled The Medical Voodoo,
“In the British Journal of Experimental Pathology August 1926, two well-known London medical professors, Drs Turnbull and McIntosh, reported several cases of encephalitis lethargica – ‘sleeping sickness’ – following vaccination which had come under their observation.”
Post-vaccination encephalitis is a recognised phenomenon; as indicated by a September 1931 article entitled Post-Vaccination Encephalitis that states,
“Post-vaccination encephalitis is a disease of unknown etiology that has appeared in recent years and which occurs without regard to the existence of known factors other than the presence of a recent vaccination against smallpox.”
The adverse effects of medicines and vaccines are unsurprising, considering the toxic nature of their ingredients; as explained by the authors of Virus Mania,
“Additionally, the medications and vaccines applied in masses at that time contained highly toxic substances like heavy metals, arsenic, formaldehyde and chloroform…”
Medicines and vaccines were not the only hazardous material to which soldiers were exposed. In his book entitled Pandora’s Poison, Joe Thornton discusses chlorine, which, in its natural state within a chloride salt, is stable and relatively harmless. Chlorine gas, by comparison, is highly reactive, destructive and deadly; as he explains,
“If released into the environment, chlorine gas will travel slowly over the ground in a coherent cloud, a phenomenon familiar to World War I soldiers who faced it as a chemical weapon, one of chlorine’s first large-scale applications.”
Survivors of a chlorine gas attack would have suffered respiratory problems for the rest of their lives; Joe Thornton describes the effects,
“Chlorinated chemicals were particularly effective chemical weapons because they were highly toxic and oil soluble, so they could cross cell membranes and destroy the tissues of lungs, eyes and skin, incapacitating soldiers and causing extreme pain.”
There were other toxic chemicals that could induce respiratory problems that may have been mistakenly identified as ‘influenza’, such as Nitroglycerin, which was manufactured in large quantities and used extensively during WWI. Its significance is explained by Nicholas Ashford PhD and Dr Claudia Miller MD in their book entitled Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, in which they state that,
“Nitroglycerin, used to manufacture gunpowder, rocket fuels and dynamite, may cause severe headaches, breathing difficulties, weakness, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting as a result of inhalation.”
The ‘war effort’ inevitably created a substantially increased demand for the industrial manufacture of machinery, equipment and weapons, many of which needed to be welded; welding is a hazardous occupation as the authors explain,
“Welding and galvanised metal causes evolution of zinc oxide fumes that, when inhaled, provoke an influenza-like syndrome with headaches, nausea, weakness, myalgia, coughing, dyspnea and fever.”
Dyspnoea refers to breathing difficulties.
Influenza of the seasonal variety is said to affect millions of people worldwide every year; as the WHO fact sheet states,
“Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness and about 290,000 to 650,000 respiratory deaths.”
Many countries were affected by the 1918 ‘pandemic’, although India is claimed to have been the most severely affected; a 2014 article entitled The evolution of pandemic influenza: evidence from India 1918-19 states that,
“The focal point of the epidemic in terms of mortality was India, with an estimated death toll range of 10-20 million…”
In 1918, India had an established pharmaceutical industry and a growing vaccination programme; as described in a 2014 article entitled A brief history of vaccines and vaccination in India that states,
“The early twentieth century witnessed the challenges in expansion of smallpox vaccination, typhoid vaccine trial in Indian personnel, and setting up of vaccine institutes in almost each of the then Indian states.”
Cholera and plague vaccines were also used in India. The article also refers to one of the common explanations for the alleged ‘spread’ of the flu throughout the population in the comment that,
“The pandemic is believed to have originated from influenza-infected World War I troops returning home.”
There is little, if any, evidence to support this claim; but there is a major flaw in the idea that returning troops were responsible for the spread of the ‘1918 Flu’. This disease is claimed to have been so deadly that it could kill within days, or even hours. It is clear therefore that Indian soldiers afflicted by this deadly form of ‘influenza’ would not have survived the long journey from a European war zone back to their home country.
Another particularly interesting circumstance that would have affected the health of large numbers of people is the ‘crippling drought’ that India experienced in 1918-19, which is said to have been the result of the El Niño Southern Climatic Oscillation (ENSO). This is reported in a December 2014 article entitled Malaria’s contribution to World War One – the unexpected adversary that states,
“The ENSO for 1918-1919 was one of the strongest in the twentieth century.”
India is not the only country to have been affected by the strong ENSO of 1918-19; many regions in the southern hemisphere were also affected. Parts of Australia, for example, are reported to have experienced severe droughts between 1918 and 1920. Other regions known to have been affected by the ENSO of 1918-19 include Brazil, Central America, Indonesia and the Philippines, as well as parts of Africa. Yet adverse health problems in these countries during that period are invariably attributed to influenza; as indicated by a July 2013 article entitled Mortality from the influenza pandemic of 1918-19 in Indonesia, which states that,
“For Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous country, the most widely used estimate of mortality from that pandemic is 1.5 million.”
The article makes no reference to the ENSO of 1918-19 and only discusses the decline in the population due to influenza.
WWI also involved men drawn from African countries that were colonies of European countries; as discussed in an article entitled War Losses (Africa) that refers to the,
“…vast mobilization of African soldiers and laborers for service in Europe between 1914 and 1918…”
It should be noted that soldiers and labourers were not the only casualties; the article also states that,
“…very large, but unknown numbers of African civilians perished during the war.”
The article refers to some of the reasons that African civilians died and these include,
“…famine prompted by a lack of manpower to till the fields, and diseases exacerbated by malnourishment…”
Famines throughout the regions of the southern hemisphere are likely to have been triggered by the droughts that are frequently associated with an ENSO, and especially the strong ENSO of 1918-19.
It is abundantly obvious that the ‘pandemic’ referred to as the 1918 Flu occurred during a unique time in history. The refutation of the ‘germ theory’ means, however, that the high levels of morbidity and mortality experienced during that time cannot be attributed to an ‘infectious virus’.
Instead, as we have shown in this article and as we show in depth in our book, that worldwide phenomenon can be explained by a number of causal factors that include, but are not restricted to: the stresses of war and combat; multiple toxic vaccinations; toxic medicines; the appalling conditions in which soldiers lived and fought; exposures to deadly chlorine gas and other toxic materials; and the effects of a strong ENSO.
These factors, occurring simultaneously and acting synergistically, provide a far more compelling explanation for the morbidity and mortality suffered during 1918 than that of an infection by a non-living particle of genetic material in a protein coating that has been labelled ‘virus’.”
As you know, I'm a quite open-minded guy and always approach outside-the-box thinking with skepticism, but also with a caution to not hold any of my pre-programmed beliefs too tightly, and the anecdotes above from What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong were so extremely thought-provoking to me in terms of potentially altering a few of my beliefs about how viruses and germs really work that I felt compelled to share with you. Again, this book is quite hefty and thick, but I think it'd be a valuable addition to any progressive health-seeker's library.
Finally, if you have even more time on your hands, I'd watch this video. It will also give you hope that we are living in a viral soup that is, in fact, entirely natural and crucial to the life on this planet:
Leave your comments about these anecdotes, and about my thoughts on fear and coronavirus below, and I'll certainly read each and every thought anyone has, in the spirit of productive discussion and the ultimate betterment of all.