Rethinking Viruses

Why Everything You Learned About Viruses is WRONG

By Sayer Ji

Contributing writer for Wake Up World

Groundbreaking research indicates that most of what is believed about the purportedly deadly properties of viruses like influenza is, in fact, not evidence-based but myth.

Germ theory is an immensely powerful force on this planet, affecting everyday interactions from a handshake, all the way up the ladder to national vaccination agendas and global eradication campaigns.

But what if fundamental research on what exactly these ‘pathogens’ are, how they infect us, has not yet even been performed? What if much of what is assumed and believed about the danger of microbes, particularly viruses, has completely been undermined in light of radical new discoveries in microbiology?

Some of our readers already know that in my previous writings I discuss why the “germs as our enemies” concept has been decimated by the relatively recent discovery of the microbiome. For in depth background on this topic, read my previous article, “How The Microbiome Destroyed the Ego, Vaccine Policy, and Patriarchy.” You can also read Profound Implications of the Virome for Human Health and Autoimmunity, to get a better understanding of how viruses are actually beneficial to mammalian health.

In this article I will take a less philosophical approach, and focus on influenza as a more concrete example of the Copernican-level paradigm shift in biomedicine and life sciences we are all presently fully immersed within, even if the medical establishment has yet to acknowledge it. (a topic I cover extensively in my book REGENERATE: Unlocking Your Body’s Radical Resilience through the New Biology).

Deadly Flu Viruses: Vaccinate or Die?

The hyperbolic manner in which health policymakers and mainstream media pundits talk about it today, flu virus (or COVID-19) is an inexorably lethal force (note: viruses are obligiate parasites, at worst, with no inner motive force to actively “infect” others), against which all citizens, of all ages 6 months or older, need the annual influenza vaccine to protect themselves against, lest they (it is said) face deadly consequences. Worse, those who hold religious or philosophical objections, or who otherwise conscientiously object to vaccinating, are being characterized as doing harm to others by denying them herd immunity (a concept that has been completely debunked by a careful study of the evidence, or lack thereof). For instance, in the interview below Bill Gates tells Sanjay Gupta that he thinks non-vaccinators “kill children”:

But what if I told you that there isn’t even such a thing as “flu virus,” in the sense of a monolithic, disease vector existing outside of us, conceived as it is as the relationship of predator to prey?

First, consider that the highly authorative Cochrane collaboration acknowledges there are many different flu viruses that are not, in fact, influenza A — against which flu vaccines are targeted — but which nonetheless can contribute to symptoms identical to those attributed to influenza A:

Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Source: Cochrane Summaries).” [emphasis added]

This makes for a picture of complexity that powerfully undermines health policies that presuppose vaccination equates to bona fide immunity, and by implication, necessitates the herd collectively participate in the ritual of mass vaccination campaigns as a matter of life-or-death social necessity.

Even the use of the word “immunization” to describe vaccination is highly misleading. The moment the word is used, it already presupposes efficacy, and makes it appear as if non-vaccinators are anti-immunity, instead of what they actually are: pro-immunity (via clean air, food, water, and sunlight), but unwilling to subject themselves or their healthy children to “unavoidably unsafe” medical procedures with only theoretical benefits.

Why Flu Virus Doesn’t Exist (The Way We Were Told)

But the topic gets even more interesting when we consider the findings of a 2015 study entitled “Conserved and host-specific features of influenza virion architecture.” This was the first study ever to plumb the molecular depths of what influenza virus is actually composed of. Amazingly, given the long history of vaccine use and promotion, the full characterization of what proteins it contains, and where they are derived from, was never previously performed. How we invest billions of dollars annually into flu vaccines, and have created a global campaign to countermand a viral enemy, whose basic building blocks were not even known until a few years ago, is hard to understand. But it is true nonetheless.

The study abstract opens with this highly provocative line:

“Viruses use virions to spread between hosts, and virion composition is therefore the primary determinant of viral transmissibility and immunogenicity.” [emphasis added]

Influenza viral particles

Virion are also known as “viral particles,” and they are the means by which viral nucleic acids are able to move and ‘infect’ living organisms. Without the viral particle (taxi) to carry around the virus DNA (passenger), it would be harmless; in fact, viruses are often described as existing somewhere between living and inanimate objects for this reason: they do not produce their own energy, nor are transmissable without a living host. And so, in this first line, the authors are making it clear that virion composition is also the primary determinant in how or whether a virus is infectious (transmits) and what effects it will have in the immune system of the infected host.

This distinction is important because we often think of viruses as simply pathogenic strings of DNA or RNA. The irony, of course, is that the very things we attribute so much lethality to — viral nucleic acids — are not even alive, and can not infect an organism without all the other components (proteins, lipids, extra-viral nucleic acids) which are, technically, not viral in origin, participating in the process. And so, if the components that are non-viral are essential for the virus to cause harm, how can we continue to maintain that we are up against a monolithic disease entity “out there” who “infects” us, a passive victim? It’s fundamentally non-sensical, given these findings. It also clearly undermines the incessant, fear-based rhetoric those beholden to the pro-vaccine stance to coerce the masses into undergoing the largely faith-based rite of vaccination.

Let’s dive deeper into the study’s findings.

The next line of the abstract addresses the fact we opened this article with: namely, that there is great complexity involved at the level of the profound variability in virion composition:

“However, the virions of many viruses are complex and pleomorphic, making them difficult to analyze in detail” 

But this problem of the great variability in the virion composition of influenza is exactly why the study was conducted. They explain:

“Here we address this by identifying and quantifying viral proteins with mass spectrometry, producing a complete and quantifiable model of the hundreds of viral and host-encoded proteins that make up the pleomorphic virions of influenza virus. We show that a conserved influenza virion architecture, which includes substantial quantities of host proteins as well as the viral protein NSI, is elaborated with abundant host-dependent features. As a result, influenza virions produced by mammalian and avian hosts have distinct protein compositions.” 

In other words, they found that the flu virus is as much comprised of biological material from the host the virus ‘infects,’ as the viral genetic material of the virus per se.

How then, do we differentiate influenza virus as fully “other”? Given that it would not exist without “self” proteins, or those of other host animals like birds (avian) or insects, this would be impossible to do with any intellectual honesty intact.

There’s also the significant problem presented by flu vaccine production. Presently, human flu vaccine antigen is produced via insects and chicken eggs. This means that the virus particles extracted from these hosts would contain foreign proteins, and would therefore produce different and/or unpredictable immunological responses in humans than would be expected from human influenza viral particles. One possibility is that the dozens of foreign proteins found within avian influenza could theoretically produce antigens in humans that cross-react with self-structures resulting in autoimmunity. Safety testing, presently, does not test for these cross reactions. Clearly, this discovery opens up a pandora’s box of potential problems that have never sufficiently been analyzed, since it was never understood until now that “influenza” is so thoroughly dependent upon a host for its transmissability and immunogenecity.

Are Flu Viruses Really “Hijacked” Exosomes?

Lastly, the study identified something even more amazing:

“Finally, we note that influenza virions share an underlying protein composition with exosomes, suggesting that influenza virions form by subverting micro vesicle” production.”

What these researchers are talking about is the discovery that virion particles share stunning similarities to naturally occurring virus-like particles produced by all living cells called exosomes. Exosomes, like many viruses (i.e. enveloped viruses) are enclosed in a membrane, and are within the 50-100 nanometer size range that viruses are (20-400 nm). They also contain biologically active molecules, such as proteins and lipids, as well as information-containing ones like RNAs — exactly, or very similar, to the types of contents you find in viral particles.

Watch this basic video on exosomes to get a primer:

When we start to look at viruses through the lens of their overlap with exosomes, which as carriers of RNAs are essential for regulating the expression of the vast majority of the human genome, we start to understand how their function could be considered neutral as “information carriers,” if not beneficial. Both exosomes and viruses may actually be responsible for inter-species or cross-kingdom communication and regulation within the biosphere, given the way they are able to facilitate and mediate horizontal information transfer between organisms. Even eating a piece of fruit containing these exosomes can alter the expression of vitally important genes within our body.

Exosomes

In light of this post-Germ Theory perspective, viruses could be described as pieces of information in search of chromosomes; not inherently “bad,” but, in fact, essential for mediating the genotype/phenotype relationship within organisms, who must adapt to ever-shifting environmental conditions in real-time in order to survive; something the glacial pace of genetic changes within the primary nucleotide sequences of our DNA cannot do (for instance, it may take ~ 100,000 years for a protein-coding gene sequence to change versus seconds for a protein-coding gene’s expression to be altered via modulation via viral or exosomal RNAs).

This does not mean they are “all good”, either. Sometimes, given many conditions outside their control, their messages could present challenges or misinformation to the cells to which they are exposed, which could result in a “disease symptom.” These disease symptoms are often if not invariably attempts by the body to self-regulate and ultimately improve and heal itself.

In other words, the virion composition of viruses appears to be the byproduct of the cell’s normal exosome (also known as microvesicle) production machinery and trafficking, albeit being influenced by influenza DNA. And like exosomes, viruses may be a means of extracellular communication between cells, instead of simply a pathological disease entity. This could explain why an accumulating body of research on the role of the virome in human health indicates that so-called infectious agents, including viruses like measles, confer significant health benefits. [see: the Health Benefits of Measles and The Healing Power of Germs?].

Other researchers have come to similar discoveries about the relationship between exosomes and viruses, sometimes describing viral hijacking of exosome pathways as a “Trojan horse” hypothesis. HIV may provide such an example.

Concluding Remarks

The remarkably recent discovery of the host-dependent nature of the influenza virus’ virion composition is really just the tip of an intellectual iceberg that has yet to fully emerge into the light of day, but is already “sinking” ships; paradigm ships, if you will.

One such paradigm is that germs are enemy combatants, and that viruses serve no fundamental role in our health, and should be eradicated from the earth with drugs and vaccines, if possible.

This belief, however, is untenable. With the discovery of the indispensable role of the microbiome, and the subpopulation of viruses within it — the virome — we have entered into an entirely new, ecologically-based view of the body and its environs that are fundamentally inseparable. Ironically, the only thing that influenza may be capable of killing is germ theory itself.

For an in-depth exploration of this, watch the lecture below on the virome. I promise, if you do so, you will no longer be able to uphold germ theory as a monolithic truth any longer. You may even start to understand how we might consider some viruses “our friends,” and why we may need viruses far more than they need us.

from:   https://wakeup-world.com/2020/09/03/why-everything-you-learned-about-viruses-is-wrong-2/

Some Research on Vaccines

Independent research demonstrates conclusively that unvaccinated children enjoy far superior health than those vaccinated

The research demonstrates conclusively that unvaccinated children enjoy far superior health when compared to those vaccinated.

While there have been no official US government-sponsored studies comparing the health of vaccinated to unvaccinated children, several independently funded studies have been done in the US and overseas. The majority of these studies have been conducted abroad, but many involve American children.

What do these studies show? The research demonstrates conclusively that unvaccinated children enjoy far superior health when compared to those vaccinated. Unvaccinated children experience almost no incidence of autism, autoimmune disorders, asthma, allergies, diabetes and other common childhood diseases which have reached epidemic proportions in recent years.

The Research Studies

One of the most comprehensive studies is an ongoing comparative survey by German homeopathic physician Andreas Bachmair. Bachmair is conducting an independent study comparing the health of vaccinated to unvaccinated children with 17,461 participants.

This research has found a significant increase in the following diseases in those vaccinated: asthma, allergies, bronchitis, otitis media (ear infections), hay fever, herpes, neurodermatitis, hyperactivity, scoliosis, epilepsy, autoimmune disorders, thyroid disease, autism and diabetes. Furthermore, Bachmair discovered three other studies which substantiated his findings. To see the chart with the comparison in diseases, visit this link provided by the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice.

For comprehensive survey results for this published study, see this link.

The majority of those who participated were Americans, with 25 percent of participants comprised of Germans. Ninety-nine percent of those who chose not to vaccinate their children reported to be happy with their decision. Because this study is ongoing, study numbers will vary depending on the report viewed. [1]

Bachmair’s reports further demonstrated that the unvaccinated children very rarely suffered from the following heath conditions: dyslexia, speech delays, bed wetting, celiac disease, gluten sensitivity, GERDs. [2]

In a Salzberger study, of 1,004 unvaccinated children, zero children had asthma, compared to 8-12 percent of the vaccinated population; 1.2 percent of unvaccinated children suffered with dermatitis while 10-20 percent of children vaccinated experienced dermatitis; three percent of unvaccinated children compared to 25 percent of vaccinated experienced allergies; and less than one percent of unvaccinated children were diagnosed with ADHD, compared to 5-10 percent of those vaccinated.

A study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa, which studied the children of 15,000 mothers between 1990-1996, demonstrated that the death rate for children vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough was double for those who had been vaccinated.

A New Zealand study involved 254 children in which 133 children were vaccinated while 121 remained unvaccinated. This comparative study found that the unvaccinated children enjoyed far superior health when the following diseases were studied: tonsillitis, asthma, allergic rashes, SIDS, ear infections and hyperactivity.

Vaccinated children experienced 2 to 10 times higher rates of illness compared to those vaccinated. [3]

Research On Autism And Neurological Disorders

In the Amish community of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, one in 4,875 children were diagnosed with autism. Of the four total Amish children diagnosed, one had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant and three others, including one adopted outside of the community, had been vaccinated. This rate is extremely low to non-existent compared to those vaccinated. Similarly, the Amish of Ohio show that one out of 10,000 children are diagnosed with autism. In the general US population, one in 45 children is now being diagnosed with autism. [4, 5]

In a Homefirst Health Services survey in which 90 percent of children have had no vaccinations, none of the 35,000 children had an autism diagnosis. Furthermore, these children had extremely low asthma rates.

In a Cal-Oregon survey of 9,000 boys, those children vaccinated experienced a 155 percent greater chance of having a neurological disorder such as autism or ADHD.[6]

Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, and an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers has studied thousands of documents relating to the links between the MMR vaccine and autism. He said he has seen a ‘steady accumulation of evidence’ from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is causing brain damage in certain children and that the rising tide of autism cases and growing scientific understanding of autism-related bowel disease have convinced him the MMR vaccine may be to blame.

More Science On Vaccines

In Sally Fallon’s Nourishing Tradition’s Book of Baby and Childcare, five studies are reported, including the Africa and German study previously discussed. The studies all conclude that unvaccinated children enjoy better health than those who have been vaccinated.

A 2004 British study of 8,000 unvaccinated children, which included medical documentation for each child, revealed that vaccinated children experienced two to five times more illness and disorders compared to unvaccinated children. [7]

In a 1997 New Zealand study, 1265 children were surveyed. Of those children who were vaccinated, 23 percent were reported to suffer from asthma and 30 percent suffered from allergies, compared to none in the vaccinated group. [8]

A 1992 New Zealand study of 495 children concluded that vaccinated children suffer far more compared to unvaccinated children. Diseases studied included tonsillitis, ear infections, sleep apnea, hyperactivity and epilepsy. Vaccinated children suffered up to ten times more from these illnesses. [9]

Conclusion

While government groups maintain that no studies have been done to compare the health of vaccinated to unvaccinated, the reality is that several comparative studies have been completed by independent researchers in the US and in other countries.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention refuses to conduct such studies, claiming they would be unethical to perform. In reality, these studies could easily be performed, since many educated parents choose to not vaccinate their children.

The evidence is overwhelming. Studies completed in New Zealand, Germany, Africa, Great Britain and the United States have come to the same conclusion. Unvaccinated children enjoy far superior health on all measures of disease entities.

References:

  1. Survey Results: Are Unvaccinated Children Healthier?
  2. Studies Prove Without Doubt That Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier Than Their Vaccinated Peers
  3. Studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated populations
  4. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/quick-compare-2/
  5. CDC: 1 in 45 Children Diagnosed With Autism
  6. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/quick-compare-2/
  7. McKeever and TM. American Journal of Public Health. June 2004. V 94.
  8. Kemp, T. et al.Epidemiology. November 1997. 678-80.
  9. Fallon, Sally, Cowan, Thomas, MD. The Nourishing Traditions Book of Baby and Childcare. New Trends Publishing, 2013. 112, 317.

Michelle Goldstein is a mental health therapist who is passionate about holistic health, natural healing, nutrient-dense foods and the politics that impact them.

from:    https://www.sott.net/article/319649-Independent-research-demonstrates-conclusively-that-unvaccinated-children-enjoy-far-superior-health-than-those-vaccinated

Still Chewing Gum?

As always, do your research:

Is Chewing Gum the Most Toxic Substance in the Supermarket?

Nothing in chewing gum is natural. It is chemical goop that in no way contributes to health or is good for your teeth. Don’t be fooled by fancy advertising.

chewing Gum

Recently, I asked about thirty women, whose ages were mostly under the age of forty, if they carried chewing gum with them. Twenty seven of the thirty were able to pull out a pack of gum, some even going as far as telling me why they loved a particular brand/flavor of gum.

While this demographic is not representative of all women, 90% of them chewed gum on a daily basis, some consuming more than one stick per day. As with many things that we expose our bodies to on a daily basis, let’s take a moment and analyze the ingredients of chewing gum and ask some important questions that pertain to whether it contributes to good health. How many of us have looked at the ingredients on a pack of gum?

If you have, do you know what each one of the substances is? Is a stick of chewing gum more of a “cancer stick” than a cigarette? As you will see below, commercial gum products are some of the most toxic substances that you can expose your body too and literally can lead to some of the worst diseases on the planet.

Here is a list of the most common ingredients in the most popular chewing gum products on the market:

  • Sorbitol, Xylitol, Mannitol, Maltitol
  • Gum Base
  • Glycerol
  • Natural and Artificial Flavors
  • Hydrogenated Coconut Oil and Starch
  • Aspartame –Acesulfame
  • Soy Lecithin
  • Colors (titanium oxide, blue 2 lake, red 40)
  • BHT
  • Malic Acid, Citric Acid

Ingredient #1: Gum Base

Imagine if someone came up to you and said, “Hey, would you like to chew on some tire rubber and plastic?” You probably would politely decline and want to report this person to a doctor for a psychological evaluation. “Gum base” is a blend of elastomers, plasticizers, fillers, and resin. Some of the other ingredients that go into this mix are polyvinyl acetate, which is frequently referred to as “carpenter glue” or “white glue”. Paraffin wax is another ingredient that is a byproduct of refined petroleum. Is chewing plastic, petroleum and rubber safe? As you chew, these substances leach into the mouth and body. Yummy.

Ingredient #2: Aspartame

The controversy surrounding this substance is widespread. It is one of the most body toxic substances we can consume. The political corruption and money trail behind this agent of disease is a mile long. Aspartame has been linked to all of the major brain diseases including Alzheimer’s and ALS. It is also considered a prime contributor to many other diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, asthma, obesity, and many others. It is in many diet products on the market today, but in the long run actually contributes to obesity due to his extreme acidity. Aspartame is an excitotoxin, which over excites neurons in the brain until they burn out and die. Dr. Russell Blaylock is the leading expert on Aspartame and other excitotoxins and I would highly encourage you to see the documentary entitled Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World.

Ingredient #3: Hydrogenated Coconut Oil and Starch

Hydrogenation is chemical process that adds hydrogen across a double bonded carbon. This is done to increase the shelf life of a product, turning oil into a more plastic like substance. This process also creates Trans fats, which are now known to be very harmful to health.

Ingredient #4: Colors

(titanium dioxide, blue 2 lake, red 40). Titanium dioxide is a nanoparticle that is very common in sunscreen and many other health products, including synthetic nutritional supplements. New evidence is leading in the direction of this substance being carcinogenic, leading to cancer. We as humans are drawn to things that are colorful. Artificial food colorings, such as red 40, are made from petroleum and are dangerous to our health. Many people have extreme allergies to these substances and they have been implicated in contributing to ADD and other disorders and diseases.

Ingredient #5: Sorbitol, Xylitol, Mannitol, Maltitol

These sugar alcohols are originally made from sugar, but are altered so much that they are considered sugar free. As a general rule, when nature is altered and changed to make a “better” product, more often than not, the result is something that is not healthy. Some even go so far as to say that these products are far worse than sugar and can stimulate weight gain. Other side effects can include abdominal pain and diarrhea. Is sugar alcohol better than sugar? Neither are good substances, so comparing the two is somewhat pointless.

Chewing Gum and Digestion

Every time you chew gum, your brain is tricked into thinking that you are eating food. Therefore, it sends signals to your stomach, pancreas and other organs involved in digestion to prepare for this “food”. Your salivary glands and pancreas will begin to emit enzymes, which are necessary to digest food and absorb nutrients from food. Constant emission of enzymes over time will deplete enzymes and over time this process can slow down. If you are not breaking down and absorbing food properly over time, you will get disease because the body needs nutrients to rebuild and thrive.

A Great Alternative for Fresh Breath

A great alternative to chewing gum is to carry around a small bottle of organic food grade peppermint oil and when you would like fresh breath, just put one drop in your mouth and you will have achieved the same effect. You can find many food grade oils that are wonderful for helping you have fresh breath.

Nothing in chewing gum is natural. It is chemical goop that in no way contributes to health or is good for your teeth. Don’t be fooled by fancy advertising. The five ingredients that we reviewed above, in one form or another, contribute to disease and poor health. Is this really a risk that you want to expose yourself to all for the sake of fresh breath? In the future, perhaps we will see that chewing gum may be as much of a contributor to disease as are cigarettes.

from:   https://www.endalldisease.com/is-chewing-gum-the-most-toxic-substance-in-the-supermarket/