Dandelions and Virology
Those who understand dandelions know something about the natural world of flowers that reproduce by going to seed. Most people think virology is that simple. It's not.
Note to readers: Once I publish, I update my articles frequently, adding clarification, resources and corrections. It’s worth checking back in a few hours or the next day for the updated version. Thank you for reading. — efc
EVERY CHILD UNDERSTANDS how dandelions work. Every child except maybe a few desert-dwelling bedouins has seen them, because they grow anywhere there’s relatively moist soil, from New Zealand to Alaska. They are a flowering plant that goes to seed in the form of a light gray puff of fibers connected to seeds (called a blowball, because people like to blow the fibers to the wind).
The fibers are little tiny kites that go for a ride through the air, carrying the seed, which lands somewhere and creates another dandelion plant. Everyone knows where dandelions come from, and they’re right.
You could take a few of those seeds and send them to labs in any country, recreate the easy conditions needed for them to grow, and you would get a genetically identical plant that could be identified by many different methods — as a dandelion. This is a repeatable experiment that anyone can do. The results are verifiable. You don’t plant a dandelion seed and get a salami. You get a yellow flower that makes more seeds.
The reason why people wear face coverings is to prevent those little particles from entering their lungs. They are said to be everywhere.
The mysterious virion
Most people think that virology is this straightforward. We are told that there are little seeds, called virions, or whole virus particles. They’re supposed to be everywhere, from elevator buttons to flying in the wind on the deck of a ferryboat. We are told that they enter people’s lungs, then infect their cells, then take over, and create new virus particles — that both spread to other people, and make the infected person sick.
The reason why people wear face coverings is to prevent those little particles from entering their lungs. They are said to be everywhere. We also think that there is a test that finds the particles and proves that someone is infected. There has been such a fuss made about the particles and the tests, you would think the whole business is as certain as dandelions going to seed and then sprouting on the lawn.
You might especially think that this was well understood and well established because the claim was used to lock half the population of the planet into their houses, shut most of the economy and send a wave of terror through every society on Earth. This claimed disease process is being blamed for 6.4 million deaths, as of this writing.
Yet have scientists or doctors ever found one of these virions? One of these dandelion seeds? Well, that’s not how virology works.
The PCR test finding genetic material from a virus or bacteria is not proof of infection, according to its own instructions; it is barely even evidence of infection.
Then how does it work?
When they say they "found a virus" this is what they mean, in the words of one articulate person: “They cannot handle individual 'viruses' in order to sequence them individually. All they can do is batch-isolate 'viruses' and batch sequence the strands and whittle down the results by an exhaustive, variable process of elimination.”
In other words, they don’t find the virus. They find everything else, and eliminate everything that is not virus, and the result is said to be “virus.” One process used is “clade exclusion,” which facilitates fast, crude computations.
From this “emerge computed approximations they call in silico genomes, from which they take representative primers with which to hunt for matches” using the PCR device or “covid test.” The primer is a copy of the molecule that is the thing sought.
But this molecule did not come from nature and does not exist in nature. It is not a dandelion seed, a dandelion plant, or a dandelion flower. It’s a pile of computer code. And to “diagnose the virus,” they take a sample from a human ( a nose swab) and multiply the genetic matter by one trillion times. If there is an alleged match, that’s a “confirmed case” (which merely means “PCR positive” — that’s how it should be said). This seems a bit abstract, doesn’t it?
In fact, the PCR test finding even actual genetic material from a virus or bacteria is not proof of infection, according to its own instructions, and its inventor; it is barely even evidence of infection. There is no correlation between the amount of “viral” RNA (said to be “viral load”) and the presence of symptoms. The PCR device has a history of creating false pandemics, admitted even by the CDC.
There are countless sources of false positive material, including everything from dust to the test reacting to its own chemicals. But if the target molecule (the primer) cannot be shown to come from a virus, and one that or sure makes people sick, then what good is it?
This is like taking a sample of dirt from the yard, and a sample of medical waste, and combining them, and calling the result a dandelion.
An impure broth of all kinds of genetic matter
And it’s actually worse than this. The substance from which technicians are “batch isolating” is an impure broth of many kinds of genetic matter — which can include monkey kidney cells, human cervical cancer cells, calf blood cells, antibiotics, growth medium and much else.
And from that mix of widely varied genetic material, the “virus” is constructed — by a computer. And that is falsely called “viral isolation.”
This is like taking a sample of dirt from the yard, and a sample of medical waste, and combining them, and calling the result a dandelion. Or, it’s like thinking you can get the genetic sequence of a dandelion from that mixture of stuff. Whatever sequence you found, you could test it against an actual dandelion and verify that you got it right — because we know dandelions exist.
But with a virus, they cannot tell, because there is no original to compare against — a case in point being SARS-CoV-2, the “virus” claimed to cause a disease called “covid.” So they may say there’s a virus made from all that crud — but there is no way to verify it. That is not science, nor is it medical science.
As of today, 200 governments and institutions around the world admit that no actual sample of SARS-CoV-2, taken from a patient, exists. All that exists are variously called metagenomic transcripts, in silico sequences, mimicked clinical specimens or contrived viruses (among other official government names). They are not actual sequences made from actual viral particle samples.
They are artificial intelligence constructions of theoretical viruses that have never been seen or found. There is no way to match even one line of code to an actual virus, because nobody has one to check against. Therefore, there is no way to conduct an experiment to test if anything associated with this computer code causes symptoms; which is the whole point of a massive health panic, isn’t it?
“When you read the earliest such paper, you may get that hollow feeling in your abdomen (as I did) when you realise that what’s being described does not conform to ‘the scientific method’.” — Mike Yeadon, former chief scientist for Pfizer.
Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer executive and scientist, has his doubts
Mike Yeadon is a former chief scientist for Pfizer, who headed the respiratory division and held the rank of vice president. In a July 13 post to Telegram, he explained why he has signed on to the proposal for an experiment to see if consistent samples of SARS-CoV-2 could be extracted from the body fluids of supposedly infected patients.
“I’m a signatory because, having given a lot of thought to the entire proposition, I now believe it’s yet another of the lies to which we’ve been subject. In the case of scientists, even those in commercial drug discovery, have taken as fact that viruses exist without ever reviewing the original papers,” he explained.
He is likely referring to the study on the “tobacco mosaic virus,” the first claimed discovery of a viral pathogen. Dr. Sam Bailey explains this experiment in a video presentation.
“When you read the earliest such paper, you may get that hollow feeling in your abdomen (as I did) when you realise that what’s being described does not conform to ‘the scientific method’,” he added.
“The problem is that essentially the entire world is hostage to the testable but untested assumption that SARS-CoV-2 is a bona fide infective agent of human airways.”
Lung cells won’t pick up the infection
Yeadon said that early in the crisis, he read that the claimed virus could not infect normal human lung tissue, called NHBE cells. That stands for “normal human bronchial epithelial” cells. These cells, when cultured in a lab, respond to both therapeutic drugs and to irritants like cigarette smoke.
“When I was in R&D, leading lung / respiratory / allergy research for many years, we routinely employed NHBE as test systems, for example to look at the effect of experimental medicines & other stimuli on airway lining cells.
“How it could be possible that NHBE don’t easily support replication of an alleged respiratory virus is severely problematic in my view,” he wrote, adding, “The problem is that essentially the entire world is hostage to the testable but untested assumption that SARS-CoV-2 is a bona fide infective agent of human airways.”
So in addition to there being no sample available, the “viral product” — allegedly SARS-CoV-2 — that was used to test infectivity could not infect healthy human lung tissue. “That observation alone is extremely problematic,” Yeadon wrote.
This leaves us with two possibilities: either there is no virus, or the one that is claimed to exist cannot infect the lungs. Which is it? And at that point, does it matter?