Plus a challenge to virologists: film your method for the public to see. Plus, where to purchase stocks of the Omicron 'variant' for $1200. Plus where to download the genomic sequencing Python code!
I've been going over this in more detail as I'm reading Can you Catch a Cold by Roytas had me wanting to get better at going to the studies myself. In the Enders study they had a test they did where they took convalescent blood from the same boys they took the original sample from and confirmed it reacted in some way they called 'complement fixation' to the cultures they had 'passaged' virus through several times over...but not in others either I'm assuming controls, or the ones they did where passage was done through chicken eggs...this sounds like some level of having conrols, and a sanity check on what they are left with at the end of the process. ... now I need to go back an redread and watch stuff on Lanka as I don't remember him addressing this particular part of the methodology. But I'm curious if anyone can address it quickly on the 'no virus' section of substack such as here. Thanks.
sorry, forgot to respond, but we're going to a powwow now. Can you send me your copy of the Enders paper? It's very hard to find nowadays, right?! Can you imagine a wikipedia article on Newton without citing Principia? Even Mike Stone doesn't seem to reference the link, only quotes: https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/27/enders-measles-paper-1954/ . Of course, the Enders paper is 101 stuff for lack of control, so if you're suggesting that he in fact had a control, then i can read it. Thanks.
The only place I was able to find the original paper was here, https://archive.org/details/PropagationInTissueCulturesOfCytopathogenicAgentsFromPatientsOCRVersion10_201904/page/n6/mode/1up and it has it in PDF format. I'd like to read his Polio study as well though still working on my ability to read these things and absorb the full meaning. For example Roytas noted something about grinding up aluminum when passaging the agent but I only caught that detail insofar as Enders tried to passage the agent through chick eggs. not sure if he did that for passage in tissue cultures. That link you provided covered most of it but I find the tone off putting as I don't agree about it being fraudulant and feel a bit misled by 'no virus coverage of the paper upon reading the study myself. This complement fixation aspect of the study isn't something I picked up when first listening to the Bailey's or Lanka. There was more than just CPE., there was this additional test which Enders noted needed to be vetted more. Did Lanka do this part of the study with the after the fact controls? I'd really love a breakdown of how many cultures were done with what parameters between Enders and Lanka with all the key variables noted. I'd also love to learn more about culturing in general.
I do find it odd that these seminal studies are behind paywalls and in PDF format. Its been 70 years so it be nice if we could read not just the studies but link to the citations as well. But society is stupid about all sorts of things. Nice ever green content they got there those medical journals.
Not the easiest read, but i read the Enders paper twice. I can't say i understand all of the details, but let me see who can, as I detailed in my Einstein 5 errors article. btw, your pdf link is very low resolution, so the images and figures aren't as clear as Mike Stone's article on it. Also, he did actually have the url for a paywalled version of the paper, but it was not hyperlinked or even explained that the url was the paper. It's good we are actually checking these primary sources, especially since that is the accusation we are making of virologists- to show me the actual evidence and not blindly go along with what we are told. I see this with some no-virus followers where they will blindly go along with for example Koch's Postulates (actually Loeffler's Postulates, at least the original three, or so wiki says) without ever questioning whether these postulates could be modified, as Thomas Rivers did (just found out he's part of the polio vaccine Hall of Fame!, along with Enders of course, the father of modern vaccinology, whose protocol in this measles paper was the very model that modern virologists still use- the streptomycin, heparin, etc poisoning, which is the crux of the issue, right, the cytopathic death effect).
Again, it should be very clear by now that there were no control experiments in this Enders/Peebles 1954 'measles' 'isolation' paper. It's one of the crucial issues with this whole mess. I'm looking out my window at the garden- I see the huge leaves of collard greens in the sheep manure compost, etc. I can assume that the growth is due to this and that, but unless I test out my theory, i might be wrong. Although there are no perfect controlled conditions, I would need to control as much as i can if i want to pinpoint a factor causing the growth. If i think it's the manure, then i would need to plant the control greens next to the manured greens but without manure, trying to keep everything as similar as possible. In Enders' case, or any virology experiments' cases, they don't do the same tests using some healthy patient sample and compare it with the sick patient sample- until Lanka and now Jamie Andrews' team has done: https://substack.com/home/post/p-145885871 , and shown that these controls also show the same cell death or CPE.
Regarding your assertion that Enders carried out a specific type of control relating to antibody complement fixation, i cannot determine for sure, so maybe you can point out the quote in the paper that signifies this. However, the point is moot, since ostensibly you agree that they did not do the controls that Lanka and Andrews have now done. It's like saying, well those other guys put an umbrella on top of the test and control greens and Lanka didn't do exactly what they tested, so you're wrong. The idea of lock and key immunology is pretty simplistic anyways, but that's the juvenile stage humanity is still at.
Also, let's assume that future control experiments DO show that healthy cells or less fetal cow serum, etc. shows something different from the standard virology experimental results- that still doesn't show that a specific measles or HIV or whatever we want to call it is the causative 'virus agent'. There are a lot of poisons out there causing cell death effects and globular explosions like lava lamps, at least the slices they sampled, stained, centrifuged, poisoned, etc. I wonder what brand of low fat milk they used?
I don't see an instance of the keyword 'aluminum' or similar in the paper.
Thanks for taking the time. At some point I want to attempt to go through Ender's Polio study too. One thing I want to be clear on is I'm not saying because Lanka didn't account for whatever this complement fixation step was his arguments/concerns should be thrown out. I just want both sides to steel man the other side. The tenor of what I read makes it sound like Enders was doing fraud when it seems to me they were doing really hard scientific work. I don't know if they could ever do enough controls for what they were attempting to do. I think its key to note that the conclusions drawn from the work can be way off line, but that doesn't mean the initial work was devoid of value. Even if only a null experiment.
The fixation aspect of it is mentioned in the finally summary: "Eight agents exhibiting the properties of viruses have been isolated in cultures of human or simian renal cells from the blood or throat washings of five cases of typical measles. Multiplication of the agents in vitro is accompanied by characteristic changes in the cells. Primarily these changes consist in the formation of syncytial giant cells wherein the chromatin assumes a marginal position and is replaced centrally by an acidophilic substance of unknown nature. The cytopathogenic effect of at least one of the agents is inhibited by convalescent phase measles sera from other patients with measles. Antigen appears during cultivation in vitro of the measles agents that reacts specifically in complement fixation tests with convalescent phase measles sera."
So not just cytopathic effect but some sort of last litmus test was applied. Which Enders I think notes needs to be followed up on to make sure it wasn't a coincidence. (Its easy to imagine how you go about doing some science and then industry realizes they have a product and decides to go ahead and presume your thesis and then there is no way to apply the breaks.)
Not sure what 'steel man' means- opposite of doing a straw man argument? Well, since no one has done a control, Lanka did the three basic experiments to show that the healthy samples undergoing the same poisoning procedures showed the same cytopathogenic effect as the measles samples. I expect more and more labs will do variations of these controlled experiments and maybe the complement fixation that you want done can be part of that.
You wrote: I don't know if they could ever do enough controls for what they were attempting to do. I think its key to note that the conclusions drawn from the work can be way off line, but that doesn't mean the initial work was devoid of value.
Again, the Enders measles experiments is crucial b/c all other virology experiments used this type of protocol, but also b/c it had no control, just like all other virology experiments, and we now see as clear as day that a control would have shown the same cytopathogenic effect. Caveman talk: poison kill cells. Controls are essential in the scientific method. I wrote in my Montagnier/Gallo article that if you didn't include a control at a science fair, you wouldn't even qualify for the fair. But hey, you're one of 622 who've downloaded that paper on internet archives.
So from that quote, what was the control experiment? They took 8 cultures they thought had the virus and added sera from convalescent measles patients. What is the control to this? Non-measles patients?
I'd love it if there was supplemental information on all the cultures tried and the results. I'm new to reading studies and its an archive page so not sure if such material exists. but from the flow of the paper it sounds like they tried all sorts of various cultures in the hunt for any that would have an effect.
This intrigues me because they are trying to find a culture that is receptive to the theoretical germ particle but are simply dismissing what could be part of the entire set of controls as simply the wrong type of cells or culture to use. In other parts of the paper they mention trying to do the culture via eggs and failing to get a reaction. But I don't think it they considered it a control but a service they were doing to the field.
They mention 1 or 2 cultures that weren't inoculated also having an effect surprisingly..so they were clearly comparing various methods....and they have enough integrity to make note of it. Though the sentence where they explained it away was difficult to be sure I understood. I took them to mean that without using a microscope and staining differences couldn't be told but once stained distinctions could be made. But I'm not sure they applied the same staining techniqe to both.
I thought the summary was a good one to take as it notes it wasn't just 'hey we have cytopathic effect we're done here' They came up with some sort of test that I think is pretty clever even if circular. Take convalescent blood and look for a reaction to what is coming out of the culture. Regardless if it was part of their methodology I would have liked it if Lanka addressed it in some way. Here's another part where they mention fixation again along with maybe the aluminum part...I'm not sure I understand exactly what this paragraph means...may need to go ask ChatGPT For laymen's translation but: "Assay of infectivity.
As yet only one attempt has been made to measure infectivity of virus propagated in tissue culture. In this case fluids and cells were removed from 15 cultures of human kidney tissue on the 6th day after inoculation of fluid from the 4th tissue culture passage of the agent from Case 3, These materials were pooled and the cells were ground with alundum in the presence of the fluid. After centrifugation for 15 minutes at 2500 rpm the supernatant fluid was titrated for infectivity in cultures of human kidney tissues. For this purpose 3 cultures were each inoculated with 0.1 ml of the suspension diluted by a factor of 10. The endpoint of viral activity as indicated by the highest dilution causing cytopathic changes was about 10" 2 - 5 . This low titer was somewhat unexpected in view of the fact, as will be shown hereafter,
that tissue culture fluids contain sufficient antigen to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum."
Doctor Vortex My friend, we have isolated a terrible virus, a virus which is worst than omicron and it’s name is the macron virus, the sigle virus is now isolated in France in the Élysée, and is now being studied by renowned scientists.
Also other viruses have been spotted and isolated in the following countries, US, UK Germany, Italy, Finland and israel.
More have been spotted in a few other countries and we are now wondering if we should declare a pandemic.
If you have any idea or a “safe and effective” cure please let us know.
thanks, and btw, I appreciate your efforts with the Bock Saga. Got into some of it a couple of years ago, mostly the Jim Chesnar videos. Read your account of Ior Bock's attempted murder and eventual murder. Sorry to hear all of that.
Liked and cross-posted!
Thanks, Sharine, appreciate it!
My pleasure!
Thanks. Beyond fascinating & very very intriguing!
I've been going over this in more detail as I'm reading Can you Catch a Cold by Roytas had me wanting to get better at going to the studies myself. In the Enders study they had a test they did where they took convalescent blood from the same boys they took the original sample from and confirmed it reacted in some way they called 'complement fixation' to the cultures they had 'passaged' virus through several times over...but not in others either I'm assuming controls, or the ones they did where passage was done through chicken eggs...this sounds like some level of having conrols, and a sanity check on what they are left with at the end of the process. ... now I need to go back an redread and watch stuff on Lanka as I don't remember him addressing this particular part of the methodology. But I'm curious if anyone can address it quickly on the 'no virus' section of substack such as here. Thanks.
sorry, forgot to respond, but we're going to a powwow now. Can you send me your copy of the Enders paper? It's very hard to find nowadays, right?! Can you imagine a wikipedia article on Newton without citing Principia? Even Mike Stone doesn't seem to reference the link, only quotes: https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/27/enders-measles-paper-1954/ . Of course, the Enders paper is 101 stuff for lack of control, so if you're suggesting that he in fact had a control, then i can read it. Thanks.
The only place I was able to find the original paper was here, https://archive.org/details/PropagationInTissueCulturesOfCytopathogenicAgentsFromPatientsOCRVersion10_201904/page/n6/mode/1up and it has it in PDF format. I'd like to read his Polio study as well though still working on my ability to read these things and absorb the full meaning. For example Roytas noted something about grinding up aluminum when passaging the agent but I only caught that detail insofar as Enders tried to passage the agent through chick eggs. not sure if he did that for passage in tissue cultures. That link you provided covered most of it but I find the tone off putting as I don't agree about it being fraudulant and feel a bit misled by 'no virus coverage of the paper upon reading the study myself. This complement fixation aspect of the study isn't something I picked up when first listening to the Bailey's or Lanka. There was more than just CPE., there was this additional test which Enders noted needed to be vetted more. Did Lanka do this part of the study with the after the fact controls? I'd really love a breakdown of how many cultures were done with what parameters between Enders and Lanka with all the key variables noted. I'd also love to learn more about culturing in general.
I do find it odd that these seminal studies are behind paywalls and in PDF format. Its been 70 years so it be nice if we could read not just the studies but link to the citations as well. But society is stupid about all sorts of things. Nice ever green content they got there those medical journals.
Not the easiest read, but i read the Enders paper twice. I can't say i understand all of the details, but let me see who can, as I detailed in my Einstein 5 errors article. btw, your pdf link is very low resolution, so the images and figures aren't as clear as Mike Stone's article on it. Also, he did actually have the url for a paywalled version of the paper, but it was not hyperlinked or even explained that the url was the paper. It's good we are actually checking these primary sources, especially since that is the accusation we are making of virologists- to show me the actual evidence and not blindly go along with what we are told. I see this with some no-virus followers where they will blindly go along with for example Koch's Postulates (actually Loeffler's Postulates, at least the original three, or so wiki says) without ever questioning whether these postulates could be modified, as Thomas Rivers did (just found out he's part of the polio vaccine Hall of Fame!, along with Enders of course, the father of modern vaccinology, whose protocol in this measles paper was the very model that modern virologists still use- the streptomycin, heparin, etc poisoning, which is the crux of the issue, right, the cytopathic death effect).
Again, it should be very clear by now that there were no control experiments in this Enders/Peebles 1954 'measles' 'isolation' paper. It's one of the crucial issues with this whole mess. I'm looking out my window at the garden- I see the huge leaves of collard greens in the sheep manure compost, etc. I can assume that the growth is due to this and that, but unless I test out my theory, i might be wrong. Although there are no perfect controlled conditions, I would need to control as much as i can if i want to pinpoint a factor causing the growth. If i think it's the manure, then i would need to plant the control greens next to the manured greens but without manure, trying to keep everything as similar as possible. In Enders' case, or any virology experiments' cases, they don't do the same tests using some healthy patient sample and compare it with the sick patient sample- until Lanka and now Jamie Andrews' team has done: https://substack.com/home/post/p-145885871 , and shown that these controls also show the same cell death or CPE.
Regarding your assertion that Enders carried out a specific type of control relating to antibody complement fixation, i cannot determine for sure, so maybe you can point out the quote in the paper that signifies this. However, the point is moot, since ostensibly you agree that they did not do the controls that Lanka and Andrews have now done. It's like saying, well those other guys put an umbrella on top of the test and control greens and Lanka didn't do exactly what they tested, so you're wrong. The idea of lock and key immunology is pretty simplistic anyways, but that's the juvenile stage humanity is still at.
Also, let's assume that future control experiments DO show that healthy cells or less fetal cow serum, etc. shows something different from the standard virology experimental results- that still doesn't show that a specific measles or HIV or whatever we want to call it is the causative 'virus agent'. There are a lot of poisons out there causing cell death effects and globular explosions like lava lamps, at least the slices they sampled, stained, centrifuged, poisoned, etc. I wonder what brand of low fat milk they used?
I don't see an instance of the keyword 'aluminum' or similar in the paper.
The essential videos you need to see if you want details about Lanka's experiments are in this article: https://viroliegy.com/2022/08/16/the-path-paved-by-dr-lanka/ , under '3. The Control Experiments'.
Thanks for taking the time. At some point I want to attempt to go through Ender's Polio study too. One thing I want to be clear on is I'm not saying because Lanka didn't account for whatever this complement fixation step was his arguments/concerns should be thrown out. I just want both sides to steel man the other side. The tenor of what I read makes it sound like Enders was doing fraud when it seems to me they were doing really hard scientific work. I don't know if they could ever do enough controls for what they were attempting to do. I think its key to note that the conclusions drawn from the work can be way off line, but that doesn't mean the initial work was devoid of value. Even if only a null experiment.
The fixation aspect of it is mentioned in the finally summary: "Eight agents exhibiting the properties of viruses have been isolated in cultures of human or simian renal cells from the blood or throat washings of five cases of typical measles. Multiplication of the agents in vitro is accompanied by characteristic changes in the cells. Primarily these changes consist in the formation of syncytial giant cells wherein the chromatin assumes a marginal position and is replaced centrally by an acidophilic substance of unknown nature. The cytopathogenic effect of at least one of the agents is inhibited by convalescent phase measles sera from other patients with measles. Antigen appears during cultivation in vitro of the measles agents that reacts specifically in complement fixation tests with convalescent phase measles sera."
So not just cytopathic effect but some sort of last litmus test was applied. Which Enders I think notes needs to be followed up on to make sure it wasn't a coincidence. (Its easy to imagine how you go about doing some science and then industry realizes they have a product and decides to go ahead and presume your thesis and then there is no way to apply the breaks.)
thanks btw for the link.
Not sure what 'steel man' means- opposite of doing a straw man argument? Well, since no one has done a control, Lanka did the three basic experiments to show that the healthy samples undergoing the same poisoning procedures showed the same cytopathogenic effect as the measles samples. I expect more and more labs will do variations of these controlled experiments and maybe the complement fixation that you want done can be part of that.
You wrote: I don't know if they could ever do enough controls for what they were attempting to do. I think its key to note that the conclusions drawn from the work can be way off line, but that doesn't mean the initial work was devoid of value.
Again, the Enders measles experiments is crucial b/c all other virology experiments used this type of protocol, but also b/c it had no control, just like all other virology experiments, and we now see as clear as day that a control would have shown the same cytopathogenic effect. Caveman talk: poison kill cells. Controls are essential in the scientific method. I wrote in my Montagnier/Gallo article that if you didn't include a control at a science fair, you wouldn't even qualify for the fair. But hey, you're one of 622 who've downloaded that paper on internet archives.
So from that quote, what was the control experiment? They took 8 cultures they thought had the virus and added sera from convalescent measles patients. What is the control to this? Non-measles patients?
I'd love it if there was supplemental information on all the cultures tried and the results. I'm new to reading studies and its an archive page so not sure if such material exists. but from the flow of the paper it sounds like they tried all sorts of various cultures in the hunt for any that would have an effect.
This intrigues me because they are trying to find a culture that is receptive to the theoretical germ particle but are simply dismissing what could be part of the entire set of controls as simply the wrong type of cells or culture to use. In other parts of the paper they mention trying to do the culture via eggs and failing to get a reaction. But I don't think it they considered it a control but a service they were doing to the field.
They mention 1 or 2 cultures that weren't inoculated also having an effect surprisingly..so they were clearly comparing various methods....and they have enough integrity to make note of it. Though the sentence where they explained it away was difficult to be sure I understood. I took them to mean that without using a microscope and staining differences couldn't be told but once stained distinctions could be made. But I'm not sure they applied the same staining techniqe to both.
come on dude, i just noticed that the quote you included is just the summary of the entire paper.
I thought the summary was a good one to take as it notes it wasn't just 'hey we have cytopathic effect we're done here' They came up with some sort of test that I think is pretty clever even if circular. Take convalescent blood and look for a reaction to what is coming out of the culture. Regardless if it was part of their methodology I would have liked it if Lanka addressed it in some way. Here's another part where they mention fixation again along with maybe the aluminum part...I'm not sure I understand exactly what this paragraph means...may need to go ask ChatGPT For laymen's translation but: "Assay of infectivity.
As yet only one attempt has been made to measure infectivity of virus propagated in tissue culture. In this case fluids and cells were removed from 15 cultures of human kidney tissue on the 6th day after inoculation of fluid from the 4th tissue culture passage of the agent from Case 3, These materials were pooled and the cells were ground with alundum in the presence of the fluid. After centrifugation for 15 minutes at 2500 rpm the supernatant fluid was titrated for infectivity in cultures of human kidney tissues. For this purpose 3 cultures were each inoculated with 0.1 ml of the suspension diluted by a factor of 10. The endpoint of viral activity as indicated by the highest dilution causing cytopathic changes was about 10" 2 - 5 . This low titer was somewhat unexpected in view of the fact, as will be shown hereafter,
that tissue culture fluids contain sufficient antigen to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum."
Doctor Vortex My friend, we have isolated a terrible virus, a virus which is worst than omicron and it’s name is the macron virus, the sigle virus is now isolated in France in the Élysée, and is now being studied by renowned scientists.
Also other viruses have been spotted and isolated in the following countries, US, UK Germany, Italy, Finland and israel.
More have been spotted in a few other countries and we are now wondering if we should declare a pandemic.
If you have any idea or a “safe and effective” cure please let us know.
For the rest, good reading, thank you.
haha, thanks, Sol Son! Yep, they plant these Young Leaders into gov positions like Ahern, Trudeau, Macron, etc. For a 'cure', here is what i do: https://open.substack.com/pub/coppervortex/p/my-recommendations-for-health-part?r=1nnqot&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web . I don't get cell service on my land either, so that's good.
That’s it, all starts with their incubator, got get rid of that if we want to stop their metastatic effect from spreading and infecting the world.
Thx Vortex, you are more golden then copper.
thanks, and btw, I appreciate your efforts with the Bock Saga. Got into some of it a couple of years ago, mostly the Jim Chesnar videos. Read your account of Ior Bock's attempted murder and eventual murder. Sorry to hear all of that.
Yes, thank you, Jim passed away a couple of years ago.
I hold Ior’s personal archive, and want it to digitize it and make more of it available for those interested about his story.
Unfortunately I have not yet found the peace and headspace to write more about it, hopefully soon.
Anyhow welcome to the real Bock Saga.