Biomedical, Christine Massey obtains yet another response to an FOIA request which fails to present physical evidence of a virus or of contagion with the disease it allegedly is the cause of.
Christine Massey, 9/8/24.
Greetings and Best Wishes,
July 29, 2024:
The “experts” at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry were officially challenged via a freedom of information order (pgs 1/2) to provide or cite any:
• studies that logically and scientifically provided evidence of the existence of "Peste des Petits Ruminants Virus", and/or
• studies describing the finding and purification of particles alleged to be "Peste des Petits Ruminants Virus" from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of "hosts", and/or
• studies wherein the purported "genome" of said alleged virus was found intact - as opposed to fabricated in silico aka modeled on a computer, and/or
• studies that scientifically demonstrated contagion of illness / symptoms allegedly caused by said purported virus.
And they failed, as they always do when challenged to back up “virus” claims with valid evidence, as shown below.
August 14, 2024:
Roger Andoh acting as FOIA Officer in the Office of the Chief Operating Officer responded (page 7, #24-01444-FOIA):“The National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases provided the following information responsive to your request:[Link, screen shot]
My response that same day (page 8):
“Dear Roger,
Thank you for your letter dated August 14, 2024 that contains a link to the search results that appear on the CDC's website based on a search for "Peste des Petits Ruminants”.. However my request was for studies and/or citations of studies, not for a link to search results (which I could have easily found myself), especially when the results have nothing to do with my request.
The first study listed in the search results is from 2014 and titled "Molecular Evolution of Peste des Petits Ruminants Virus”. The study does not describe anyone finding anything in the bodily fluid, tissue or excrement of a supposed "host".
The authors make no mention of doing anything with clinical samples taken from supposed "hosts". Rather, they worked with so-called "isolates" that were presumed to contain "viruses". The study was not designed to purify particles from a clinical sample, or to identify a particle consisting of a "genome" surrounded by a proteinaceous shell, with or without an envelope, nor was it designed to test for causation of anything. The authors claim to have "sequenced" the so-called "isolates”. "Complete genome sequencing of 7 PPRV isolates (4 from lineage III and 3 from lineage IV) was performed according to the methods described by Muniraju et al. (12). Detailed information for each of the isolates is shown in Table 1."
The earlier "sequencing" publication by Muniraju et al. was extremely brief and classified as an "announcement”. The authors stated that: "The genome sequence presented here was derived from a mesenteric lymph node sample from an infected goat, following a single passage on Vero.DogSLAMtag cells. So Muniraju et al. contaminated their clinical sample with unnatural monkey kidney cells, etc, before moving onto their so-called "sequencing":
“Oligonucleotide primers were designed using the conserved regions of PPRV full-length genome sequences available in the database, as detailed above. The primers were used to generate seven overlapping amplicons of the Morocco/2008 isolate, which were gel purified and sequenced with an ABI-3730 automated sequencer (Applied Biosystems). The genome termini were determined using 3′/5′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE) (7). A total of 248 sequences were assembled into overlapping contigs that represented the full genome..."
As you can see, the earlier study by Muniraju et al. did not describe finding the purported "genome" of an alleged "virus" intact, and so neither does their later study. Please provide me with a corrected response letter with studies, or citations for studies, that actually match my request, or admit that the CDC does not have any.
Best wishes,
Christine
August 16, 2024:
Kendra Lightner acting as Government Information Specialist, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Office, Office of the Chief Operating Officer responded (page 9): “I am amending your request. I will reach out to the program office and will have an update for you soon.” As of September 9, 2024 I’ve received no further communications from anyone at the CDC or ATSDR. They have no responsive records to share because none exist, because virology is pseudoscience.
Nevertheless, “experts” on the Isle of Man claim to be “safeguarding” animals from the “highly contagious infection peste des petits ruminants (PPR), also known as ‘goat plague’” by banning the import of “certain sheep and goat commodities, such as meat, cheese and milk” (emphasis added):
New controls on sheep and goat products introduced This has nothing to do with the war on humanity, rest assured, and no doubt Clare Barber will get back to Courtenay and I right away with an explanation for her behaviour and that of Dr Amy Beckett who acts as the Isle of Man’s “Chief Veterinary Officer”.[Screen shots]
More Official Confessions/Evidence Showing that Virology is Pseudoscience[SNIP]….
My comment at the page.
Jeffrey Strahl, Lockdown Times, 9/8/24.. Liked by Christine Massey FOIs
One more failure to provide evidence for assertions made about alleged viruses. We should start wondering why anyone is STILL trusting them.
Once again, thanks, Christine, for doing the full court press on public health entities which pretend to base their actions and statements upon sound science.
And, here is something i am offering to help readers learn how to read between the lines, and in detail as well as context of the big picture. The mass media are alleging there is a new surge of COVID. How many people will believe them, including “health freedom” folks? Please don’t be one of those who believe.
As COVID Surges, the High Price of Viral Denial | The Tyee. Canada’s health system reels as by one estimate 1,000 die weekly. Each infection carries risks. Where’s the prevention? Andrew Nikiforuk, 9/3/24.
"COVID is surging once again and, if you live in British Columbia, you probably already know someone sick with fever, chills and a sore throat. As of mid-August, about one in every 19 British Columbians were enduring an infection, with or without symptoms. Although the media routinely dismisses all COVID infections as an inconsequential nuisance, that’s not what the science says. The virus remains deadlier than the flu and repeated infections can radically change your health…...
"In the United States COVID infections hospitalized nearly five out of 100,000 Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, one of North America’s leading COVID researchers, notes that, “This crucial, yet lagging indicator hasn’t been this high since February 2024.” In addition, spotty U.S. data indicates that COVID has hospitalized twice as many people than the flu since October last year.”
My comments; What utter deception. The alleged disease called “COVID” is not distinguishable from any other respiratory disorder of any cause by fever, chills and a sore throat symptoms. It can only be identified, per public health agencies around the world, by tests such as the PCR, tests which are not meant for diagnosis (per labels on test kits) and can only find certain genetic segments or substances which are allegedly associated with the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus. This association cannot be authenticated given the lack of a physically isolated and purified genome for this virus.
And in the US, hospitals are now routinely being tested for C19 as a condition of admission. People are hospitalized for all sorts of reasons, then are tested for C19, test positive, and then marked as “hospitalized by COVID.” Another case “pandemic,” here we go.
And, a generally evaluation of the “science” which has been used over the last four years. Lots of references to Mike Stone.
Asa Boxer, 9/8/24.
The idea of statistical significance has played a vital role in confusing our sense of reality. For some reason, the concept is felt to be scientific despite its highly abstract quality. Moreover (as I will explain shortly), when we use statistical significance as an interpretive tool, it is always an indicator of uncertainty. Owing to its usefulness as a brain-baffling device, as well as to its promiscuous applicability, those managing the 2020-2023 lockdowns deployed the notion of statical significance to rationalise just about any decision, no matter how antidemocratic and unethical. In the area of health care and medicine, the problem with this metric has turned out to be acute and in urgent need of redress.
As I pointed out in “The Lab Leak Contagion Fraud,” the whole germ theory of illness and disease is pseudoscience. As Mike Stone has indicated in “The Germ Hypothesis Part 1,” the main issue with germ theory (and virology in particular) is that viruses were never proven to actually be a phenomenon: in other words they’ve never been proven to exist. Worse, the hypothesis has been falsified over and over again. Moreover, and this follows logically, they’ve never been proven to cause illness; another hypothesis that has been repeatedly falsified. All of this boils down to the scientific method being entirely abandoned by the field at its inception and to this very day.
Let’s review the basics of the scientific method. I found that Mike Stone used this approach very effectively, and I’d like readers to benefit from some of the same reminders. Let’s start with this quotation: "What this means is that a hypothesis must be designed and written in such a way as to “prove” whether or not a predicted relationship derived from the natural phenomenon exists between two variables: the independent variable (the presumed cause) and the dependent variable (the observed effect)." [All quotes are from the above-mentioned article from Mike Stone’s ViroLIEgy Newsletter Substack.]
Ideally, there should also be a control variable or even several controls. Here’s a handy infographic that Stone shared: [Graphic]
Stone proceeds to walk us through Science 101, since we’ve clearly forgotten the fundamentals: "Once the hypothesis has been established, a proper experiment can be designed in order to test it. According to American philosopher and historian of science Peter Machamer in his 2009 paper Phenomena, data and theories: a special issue of Synthese, the experiment should show us something important that occurs within the real world. The goal is to ensure that the aspects of the observed natural phenomenon that originally sparked the hypothesis are “caught” in the design of the experiment. In this way, the experiment will be able to tell us something about the world and the phenomena studied. Thus, it is critical that the hypothesis is tested properly through an experimental design that accurately reflects the observed natural phenomenon and what is seen in nature."
When every germ contagion experiment has proven that viral illnesses are not transmitted via proximity, breath, sputum particles, phlegm exchange, sweat, or blood. . . like. . . that should be it: you close the book on that hypothesis. Even if—and this is not the case, but an example of how exacting authentic science truly is—even if 9 out of 10 experiments confirm an hypothesis, it only takes one well-designed experiment to falsify it. In other words, even if contagion seemed to be conclusive in 9 out of 10 experiments, it would take only one well-designed experiment to falsify the rest. Let’s recall that scurvy was once considered a contagion.
Now imagine you put 10 people in a room of the sort you might find in most cafes, and you just let them behave as they would normally in that environment, but you put one with full blown flu symptoms in the room and then you followed them up after a few days to find out how many caught the flu. Even if 8 out of 9 got sick, that one case that didn’t get sick renders the whole experiment inconclusive.
Ah, but there’s immunity, you say. Well, that’s an interesting, even compelling, tale—I mean, the immunity hypothesis. I guess we’ll have to come up with an experiment to test that notion. We are now, however, two removes from reality, since we came up with the immunity concept to back up the unproven hypothesis that a tiny bogeyman is afoot. In fact, the notion of immunity to a virus is being used here to dismiss inconvenient data. We have now successfully invented a fictional world to support an initial fiction. We are no longer in the realm of science here: this is makebelieve, scientiphysized art.
To be clear, the numbers I’ve presented regarding viruses and contagion are inverted. In fact, all efforts to infect a human being or an animal with a virus by the means we claim contagion works—breathing, sneezing, coughing, touching each other, embracing, kissing, touching shared surfaces, sharing towels—have failed.
Let’s be rigorous with the application of our principles. If 1 or 2 out of 10 in a shared space did get sick, does that prove that so-called “contagion” is a thing—an actual phenomenon? In other words, with which side does the burden of proof lie? Important to keep in mind that it’s the hypothesised element that bears the burden to prove itself. Is there truly a wee dibuk jumping around and possessing hosts or is that just a neat idea that turned out upon experimentation to have been false? I don’t have to prove that dibuks don’t exist; if you believe in them, and no one’s ever seen one, then you’re the one who has to prove it.
My point is that statistically significant outcomes are not a scientific tool. They are, in fact, the reverse: the reasoning is counter-scientific; it’s a workaround to circumvent scientific rigour and to slip falsified ideas into our heads as TheScience™. Every time I examine how we misuse stats and probabilities, I find some new area of misapplication.
To give the notion its due, let’s see where the use of statistically significant outcomes might be appropriate. You give 100 people the same medicine, and 30 get better. Thirty-percent recovery might be an indicator. So you say, well, let’s try a placebo trial and compare. If the outcome is similar, you may decide, Hey, 30% wasn’t especially promising to begin with and this clinches the matter. That’s honest science. If, on the other hand, 70 patients recovered with the course of treatment, while only 30 in the placebo group. Now we’ve got something to work with. If the so-called “side effects” are minor, it’s worth a shot! What we’re doing here is applying pragmatic workarounds (heuristics) to navigate an area of uncertainty and to rationalise the application of a course of disease treatment.
Since individual biology is idiosyncratic, we expect inconclusive results when it comes to healing, especially owing to the so-called “placebo effect”. . . (which, let’s face it, ought to be the focus of medical science, as it’s clearly the key to human health). In other words, patient outcomes are unpredictable. So what do we do when something’s unpredictable? We turn to statistics and probabilities and dress up our ignorance in scientiphysizations; throw on a % or two and voila!—here’s some sciency chatter to distract you from the BS. But it ain’t science. It’s a method of working around the loss of authority that would come with having to admit flat out that you don’t know and cannot predict outcomes. Even the most narcissistic of MDs must admit, when pressed, that they really can’t promise anything (likely because insurers are finicky about lying to people). Nevertheless, our culture relates to Western medicine (pharmaceutical medicine) as though it were an exact science.
In simple language, you can’t declare that because something works sometimes or often enough that it’s going to work in any particular case. So we turn to stats and probabilities to help us make a choice in circumstances of uncertainty. That’s when it comes in handy; and that’s what it’s for. What statistical significance cannot do is tell us whether a phenomenon exists or whether a given agent is causal. Indeed, in circumstances that call for certainty, one can be sure that the invocation of statistical significance indicates a falsified hypothesis.
At this stage of the game, I’m not sure how our science culture might go about the serious house cleaning required. We need a renewed scepticism: a school of scientists whose job is to review all our so-called facts, every Nobel-Prize-winning idea, and to communicate their findings to the public. Let’s call the group the Special Committee for the Restoration of Science. In an ideal world, the committee would include folks with a solid understanding of analogy, rather than the usual dismissive ignorance of the subject we encounter in science literature today. The group would have two main goals: (1) to distinguish between what we actually know from what we don’t know with the purpose of overhauling our research priorities; and (2) to flag bias-confirmation practices and curb their usage.
As I see it, persons trained in literary studies (that is, folks familiar with fiction, story-telling, and poetics) could help cut through a lot of the sciency nonsense that arises from a lack of familiarity with this side of thinking and communication. Historians and philosophers could help a great deal as well on the special committee I have in mind. Unfortunately, with the corporate control of science, such a consideration is baseless fabric. For the time being, we’ll have to make do with being stuck in this dark age of sciency chimeras and the priestly fact checkers who let the dibuk loose upon us when the corporate barons signal.
4IR. What’s Left” examines the growing global economic crisis and the real reasons for it, vs the pseudo-explanations offered by the media, both mainstream and almost all “alternative” outlets.
What’s Left? 9/7/24. An hour and 20 minutes.
"Kenny and Andy grapple with the complexities of the global economy and how it’s related to all the political events that we see happening around us. Check us out!"
My comments. Thanks, Andy and Kenny.
Well-said regarding the two dominant delusions regarding the capitalist crisis. There are those who think it can be solved by centralizing all control of capital in the state, thus eliminating the alleged irrational actions of private capitalists, manipulations by globalist elites,... And there are those who think the problem can be solved by total deregulation, pushing the state and enabling the "free market" to operate properly. Neither camp understands that the capitalist crisis is an inherent dynamic of capital. What you see is here because that's how capitalism works. What you see is not a distortion of capitalism, it is how the system works, always has worked since it emerged onto the stage of history, in late medieval England, joined at the hip with the modern state.
And an excellent point about Michael Pento thinking he's a defender of capitalism while he brings up ample evidence that Marx's analysis of capitalism has been and remains spot on. The renminbi is another name for the Yuan, the Chinese currency.
Yep, the root of the crisis is exactly where Marx located it, the process of extraction of surplus value from the working class, a process which produces surpluses that are more and more inadequate in terms of the growing needs of capital for sustaining accumulation. And, more and more human labor power is being replaced by machinery in the striving for increased productivity, reducing the production of surplus value ever more, worsening the crisis.
The capitalists are trying to scare us in all sorts of ways, but at the same time what's happening really is scary. And it's just starting. They will try to take advantage of whatever happens by putting forth more centralized control as the solution, e.g. programmable and surveillance-enabling digital currency. This again is how the system functions, how it has always functioned.
I too see very little clarity around me, and a lot of confusion, more and more people falling into the "Red/Blue civil war" trap instead of moving towards grasping what's being done to us. It will take something like the movement of India's subsistence farmers or the Yellow Vests in France, challenging EVERYTHING. We shall see.
Ending this segment and this edition. Alice Friedemann about the net every cliff the global capitalist system is facing, with up ahead.
Net Energy Cliff & the Collapse of Civilization, Alice Friedemann, 9/6/24.
One of the reasons the actual amount of oil drops off so fast is that the EROI is so low. A huge amount of the oil has to go back into getting more oil rather than being delivered to society as it once was on the upside. I just found this really good, short, well written, & illustrated explanation of EROI that you should read first if you aren’t familiar with EROI, or even if you are as a reminder:
Stuart McMillen 2017 Diminishing returns: understanding ‘net energy’ and ‘EROEI’.
Diminishing returns: understanding ‘net energy’ and ‘EROEI’
Oil is the master resource that makes all other activities and goods possible, including coal, natural, gas, transportation, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and 500,000 products made OUT OF petroleum, often using oil as the energy source as well. Or natural gas. Think PLASTICS (especially with fracked shale oil, which is superlight with maybe gasoline but not much kerosene or diesel).
This is the scariest chart I’ve ever seen. It shows civilization is likely to crash within the next 20-30 years. I thought the oil depletion curve would be symmetric (blue), but this chart reveals it’s more likely to be a cliff (gray) when you factor in Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI). And ironically, do you know what saved us? FRACKED OIL & NATURAL GAS. Since 2005. But the last oil basin, the Permian, shows signs of slowing down, and fracked wells decline by 80% in three years (versus 6% for the 500 giant oil fields we get half of all oil from, most of them in the Middle East). Fracked oil accounted for 96% of the oil that slightly raised oil product a little since world conventional oil peaked in 2008. And don’t forget, world peak conventional AND unconventional peaked in 2018.
The gray represents the actual (net) energy after you subtract out the much higher amount of energy (blue) needed to get and process the remaining nasty, distant, low-quality, and difficult to get at oil. We’ve already gotten the high-quality, easy oil.
Before peaking in 2006, the world production of conventional petroleum grew exponentially at 6.6% per year between 1880 and 1970. Although Hubbert drew symmetric rising and falling production curves, the declining side may be steeper than a bell curve, because the heroic measures we’re taking now to keep production high (i.e. infill drilling, horizontal wells, enhanced oil recovery methods, etc.), may arrest decline for a while, but once decline begins, it will be more precipitous (Patzek 2007).
Clearly you can’t “grow” the economy without increasing supplies of energy. You can print all the money or create all the credit you want, but try stuffing those down your gas tank and see how far you go. Our financial system depends on endless growth to pay back debt, so when it crashes, there’s less credit available to finance new exploration and drilling, which guarantees an oil crisis further down the line.
Besides financial limits, there are political limits, such as wars over remaining resources.
For a little while you can fix broken infrastructure and still plant, harvest, and distribute food, maintain and operate drinking water and sewage treatment plants, pump water from running-dry aquifers like the Ogallala which grows 1/4 of our food, but at some point it will be hard to provide energy to all food and infrastructure.
The entire world is competing for the steep grey area of oil that’s left, most of which is in the Middle East………...
The Power of Exponential Growth: Every 10 years we have burned more oil than all previous decades.
Another way of looking at this is what systems ecologists call Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI). In the USA in 1930 an “investment” of the energy in 1 barrel of oil produced another 100 barrels of oil, or an EROEI of 100:1. That left 99 other barrels to use to build roads, bridges, factories, homes, libraries, schools, hospitals, movie theaters, railroads, cars, buses, trucks, computers, toys, refrigerators – any object you can think of, and 500,000 products use petroleum as a feedstock (see point #6). By 1970 EROEI was down to 30:1 and in 2000 it was 11:1 in the United States.
Charles A. S. Hall, who has studied EROEI for most of his career and published in Science and other top peer-reviewed journals, believes that society needs an EROEI of at least 12 or 13:1 to maintain our current level of civilization.
Because we got the easy oil first, we have used up 73% of the net energy that will ever be available, since the remaining half of the reserves require so much energy to extract……
Flow Rate: An 8% or higher decline rate is likely According to the IEA, the world decline rate is 8.5% offset 4% by Enhanced Oil Recovery (which takes energy). Hook says oil will decline by 0.015 a year when all oil is decline for the giant oil fields, but at higher rates for smaller fields. Especially fracked oil at 80% over 3 years. That’s too fast for civilization to cope with.
Welcome to net zero! Great news since so many think that climate change is the ONLY problem…… There’s no substitute for oil Coal — why it can’t easily subsitute for oil [Link] “Peak is dead” and the future of oil supply:[Link]
Steve andrews (ASPO): You mention in your paper that natural gas liquids can’t fully substitute for crude oil because they contain about a third less energy per unit volume and only one-third of that volume can be blended into transportation fuel. In terms of the dominant use of crude oil—in the transportation sector—how significant is the ongoing increase in NGLs vs. the plateau in crude oil?
Richard G. Miller: The role of NGLs is a bit curious. You can run a car on it if you want, but it’s not a drop-in substitute for liquid oil. You can convert vehicle engines in fleets to run on liquefied gas; it’s probably better thought of as………..
Even though I’ve been reading and writing about peak everything since 2001, and the rise and fall of civilizations for 40 years, it is hard for me to believe a crash could happen so fast. It is hard to believe there could ever be a time that isn’t just like now. That there could ever be a time when I can’t hop into my car and drive 10,000 miles. I can imagine the future all too well, but it is so hard to believe it. Believe it.