The Hepatitis Coincidence, and the “Science” of Virology
1 May 2022 - 12:05 pm
The World Health Organisation (WHO) announced on the 15th April 2022 in a “Disease Outbreak News Item” titled “Acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” that…
On 5 April 2022, WHO was notified of 10 cases of severe acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology in children under the age of 10 years, across central Scotland. By 8 April, 74 cases had been identified in the United Kingdom.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/acute-hepatitis-of-unknown-aetiology—the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland
That sounds quite alarming. Hepatitis is quite serious, especially in children. The WHO news item goes on to say of the initial 10 cases in Scotland that they were “severe acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology in previously healthy young children (age range: 11 months to five-year-old)”. Three days later that number was up to 74 and the WHO report explains these cases were:
…acute hepatitis with markedly elevated liver enzymes, often with jaundice, sometimes preceded by gastrointestinal symptoms, in children principally up to 10 years old. Some cases have required transfer to specialist children’s liver units and six children have undergone liver transplantation.
The WHO is considering the cause as being possibly related to “adenoviruses”, as it is reported that “the United Kingdom has recently observed an increase in adenovirus activity”. Right.
If one believes in the “science” of virology, adenoviruses were discovered in 1953, and Wikipedia informs us that…
…adenoviral serotypes have been found to cause a wide range of illnesses, from mild respiratory infections in young children (known as the common cold) to life-threatening multi-organ disease in people with a weakened immune system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenoviridae
Bizarrely, the same Wikipedia entry in the “Diagnosis” section says…
Diagnosis is from symptoms and history. Tests are only necessary in very serious cases. Tests include blood tests, eyes, nose or throat swabs, stool sample tests, and chest x-rays. In the laboratory, adenovirus can be identified with antigen detection, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), virus isolation and serology. Even if adenovirus is found to be present, it may not be the cause of any symptoms. Some immunocompromised individuals can shed the virus for weeks and show no symptoms.
Well we all know just how reliable antigen detection and PCR are for detecting specific viruses, i.e. not at all. After claiming people with a weakened immune system suffer “life-threatening multi-organ disease” from an adenovirus infection they later claim those immunocompromised individuals “can shed the virus for weeks and show no symptoms”, because science. They even state that finding an adenovirus “many not be the cause of any symptoms”, also because science. Questioning any of this inconsistent illogic supposedly means you’re just not smart enough to understand… this is the modern-day Emperor’s New Clothes. Serology is just the detection of antibodies that are claimed to be specific to the virus they never isolated or proved to be the cause of the illness, because what they are calling “virus isolation” is not actual isolation of the virus in any reasonable understanding of the phrase. All this is not unique to so-called adenoviruses, this pseudo-scientific malarkey is the defining hallmark of virology in it’s entirety.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary website defines the word as:
isolate – verb
- to set apart from others
- to select from among others
especially : to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state - insulate
That all seems quite clear and is exactly what any clear-thinking person would expect you to mean if you used the word “isolate”. In the “science” of virology though, they don’t mean that. They don’t actually isolate any virus from a sample. There is a process that is not entirely consistently applied across all “viruses” (because it can’t be) that they have formulated and wrapped up into the word “isolate”. Virologists agree that isolating viruses using the standard definition of the word is not possible, but that’s OK because viruses are a special case where the normal rules of logic and language don’t apply. If you have to change the definition of a word to be able to fulfil it, you haven’t fulfilled it. That’s like your postman claiming he delivered your letters but he actually left them in a pile of other letters back at the sorting office. On inquiry he informs you that the word “delivered” means “left in a pile at the office” when the word is used by postal workers, and you’re meant to just accept that. Of course, you wouldn’t accept it. Most people accept it from virologists because they never question it and are unaware that an entirely different definition of a plain English word is being used that means literally the opposite.
The reason it is not possible to isolate a virus in the way any normal person would presume is meant by the term is because (according to them) a virus needs a host cell. This has never been proven, and of course even if that was true, what should then be possible is to isolate it from the host cells they took the sample from, but apparently for some never properly stated reason this is not possible either. It really makes absolutely zero sense as if the “host” is a walking virus factory contaminating everyone and everything they interact with this should be easy. If transmission of these viruses is as easy as breathing near someone, isolating them to then perform the test against Koch’s Postulates (we shall examine this process a bit later) should be simple. But no. The excuses for this are laughable. One excuse is “there is not enough of the virus to detect”, a ludicrous claim if they are suggesting there’s enough of it to infect others and they can do a PCR test to “detect” it for diagnostic purposes, which it can’t as stated by it’s inventor, Kary Mullis. Another is the usual “all virologists agree that…” which is not science at all, and certainly not proof of anything other than a self-interested group belief in a dogma that pays extremely well until you question it.
Their process that they call “isolation” (we’ll use their SARS-Cov-2 process as an example, it varies slightly with other “viruses”, but mostly the changes are using different cell-lines and junk to mix in) is explained by Vincent Racaniello on his virology blog. You may remember Racaniello from his conversation with Peter Daszak about the activities of Daszak’s company, EcoHealth Alliance that we looked at previously. About terminology and isolating viruses, Racaniello says…
Many of the terms used in virology are ill-defined. They have no universally accepted definitions and there is no “bible” with the correct meanings. As each of us are trained by other virologists, we hear them using terms in certain contexts and we copy their usage – whether or not it is correct.
Vincent Racaniello – https://www.virology.ws/2021/02/25/understanding-virus-isolates-variants-strains-and-more/
[…]
Let’s start with the term virus isolate, because it’s the easiest to define. An isolate is the name for a virus that we have isolated from an infected host and propagated in culture. The first isolates of SARS-CoV-2 were obtained from patients with pnemonia in Wuhan in late 2019. A small amount of fluid was inserted into their lungs, withdrawn, and placed on cells in culture. The virus in the fluid reproduced in the cells and voila, we had the first isolates of the virus.
Virus isolate is a very basic term that implies nothing except that the virus was isolated from an infected host.
There is only one small problem with that, in that it is not true. That “very basic term” in question, only “implies” that the “virus was isolated from an infected host” if you ignore the actual definition of the word “isolated”. This bizarre circular definition is being stated by Racaniello as somehow clearing up confusion. Really, virologists just accept that what they call isolation really just means taking a sample and putting it through the cell culture process and ignore the fact that anyone else would think they actually meant isolating the “virus”.
In a bit more detail the process virologists use to claim isolation goes something like this…
- A sample is taken from a person or animal. This sample will contain all kinds of other genetic material, microbes, bacteria and other organisms.
- This genetic soup is not usually subjected to any of the usual methods of purification such as ultracentrifugation, filtration, precipitation etc. although sometimes it will get spun partially and they will claim separation of bigger particles such as bacteria, but lots of smaller particles, like microvesicular bodies and exosomes, will still be there.
- This non-purified sample is then subjected to some form of viral transport media containing antibiotics, antifungals, fetal cow blood, other nutrients etc. which is then added to a culture containing either animal or cancer cells. With the SARS-CoV-2 samples they use Vero cells that are corrupted cells from the kidneys of African Green Monkeys.
- The cell culture media that the sample that has been added to the viral transport media usually contains the following:
– Amino acids (the building blocks of proteins)
– Antibiotics (added to inhibit fungal and bacterial growth, harmful to cells)
– Basic and trace elements (cells require elements like iron, potassium, magnesium and zinc to grow)
– Buffering systems (to regulate pH)
– Carbohydrates (an energy source for cells)
– Hormones (specific hormones may be added to influence cell function, growth etc.)
– Inorganic salts (also needed for cells)
– Serum (growth factors and inhibitors, protease inhibitors, chelators etc. usually bovine serum)
– Supplements (other hormones, enzyme inhibitors etc. depending on the task)
– Vitamins (to help cell growth, usually part of the serum)
After these two concoctions are put together, the observed cell breakdown, known as cytopathic effect is then considered proof that the virus they simply assumed was in the original sample has caused this effect… QED. The problem with that is at no point has anything been isolated. Only in virology does isolated mean having a ton of extra stuff added. There is also no proof that the observed cytopathic effect is the result of any virus at all. Killing a few cells in a dish by adding a contaminated sample to a known toxic set of genetic material proved that you killed a few cells, that is all. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR process also stated this.
Back in 2013 a paper was published on the NIH website titled “Is the Era of Viral Culture Over in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory?” which contained the following observations…
“Many clinically relevant viruses are simply difficult to grow or cannot be grown at all in cultured cells”
…and…
“Viral culture systems really have not been standardized or scrutinized to the same extent as molecular testing and can vary considerably”
This states quite clearly that the foundational aspect of virology, that being the cell culture process that is what is used to make all the claims about a so-called virus and it’s pathogenic effects and transmissibility has no proper standard and is often a complete failure. Part of this is because the cytopathic effect that is considered evidence of the presence of the virus, and evidence that this virus causes the harm they claim it does, is highly dependant on getting the particular cell-line right, along with the other toxic junk they add to the cell culture.
Another study on the NIH website from 2007 titled “Role of Cell Culture for Virus Detection in the Age of Technology” states…
Typically, several different cell lines are inoculated with each clinical sample in an attempt to provide a suitable host for whichever virus might be present in the sample. Cell cultures of primary, diploid, and heteroploid cells are kept on hand in the virology laboratory. Examples of well-known cell types that are standard for most virology laboratories are primary rhesus monkey kidney (RhMK) cells, primary rabbit kidney cells, human lung fibroblasts (MRC-5), human foreskin fibroblasts, human epidermoid carcinoma cells (HEp-2), human lung carcinoma cells (A549), and others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797634/
Monkey kidney cells, rabbit kidney cells, human cancer cells and so on, getting the “correct” one as a “suitable host”, along with the other junk added, to then observe the breakdown of these cells which is claimed as evidence of the replication of the “virus”… again ask yourself if these viruses leap from person to person so easily, allegedly surviving for hours or days on shopping bags, hands or just floating around waiting for a victim, why is this contrived process required at all?
Then there is the issue of electron microscopy. When you see images of viruses like this…
…what you’re seeing is art. This is not the image of a “coronavirus”. This article explains how scanning electron microscopes work, and why they can “see” things a normal lens/light microscope can’t…
A modern light microscope has a maximum magnification of about 1000x. The resolving power of the microscope is not only limited by the number and quality of lenses but also by the wavelength of the light used for illumination. White light specifically ranges from 400 to 700 nanometers (nm) in wavelength, whereas the average wavelength of that range is 550 nm. This results in a theoretical limit of resolution (not visibility) of the light microscope in white light of about 200 – 250 nm.
https://www.nanoscience.com/techniques/scanning-electron-microscopy/
According to this ResearchGate article where they claim to have taken a sample from a “diarrheic foal” and then “serially propagated in human rectal adenocarcinoma (HRT-18) cells” show what they are claiming are coronaviruses to be 80 to 120 nm in diameter. That’s about half the size of anything you could actually see with a light/lens microscope. So the “images” are actually the creation of reflected electrons onto a detection plate. There is no colour, no depth, and no life just due to the way electron microscopes work.
Thinking back to the process of sampling and cell culture that virologists use, a sample of diarrhoea cultured in human rectum cancer cells is as representative of the legitimacy of this field as one could get. If you think that’s somehow unfair to virologists then consider just how many rules they have bent or dispensed with all together to allow a field of “research” that has become the cornerstone for billions of dollars/pounds in profits with not the slightest shred of benefit to humanity.
Actual science is a process…
Hypothesise > Test > Observe
If the observations do not match the hypothesised expectations, you got something wrong. Even if you got it right it needs to be repeatable, verifiable and ensured that you weren’t correct for the wrong reasons. For example in the field of mathematics it is not sufficient to come up with an idea, see it appear to work once with one set of numbers and declare that as “proof”.
To illustrate this, I remember being at college and the matter of division was the topic in the maths lesson. The students were asked to demonstrate the correct long-hand method, and a volunteer was requested to go to the front and show it on the board. Someone did, and they arrived at the correct answer but the process they used was wrong. It worked for those specific numbers and would work for a few other sets of numbers but it would not work for all numbers. I recall pointing this out and the other student was not very happy with me. One would like to think the tutor would have pointed this out too had I or anyone else not said anything, but the tutor actually asked the rest of us if that process was correct and I was the one to say no. Obviously I was then made to show the way I considered correct, which it turns out was correct.
There are many forms of mathematical proofs, i.e. ways in which it is possible to take an assumption about a number, set of numbers or a formula, and logically determine if the assumption is true or false. As we looked at previously there are areas of mathematics that are “undecidable”, or in other words it is not possible to determine the validity of the statement or method without some external reference, but for some of the more basic things we depend upon to be true numerically these have been logically proven and therefore can be depended on to be accurate and/or true in all cases.
There are ways to do this in medicine, that is to ensure the thing you are claiming is the cause of a specific set of symptoms and is the target of any proposed treatment, really is the cause. Those rules are known as Koch’s Postulates. Depending on where you look you will perhaps come to different conclusions regarding the validity and usefulness of Koch’s Postulates, so we’ll look at a few sources.
Published by Robert Hermann Koch in 1890, there are four steps that need to be satisfied within Koch’s Postulates in order to determine with certainty that a pathogen does indeed cause the symptoms/disease you think it does, and they are:
- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
- The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
- The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
That four-step process is a logical, verifiable method of determining if a causative relationship exists between microbe X and disease Y. Looking it up on Wikipedia for example and taking that information at face value, you could be forgiven for thinking the process is outdated and essentially worthless. For example the opening paragraph contains the following…
The postulates have been controversially generalized to other diseases. More modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis cannot be examined using Koch’s postulates, including viruses (which are obligate intracellular parasites) and asymptomatic carriers. They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health, and Falkow’s criteria for microbial pathogenesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch%27s_postulates
Conveniently it has been decided that Koch’s Postulates cannot be used in the field of viruses. There is plenty to be said about the “Bradford Hill criteria” but perhaps we’ll save that for another time. In short, it is a collection of nine criteria that allege to provide “epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect”, only one of which is considered a “must” which is that the effect MUST come after the cause… no kidding. The rest are possibilities, things that may or may not strengthen or weaken the chances of causality. All rather vague-sounding flim-flam that would not be permitted in most scientific fields.
Looking elsewhere, an article on the NIH website from 2013 states that…
Even Koch had to modify or bend the strictest interpretation of the first postulate. Koch discovered asymptomatic carriers of Vibrio cholera and Salmonella typhi, yielding the important distinction between asymptomatic clinical colonization and infection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3775492/
That sounds like Koch ended up breaking his own rules, or basically proving his rules do not apply. It turns out that is not really the case as looking back at Wikipedia in the entry for Vibrio cholera, part of that says…
Although Koch was convinced that the bacterium was the cholera pathogen, he could not entirely establish a critical evidence the bacterium produced the symptoms in healthy subjects (an important element in what was later known Koch’s postulates). His experiment on animals using his pure bacteria culture did not cause the disease, and correctly explained that animals are immune to human pathogen. The bacterium was by then known as “the comma bacillus.” It was only in 1959 when an Indian physician Sambhu Nath De in Calcutta isolated the cholera toxin and showed that it caused cholera in healthy subjects that the bacterium-cholera relationship was fully proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrio_cholerae
Interesting. Koch hadn’t had to “modify or bend” the rules at all as stated by that 2013 paper. What he did was concede that causality hadn’t been proven at that point, but eventually someone else “isolated the cholera toxin” and that then fulfilled rule 3 of Koch’s Postulates. At that point, causality was proven and Koch was honest enough to admit he hadn’t proven it. What it took to prove it though was actual isolation of a toxin created by the bacteria which is the bit that causes the illness. As bacteria are actually life-forms as opposed to viruses which are not living, it is conceivable that one could be “asymptomatic” for a time with certain bacteria as the mechanism by which they make you ill is provable, and the conditions or timeframe for that to happen can vary.
The deliberate undermining and at times outright dismissal of Koch’s Postulates because it doesn’t fit the demonstrably unproven field of virology is quite clear. Attributing the cause of diseases to viruses has been immensely profitable, hasn’t cured a single person of anything, ever and is the underpinning neo-religion of modern medicine. In fact, the word “virus” used to mean “toxin”, but like pretty much everything in the field of virology, even that word has been redefined.
Words and definitions matter. If you have to keep redefining words and terms, dispense with actual repeatable science and create a culture (pun slightly intended) of unquestioning devotion coupled with rewards for faith and penalties for heresy then this cannot be considered anything other than a neo-religion, and certainly not science.
Having looked at the fraudulent field of virology and established the lack of evidence to back up this claim of adenovirus-caused hepatitis, let’s see what else is being said about it. Looking back at the WHO news item, it is clear that the only potential causes they are considering are epidemiological ones, i.e. some kind of transmissible contagion. Could there be any other cause?
The BBC have been quick to step in on the topic. On the 30th April 2022 they published an article titled “Child hepatitis cases falsely linked to Covid vaccine”. This article was written by Rachel Schraer, their “Health and disinformation reporter”. Never a truer word. The article starts off with…
Social media posts have falsely linked a recent spike in unexplained hepatitis in children to the Covid vaccine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61242471
The affected children were mostly under the age of five and therefore not eligible for the jab, health agencies monitoring the situation say.
Oh well, case closed then, right? Well no. Just because they were “not eligible for the jab” does not mean that the “jab” played no part. Why? Well there is the documented phenomena of “Occupational Exposure” to consider, but of course the BBC article makes absolutely no mention of it. Occupational exposure is more informally known as “shedding” and was documented by Pfizer themselves. We looked at that almost a year ago and examined Pfizer’s own 146 page trial data document that explicitly states how they are monitoring for it in the following settings…
“Exposure to the study intervention under study during pregnancy or breastfeeding and occupational exposure are reportable to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of investigator awareness”
Page 67 – https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf
…which can result from the following contact:
• A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.
• A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.
It is clear that aspects of this experimental “vaccine”, e.g. the spike proteins the jab recipient’s body is instructed to make, can find their way into other people. There were no trials to see if this could be passed through breastfeeding or through the umbilical cord during pregnancy so that obviously cannot be just ruled out either.
However the BBC states “Vaccine ‘definitively’ ruled out” followed by “The UKHSA says the Covid vaccine is the one thing they can definitively rule out – because none of the children affected had received the jab.” but that is only one way these jabs could affect young children. They cannot possibly “definitively” rule anything out based on only one possible vector when there are others that provably exist. That’s like saying that after you discover property missing from your house, thieves have been “definitively ruled out” because the front door was locked, but the side-door and windows were open.
The BBC and it’s “disinformation reporter” are doing more damage control, hoping that people don’t know or won’t find out about the open side-door and windows. The next logical question is can anything to do with these jabs cause liver problems? Well yes. A paper published (PDF) on the 21st April 2022, so nine days before the BBC article, titled “SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can elicit a CD8 T-cell dominant hepatitis” concludes…
COVID19 vaccination can elicit a distinct T cell-dominant immune-mediated hepatitis with a unique pathomechanism associated with vaccination induced antigen-specific tissue-resident immunity requiring systemic immunosuppression.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827822002343
It’s a pre-print paper but looks quite well researched. Just because the children getting hepatitis may not have had the jab, the occupational exposure (AKA shedding) of the spike protein, the thing the jabs create that is allegedly the actual thing that stimulates an immune response is clearly capable of making it’s way into others who haven’t had the jab but are in close proximity to someone who has. The very fact the BBC article doesn’t even mention this as a possibility despite the very real, documented mechanisms identified and explained by one of the “vaccine” manufacturers no less is just another elephant in the room and proves just how dishonest and biased the BBC really is.
Back in August 2021 the BBC were trying to debunk claims about the COVID jabs and miscarriage. Rachel Schraer was busy then plastering “NO EVIDENCE” all over everything, deliberately missing the obvious point that if you refuse to even look at something, of course there will appear to be no evidence. What is interesting about this article is in an effort to debunk claims about “the vaccine accumulating in the ovaries” which they claim is a misinterpretation of a Japanese study, they state:
Only 0.1% of the total dose ended up in the animals’ ovaries, 48 hours after injection.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57552527
Far more – 53% after one hour and 25% after 48 hours – was found at the injection site (in humans, usually the arm). The next most common place was the liver (16% after 48 hours), which helps get rid of waste products from the blood.
Right, so after 48 hours only 25% of the “dose” remained at the injection site. That means 75% of it is swilling around the body. That wasn’t what was claimed at the start. And where was the “next most common place” for it to accumulate? Oh yes, the liver.
Remember these two BBC articles were written by the same person. Rachel Schraer is either an unthinking BBC drone writing what she is told to write, or a dishonest State mouthpiece, complicit in the continuing COVID scam. Feel free to make your own mind up.