Viro­lo­gy as Ideo­lo­gy. A Cri­tique of Ruling Class Pseu­do­sci­ence – Part 3: Viro­lo­gy as Ideology

Tametomo repelling the smallpox from the island of Oshima
Lese­zeit93 min

This is the thrid install­ment of a four part essay seria­li­zed in the Mag­Ma. It con­ta­ins the fol­lo­wing parts: 

  1. Sci­ence and Class Society
  2. The Mili­ta­ry-Aca­de­mic-Indus­tri­al-Med­ico-Sci­en­ti­fic Com­plex (MAIMS)
  3. Viro­lo­gy as Ideo­lo­gy 
  4. Their Sci­ence and Our Science

Part 3: Viro­lo­gy as Ideology

The pro­mul­ga­ti­on of bogus sci­en­ti­fic infor­ma­ti­on is so exten­si­ve that any meaningful cor­rec­tion is impos­si­ble and retrac­tion would wipe out well over half of the published sci­en­ti­fic lite­ra­tu­re of the past half-cen­tu­ry. The resis­tance to the cor­rec­tion of error in scho­lar­ly publi­ca­ti­ons is mere­ly a sym­ptom of a much lar­ger sys­te­mic can­cer cor­rupt­ing pro­fes­sio­nal and govern­men­tal insti­tu­ti­ons – inde­ed, all insti­tu­tio­nal sci­ence. Rese­arch is no lon­ger dri­ven by a desi­re to deter­mi­ne objec­tively whe­ther a hypo­the­sis is valid, but rather by the will to make hypo­the­ses appear true.

David Ras­nick, »The Tyran­ny of Dogma«

None of this [the sci­en­ti­fic method] works when you’­re deal­ing with the shared bia­ses of a who­le intellec­tu­al com­mu­ni­ty, and the­se bia­ses are shared becau­se there’s alre­a­dy been a pro­cess of sel­ec­ting sci­en­tists. It’s not fool­pro­of, peo­p­le do get in with some­what devi­ant ide­as, but the sci­en­ti­fic com­mu­ni­ty shares bia­ses. We have a who­le voca­bu­la­ry: not-pro­ven, not-main­stream, qua­cki­sh, far-out, and so on. And you might think that we have as rich a way of put­ting down ide­as we don’t like, as any popu­la­ti­on in the remo­te cor­ners of the world… the result of all this is the para­dox that we have an incre­asing ratio­na­li­ty in the small, at the level of the labo­ra­to­ry, more and more exqui­si­te know­ledge of detail, along with irra­tio­na­li­ty in the sci­en­ti­fic enter­pri­se as a who­le, which allows it to be drawn into all kinds of des­truc­ti­ve, self-limi­ting, and une­thi­cal activities.

Richard Levins, »The Two Faces of Science«

Intro­duc­tion: Who­se Science?

In the abo­ve two parts of this essay, we have attempt­ed to recla­im and defend what we take to be the ortho­dox Mar­xist posi­ti­on on sci­ence: that it is always owned by some­bo­dy. As Richard Levins obser­ved, »the ques­ti­on of who are the owners of socie­ty is extre­me­ly important, not only for the eco­no­mics of sci­ence, but also its con­tent.«[1] As we have argued in detail, this means that sci­ence ser­ves the ruling class both in pro­vi­ding them with a means to mani­pu­la­te the phy­si­cal world, and a means to mani­pu­la­te us, the popu­la­ti­on, through its expl­ana­to­ry func­tion as an ideo­lo­gy. The­se two core func­tions of sci­ence are often in ten­si­on with each other, and in Part 1 we exhaus­tively refu­ted the vul­gar mate­ria­list noti­on that the lat­ter always over­ri­des the for­mer. Inde­ed, the ideo­lo­gi­cal func­tion of sci­ence can act as a seve­re fet­ter on the ›prac­ti­cal‹ func­tion – cons­trai­ning, war­ping, and mis­di­rec­ting it.

The­re is, by now, a very lar­ge body of lite­ra­tu­re from across the Mar­xist and Mar­xistant spec­trum (as well as bey­ond it) cri­ti­quing the ato­mi­stic and mecha­ni­stic ten­den­ci­es which have his­to­ri­cal­ly cha­rac­te­ri­zed bour­geois sci­ence. None­thel­ess, in this era of capitalism’s denouement, as during the fascist era, the ruling class – or more pre­cis­e­ly, their ideo­lo­gi­cal hench­men – sei­ze mad­ly on every and any insight pro­du­ced by the Mar­xist camp and twist it into a reac­tion­a­ry, vul­gar, fasci­zo­id but­tress to their own reac­tion­a­ry pro­gram. Over the past three years in par­ti­cu­lar, we have seen the ruling-class-owned fake-left out­fits – e.g., Ver­so, Jaco­bin, Hay­mar­ket, Nova­ra– chur­ning out an end­less tor­rent of a psuedo-Mar­xist cri­tique of so-cal­led ›capi­ta­list health­ca­re‹ or ›capi­ta­list medi­ci­ne‹ that, much like tra­di­tio­nal fascism, attacks ›indi­vi­dua­lism‹ or ›libe­ra­lism‹ from the van­ta­ge of a reac­tion­a­ry, anti-enligh­ten­ment, anti-demo­cra­tic, pseudo-collectivism.

Befo­re we move direct­ly into the cri­tique of viro­lo­gy its­elf, which the pre­vious sec­tions have hop­eful­ly made rigo­rous mate­ria­lists wil­ling to serious­ly enga­ge with, we will quo­te at con­sidera­ble length a pas­sa­ge of Richard Lewontin’s lec­tu­re series »Bio­lo­gy as Ideo­lo­gy.« Lewon­tin hims­elf never went far enough and reco­gni­zed just how radi­cal­ly fla­wed eit­her vac­ci­no­lo­gy or viro­lo­gy are. None­thel­ess, his com­men­ta­ry is exem­pla­ry of what a serious Mar­xist approach looks like, and by con­tra­dis­tinc­tion utter­ly expo­ses the frau­du­lence of the run­ning dogs of the MAIMS com­plex who try to pre­sent them­sel­ves as Mar­xists today:

One can­not get tuber­cu­lo­sis wit­hout a tuber­cle bacil­lus, and the evi­dence is quite com­pel­ling that one can­not get the can­cer meso­the­lio­ma wit­hout having inge­sted asbes­tos or rela­ted com­pounds. But that is not the same as say­ing that the cau­se of tuber­cu­lo­sis is the tuber­cle bacil­lus and the cau­se of meso­the­lio­ma is asbes­tos. What are the con­se­quen­ces for our health of thin­king in this way? Sup­po­se we note that tuber­cu­lo­sis was a dise­a­se extre­me­ly com­mon in the sweat­shops and mise­ra­ble fac­to­ries of the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry, whe­re­as tuber­cu­lo­sis rates were much lower among coun­try peo­p­le and in the upper clas­ses. Then we might be jus­ti­fied in clai­ming that the cau­se of tuber­cu­lo­sis is unre­gu­la­ted indus­tri­al capi­ta­lism, and if we did away with that sys­tem of social orga­niza­ti­on, we would not need to worry about the tuber­cle bacil­lus. When we look at the histo­ry of health and dise­a­se in modern Euro­pe, that expl­ana­ti­on makes at least as good sen­se as bla­ming the poor bacterium.

What is the evi­dence for the bene­fits of modern sci­en­ti­fic medi­ci­ne? Cer­tain­ly we live a gre­at deal lon­ger than our ances­tors. In 1890, the years of life expec­ted for a white child at birth in North Ame­ri­ca were only 45, whe­re­as now the expec­ted life span is 75 years, but that is not becau­se modern medi­ci­ne has pro­lon­ged the life of elder­ly and sick peo­p­le. A very lar­ge frac­tion of the chan­ge in the avera­ge life expec­tancy is a tre­men­dous reduc­tion in infant mor­ta­li­ty. Befo­re the turn of the cen­tu­ry and espe­ci­al­ly ear­lier in the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry, the­re was a con­sidera­ble chan­ce that a child never got to be a year old – in 1860, the infant mor­ta­li­ty rate in the U.S. was 13 per­cent, so the avera­ge life expec­tancy for the popu­la­ti­on as a who­le was redu­ced con­sider­a­b­ly by this ear­ly death. The gra­ves­to­nes of peo­p­le who died in the midd­le of the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry indi­ca­te a remar­kab­le num­ber of deaths at an old age. In fact, sci­en­ti­fic medi­ci­ne has done litt­le to add years for peo­p­le who have alre­a­dy rea­ched their matu­ri­ty. In the last 50 years, only about four months have been added to the expec­ted life span of a per­son who is alre­a­dy 60 years old. 

As we all know, in modern Euro­pe women live lon­ger than men, but they used not to. Befo­re the turn of the cen­tu­ry, women died soo­ner than men did, and a com­mon expl­ana­ti­on offe­red by sci­en­ti­fic medi­ci­ne is that a lea­ding cau­se of death in women in the days befo­re modern medi­ci­ne was child­birth fever. Accor­ding to this view, modern anti­sep­tic medi­ci­ne and hos­pi­tal prac­ti­ce has been a major life saver for youn­ger women during their child­bea­ring years. But a look at the sta­tis­tics reve­als that child-birth fever was a minor cau­se of death during the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry, even of women of child­bea­ring age, and was cer­tain­ly not the cau­se of the excess mor­ta­li­ty of women. Near­ly all that excess mor­ta­li­ty was a con­se­quence of tuber­cu­lo­sis, and when tuber­cu­lo­sis cea­sed to be a major kil­ler, women cea­sed to have a shorter life span than did men. A lea­ding cau­se of mor­ta­li­ty in young child­ren was scalds and burns, espe­ci­al­ly among young girls becau­se, of cour­se, girls spent a gre­at deal of time in very dan­ge­rous con­di­ti­ons, around open kit­chen fires. Their young brot­hers spent a good deal of time out­side the house­hold, in work­shops, admit­ted­ly not in the most favorable of working con­di­ti­ons, but some­what less dan­ge­rous than the fami­ly hearth.

We return, then, to tuber­cu­lo­sis and the other infec­tious dise­a­ses that were such kil­lers in the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry and the ear­ly part of the twen­tieth. An exami­na­ti­on of the cau­ses of death, first sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly recor­ded in the 1830s in Bri­tain and a bit later in North Ame­ri­ca, show that most peo­p­le did, inde­ed, die of infec­tious dise­a­se and in par­ti­cu­lar of respi­ra­to­ry dise­a­ses. They died of tuber­cu­lo­sis, of diph­the­ria, of bron­chi­tis, of pneu­mo­nia, and par­ti­cu­lar­ly among child­ren they died of meas­les and the peren­ni­al kil­ler, small­pox. As the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry pro­gres­sed, the death rate from all the­se dise­a­ses decreased con­ti­nuous­ly. Small­pox was dealt with by a medi­cal advan­ce, but one that could hard­ly be clai­med by modern sci­en­ti­fic medi­ci­ne, sin­ce small­pox vac­ci­ne was dis­co­ver­ed in the eigh­te­enth cen­tu­ry and alre­a­dy was quite wide­ly used by the ear­ly part of the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry. The death rates from the major kil­lers like bron­chi­tis, pneu­mo­nia, and tuber­cu­lo­sis fell rather regu­lar­ly during the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry, with no obvious cau­se. The­re was no obser­va­ble effect on the death rate after the germ theo­ry of dise­a­se was announ­ced in 1876 by Robert Koch. The death rate from the­se infec­tious dise­a­ses sim­ply con­tin­ued to decli­ne as if Koch had never lived. By the time che­mi­cal the­ra­py was intro­du­ced for tuber­cu­lo­sis in the ear­lier part of this cen­tu­ry, more than 90 per­cent of the decrease in the death rate from that dise­a­se had alre­a­dy occurred.

One of the most reve­al­ing cases is meas­les. At pre­sent, Cana­di­an and Ame­ri­can child­ren do not often get meas­les becau­se they are vac­ci­na­ted against it, but a gene­ra­ti­on ago every school­child had meas­les, yet death from meas­les was extre­me­ly rare. In the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry, meas­les was the major kil­ler of young child­ren, and in many Afri­can count­ries today it remains the hig­hest cau­se of death among child­ren. Meas­les is a dise­a­se that ever­yo­ne used to con­tract, for which the­re is no known cure or medi­cal tre­at­ment, and which sim­ply stop­ped being fatal to child­ren in advan­ced countries.

The pro­gres­si­ve reduc­tions in the death rate were not a con­se­quence, for exam­p­le, of modern sani­ta­ti­on, becau­se the dise­a­ses that were the major kil­lers in the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry were respi­ra­to­ry and not water­bor­ne. It is unclear whe­ther simp­le crow­ding had much to do with the pro­cess, sin­ce some parts of our cities are quite as crow­ded as they were in the 1850s. As far as we can tell, the decrease in death rates from the infec­tious kil­lers of the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry is a con­se­quence of the gene­ral impro­ve­ment in nut­ri­ti­on and is rela­ted to an increase in the real wage. In count­ries like Bra­zil today, infant mor­ta­li­ty rises and falls with decrea­ses and increa­ses in the mini­mum wage. The immense bet­ter­ment of nut­ri­ti­on also explains the drop in the hig­her rate of tuber­cu­lo­sis among women than among men. In the nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry, and even long into the twen­tieth in Bri­tain, working men were far bet­ter nou­ris­hed than home­bound women. Often if meat could be affor­ded for the table in an urban working-class fami­ly in Bri­tain, it was saved for the man. So the­re have been com­plex social chan­ges, resul­ting in increa­ses in the real ear­nings of the gre­at mass of peo­p­le, reflec­ted in part in their far bet­ter nut­ri­ti­on, that real­ly lie at the basis of our increased lon­ge­vi­ty and our decreased death rate from infec­tious dise­a­se. Alt­hough one may say that the tuber­cle bacil­lus cau­ses tuber­cu­lo­sis, we are much clo­ser to the truth when we say that it was the con­di­ti­ons of unre­gu­la­ted nine­te­enth-cen­tu­ry com­pe­ti­ti­ve capi­ta­lism, unmo­du­la­ted by the demands of labor uni­ons and the sta­te, that was the cau­se of tuber­cu­lo­sis. But social cau­ses are not in the ambit of bio­lo­gi­cal sci­ence, so medi­cal stu­dents con­ti­nue to be taught that the cau­se of tuber­cu­lo­sis is a bacil­lus.[2]

As dis­cus­sed in the pre­vious sec­tions, the capi­ta­list ruling class has pri­vi­le­ged the germ-theo­ry of dise­a­se as the default and often exclu­si­ve expl­ana­ti­on of ill­ness for obvious mate­ri­al and ideo­lo­gi­cal reasons. It fits within their purely com­pe­ti­ti­ve / ant­ago­ni­stic model of evo­lu­ti­on, which sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly unde­re­sti­ma­tes sym­bio­sis or coope­ra­ti­on. It sup­ports their cru­de, mecha­ni­stic, ato­mi­stic, undialec­ti­cal core onto­lo­gy. It but­tres­ses their fetish of DNA, jus­ti­fy­ing euge­nics and racism. It obscu­res envi­ron­men­tal inju­ries from all forms of pol­lu­ti­on, from che­mi­cal to elec­tri­cal, shif­ting the bla­me onto indi­vi­du­als for not ade­qua­te­ly pro­tec­ting or medi­ca­ting them­sel­ves. Wed­ded to the fan­ta­sy of ›magic bul­let‹ cures, it fos­ters the basis for the core for­mu­la of modern bio­me­di­ci­ne: »one dise­a­se, one cau­se, one cure.«[3] Rocke­fel­ler alo­ne mas­si­ve­ly dro­ve the enshri­ne­ment of this for­mu­la, which enab­led the explo­si­on of a high­ly pro­fi­ta­ble phar­maceu­ti­cal indus­try based signi­fi­cant­ly on petro­le­um-based pro­ducts. Inde­ed, Rocke­fel­ler laid the foun­da­ti­ons of the modern MAIMS com­plex with just this pro­gram– taking a page from his father, an actu­al, bona fide sna­ke oil sales­men – houn­ding out other forms of medi­cal care, and intro­du­cing pro­found hier­ar­chy and disci­pli­ne, ulti­m­ate­ly ans­werable to the shadowy car­tel orga­niza­ti­ons of him and his cli­que, across wes­tern medi­ci­ne.[4] Infec­tious dise­a­ses, real or ima­gi­ned, have also pro­ved an ever­green ratio­na­le for sur­veil­ling, segre­ga­ting, and con­trol­ling the move­ment of the popu­la­ti­on. The modern inter­na­tio­nal pass­port sys­tem, for ins­tance, was imple­men­ted as an expli­cit­ly tem­po­ra­ry mea­su­re in WWI, along with many reassu­ran­ces that it would be prompt­ly done away with after the war. The so-cal­led »Spa­nish Flu,« howe­ver, play­ed a key role in jus­ti­fy­ing its per­pe­tua­ti­on and even­tu­al per­ma­nent estab­lish­ment.[5] The ruling class evi­dent­ly desi­res to accom­plish the same with vac­ci­ne passports.

As the pas­sa­ge from Lewon­tin abo­ve helps grasp, howe­ver, their is a more pro­found reason why infec­tion in gene­ral and viro­lo­gy in par­ti­cu­lar are core pil­lars of modern ruling class ideo­lo­gy: not only do they obscu­re the natu­re and cau­se of the harms which capi­ta­lists con­di­ti­ons impo­se on the popu­la­ti­on, but it just as important­ly obscu­res the natu­re and cau­se of the bene­fits which workers have won for them­sel­ves, in spi­te of and through their strugg­le with capi­ta­lists. That is to say, the impro­ve­ments in human health which are real­ly due to the impro­ved nut­ri­ti­on, working and living stan­dards, etc. which workers have won for them­sel­ves, are ideo­lo­gi­cal­ly trans­fi­gu­red by viro­lo­gy into gifts which capi­ta­list sci­ence has han­ded, gra­tis, to the workers of the world. As we will show below, the­re is scar­ce­ly any evi­dence for the bene­fits of vac­ci­nes which stands up to scru­ti­ny, and very com­pel­ling evi­dence for their serious harms. We have very good data show­ing that serious ill­ness and death for all the major ill­nesses from which we were sup­po­sedly saved by vac­ci­nes were approa­ching negli­gi­ble rates, in a clear, well-estab­lished cour­se of decli­ne, befo­re the savi­or vac­ci­nes were intro­du­ced. In 1971, Edward H. Kass (then Edi­tor-in-Chief of The Jour­nal of Infec­tious Dise­a­ses and pre­si­dent of the Infec­tious Dise­a­ses Socie­ty of Ame­ri­ca, announ­ced the fol­lo­wing at the at the joint mee­ting of the Infec­tious Dise­a­ses Socie­ty of Ame­ri­ca and the Tenth Inter­sci­ence Con­fe­rence on Anti­mi­cro­bi­al Agents and Che­mo­the­ra­py) announced:

We had accept­ed some half-truths and had stop­ped sear­ching for the who­le truths. The prin­ci­pal half-truths were that medi­cal rese­arch had stam­ped out the gre­at kil­lers of the past – tuber­cu­lo­sis, diph­the­ria, pneu­mo­nia, puer­peral sep­sis, etc. – and that medi­cal rese­arch and our supe­ri­or sys­tem of medi­cal care were major fac­tors in exten­ding life expec­tancy. The data on deaths from tuber­cu­lo­sis show that the mor­ta­li­ty rate from this dise­a­se has been decli­ning ste­adi­ly sin­ce the midd­le of the 19th cen­tu­ry and has con­tin­ued to decli­ne in almost line­ar fashion during the past 100 years [till 1970]. The­re were increa­ses in rates of tuber­cu­lo­sis during wars and under spe­ci­fied adver­se local con­di­ti­ons. The poor and the crow­ded always came off worst of all in war and in peace, but the over­all decli­ne in deaths from tuber­cu­lo­sis was not alte­red mea­sur­a­b­ly by the dis­co­very of the tuber­cu­lo­sis bacil­lus, the advent of the tuber­cu­lin test, the appearance of BCG vac­ci­na­ti­on, the wide­spread use of mass scree­ning, the inten­si­ve anti-tuber­cu­lo­sis cam­paigns, or the dis­co­very of strep­to­my­cin. It is important that this point be unders­tood in its com­ple­ten­ess. The point was made years ago by Wade Hamp­tom Frost, and more recent­ly by René Dubos, and has been repea­ted­ly stres­sed through the years by many obser­vers of the public health. Simi­lar trends in mor­ta­li­ty have been repor­ted with respect to diph­the­ria, scar­let fever, rheu­ma­tic fever, per­tus­sis, meas­les, and many others.[6]

Kass’s ico­no­cla­s­tic argu­ment was sup­port­ed with a num­ber of striking graphs, the likes of which we will deal with in more depth below. To give just an exam­p­le here, howe­ver, see the graph of meas­les mor­ta­li­ty for child­ren in Eng­land and Wales[7]:

What the real data and evi­dence sug­gests, and what is in fact real­ly quite easy to see despi­te all the efforts to sup­press and cen­sor it, is that impro­ve­ments in human health and well being which are cre­di­ted to modern medi­cal sci­ence and par­ti­cu­lar­ly to viro­lo­gy are owed much more meaningful­ly to the poli­ti­cal suc­ces­ses of the glo­bal working clas­ses, in the form of revo­lu­tio­na­ry com­mu­nism and social demo­cra­cy. Of cour­se, this is true of genui­ne sci­en­ti­fic gains, most of which would have been impos­si­ble wit­hout gene­ral edu­ca­ti­on and broa­den­ed popu­lar enfranchisement.

As such, it is dif­fi­cult to deal with the­se issues in iso­la­ti­on, and this paper can­not pos­si­bly offer a sys­te­ma­tic account of the histo­ry of sci­ence and class strugg­le in the capi­ta­list era. In my essay »Impe­ria­lism Today is Con­spi­ra­cy Prac­ti­ce[8] one can find a very sche­ma­tic tre­at­ment of the major con­tours and ten­den­ci­es in the glo­bal class strugg­le over the past cen­tu­ry. The­re, we also explain why pre­cis­e­ly the peri­od in which we see a shift in the ideo­lo­gi­cal-poli­ti­cal role of viro­lo­gy– name­ly, in the AIDS / HIV ope­ra­ti­on – cor­re­sponds with the defeat of revo­lu­tio­na­ry com­mu­nism, the con­se­quent red­un­dan­cy of the social-demo­cra­tic bar­gain, and the initia­ti­on of a more direct pro­gram of reac­tion, dehu­ma­niza­ti­on, segre­ga­ti­on, dys­ge­nics, and depopulation.

To explain all that, howe­ver, we must first expo­se once and for all the rot at the core viro­lo­gy, to show that it is fun­da­men­tal­ly a pseu­do­sci­en­ti­fic body of thought. At its core, it takes the ideo­lo­gi­cal fetis­hes which have incli­ned the ruling class towards germ-theo­ry and ele­va­tes them to fana­ti­cal level, as Nazi racial »sci­ence« did with the alre­a­dy gro­tes­que racial sci­ence which con­sti­tu­ted the respec­ta­ble con­sen­sus of the impe­ria­list capi­ta­list West. To do this, we must of cour­se ask, why do peo­p­le belie­ve in viro­lo­gy in the first place? The ans­wer is, very gene­ral­ly, some­thing along the lines of: it works.

Lea­ving asi­de the very con­sidera­ble amount of sci­en­ti­fic inter­ven­ti­ons, the­ra­pies, etc. which have work­ed despi­te being based on fal­se theo­ries, we can none­thel­ess show very cle­ar­ly that, bey­ond its own frau­du­lent terms, the­re is actual­ly very litt­le com­pel­ling evi­dence that viro­lo­gy ›works‹ at all, in so far as that means con­du­cing to human health or well-being. Few have more than even a luke-warm con­fi­dence in even the best sup­po­sed ›anti­vi­rals,‹ and many if not most anti­vi­rals with any uti­li­ty at all were dis­co­ver­ed through coin­ci­dence or tri­al and error– that is to say, they are pro­ducts that were dis­co­ver­ed (or alle­ged) to miti­ga­te sym­ptoms of some sup­po­sedly viral ill­ness, and an anti­vi­ral mecha­nism of action was posi­ted (›dis­co­ver­ed‹) post fes­tum. But the­se are, at any rate, bey­ond the scope of this paper. No one cites anti­vi­rals to defend viro­lo­gy: they cite vaccines.

It is not coin­ci­den­tal that vac­ci­nes eli­cit the most hys­te­ri­cal, shrill, enra­ged howls from the faithful devo­tees of the MAIMS com­plex – though per­haps by now, for at least some who are start­ing to open their eyes, that very fact will seem signi­fi­cant and tel­ling. Do all ruling class organs in con­cert end­less­ly vili­fy cri­tics of vac­ci­na­ti­on, becau­se such cri­tics are just so dan­ge­rous to the gene­ral popu­la­ti­on, or becau­se they are dan­ge­rous to the ruling class them­sel­ves? Which is real­ly more likely? And if you have or at one time had a vis­ce­ral con­tempt for vac­ci­ne cri­tics (as the pre­sent aut­hor must per­so­nal­ly con­fess too!), con­sider genui­ne­ly reflec­ting upon whe­ther that con­tempt was some­thing ratio­nal­ly groun­ded in your own reaso­ning and expe­ri­ence – or, alter­na­tively some­thing con­di­tio­ned, eli­ci­ted, cul­ti­va­ted, with the help of that con­sidera­ble mar­ke­ting bud­get dis­cus­sed on Part 2 (its­elf only a frac­tion of the money that goes into pushing vac­ci­nes, viro­lo­gy, and infec­tion based ›public health mea­su­res,‹ con­side­ring the cen­tral role now play­ed by govern­ment health agen­ci­es, NGOs, and intel­li­gence agen­ci­es in the pro­cess). It is inde­ed rather striking that the vil­lains of the pro-vac­ci­na­ti­on world­view are the same old reac­tion­a­ry fan­ta­sies of the right-wing gene­ral­ly: women who talk too much with each other, espe­ci­al­ly about their own and their children’s health and well­be­ing (’soc­cer moms on face­book groups‹); migrants (pla­gue-rid­den, back­wards, supers­ti­tious dise­a­se car­ri­ers); and inde­ed, all eth­no-reli­gious mino­ri­ties. In Ame­ri­ca, Blacks and Jews are par­ti­cu­lar­ly tar­ge­ted; inde­ed, the posi­tively Hit­le­ri­an note struck by cos­mo­po­li­tan, enligh­ten­ed New York libe­rals when­ever the issue of unvac­ci­na­ted Hasi­dic Jews sur­faces beggars belief.

After­all, though, the domi­nan­ce of reac­tion­a­ry and retro­gra­de ide­as in the capi­ta­list impe­ria­list core shouldn’t sur­pri­se us much at all. As Levins obser­ved, in the 19th and 20th cen­tu­ry the USA was the world’s bas­ti­on of racist pseu­do­sci­ence. It was the cen­ter of Euge­nics publi­shing and lec­tu­ring, with ste­ri­liza­ti­on laws on the books until the 1970s, inclu­ding for defec­ti­ves such as tho­se poor for three gene­ra­ti­ons, or tho­se dee­med »pro­mis­cuous.« As he obser­ves, »until rela­tively recent­ly, it was con­side­red legi­ti­ma­te to try and impro­ve the white race by the ste­ri­liza­ti­on of defec­ti­ve peo­p­le. Now all of this was car­ri­ed out by sci­en­tists who were well-edu­ca­ted, went to eli­te uni­ver­si­ties …«[9] As Engel­brecht et​.al high­light, in 1949, the Nobel Pri­ze in medi­ci­ne was award­ed to Egas Moniz for lobo­to­my despi­te the­re being no pro­of of safe­ty or effi­ca­cy. Lobo­to­mies went from 100 per­for­med in the USA in 1946 to 5000 in 1950. Con­trast this with the Soviets, who ban­ned the pro­ce­du­re in 1950, decla­ring it »incom­pa­ti­ble with the prin­ci­ples of huma­ni­ty.«[10] The Nobel Pri­ze orga­niza­ti­on con­tin­ued to defend him for half a cen­tu­ry. Or con­sider the fol­lo­wing case, also cited by Engel­brecht et. al.:

In 1979, the Cali­for­ni­an psych­ia­trist H. Brown recom­men­ded psy­cho­sur­gery for the reha­bi­li­ta­ti­on of juve­ni­le delin­quents. Brown’s pro­po­sals were dis­cus­sed in the Lon­don Times and the Washing­ton Post—poin­ting out that this type of reha­bi­li­ta­ti­on was far more cost-effec­ti­ve, at only $6,000, than lifel­ong cus­t­ody, which cos­ts around $100,000.[11]

One can­not help but recall here the simi­lar­ly »logi­cal« argu­ments of the »ethi­cists« and »phi­lo­so­phers« defen­ding vac­ci­ne man­da­tes over the past two years – becau­se this would be kin­der than the even more sinis­ter things they could ima­gi­ne doing to us! So once again, rea­ders are sim­ply urged to try and over­co­me the con­cep­tu­al blin­ders, abo­ve all, the pla­gue of sci­en­tism, which has made the real cha­rac­ter of such phe­no­me­na so very hard for so very many to grasp. The­re is no his­to­ri­cal-mate­ria­list reason to belie­ve the con­di­ti­ons have con­tin­ued to impro­ve for sci­ence-pro­duc­tion in the capi­ta­list world in the 20th cen­tu­ry, and every reason to belie­ve that, espe­ci­al­ly sin­ce the glo­bal coun­ter-revo­lu­ti­on, the con­di­ti­ons for sci­ence-pro­duc­tion have beco­me con­sider­a­b­ly worse. With the working class defea­ted and in retre­at the world over, the capi­ta­list class tri­um­phant bey­ond their wil­dest dreams and uns­hack­led by vir­tual­ly any ves­ti­ges of even social-demo­cra­cy, we should expect pseu­do-sci­ence to be pre­va­lent, per­haps even pre­do­mi­nant. This is of cour­se a very hard pill to swal­low for tho­se who con­ti­nue to nur­se the fan­ta­sy of a sci­en­ti­fic care­er abo­ve or out­side of the class strugg­le whe­re they can somehow main­tain their prin­ci­ples, do ›good,‹ and even earn a very nice paycheck!

Once we expo­se the frau­du­lence of vac­ci­nes, we will turn to the field of viro­lo­gy its­elf. We will show that its foun­da­ti­ons lay in a com­bi­na­ti­on of unju­s­ti­fied assump­ti­ons, backed up by expe­ri­ments which would now be wide­ly reco­gni­zed as utter­ly unsci­en­ti­fic. Sin­ce its quaint foun­da­ti­ons, a bat­tery of secon­da­ry and ter­tia­ry mea­su­re­ments and methods have been erec­ted which give viro­lo­gy a sci­en­ti­fic faca­de, and make tho­se cru­de expe­ri­ments no lon­ger neces­sa­ry. But the assump­ti­ons built into tho­se more advan­ced means were estab­lished based on tho­se cru­de first expe­ri­ments, and fall wit­hout them. An important caveat should be made here: many cri­tics of viro­lo­gy repro­du­ce, at times in an even more par­odied form, the extre­me mecha­ni­stic posi­ti­vism and ato­mism at virology’s foun­da­ti­ons. Curious­ly, this often coexists, in an inco­her­ent and dis­so­nant man­ner, with a nai­ve (quasi-)religious who­lism. We will have to cri­tique both as well.

We will show that for many so-cal­led viro­lo­gi­cal dise­a­ses, the­re is much bet­ter evi­dence for com­pe­ting cau­ses– and, almost always, tho­se cau­ses would serious­ly incri­mi­na­te influ­en­ti­al por­ti­ons of the ruling class. This is whe­re we must del­ve into more spe­cu­la­ti­ve and dubio­us ter­ri­to­ry, and whe­re the cha­rac­te­riza­ti­on of viro­lo­gy as an ‘ideo­lo­gy’ is com­pli­ca­ted, for we must grapp­le with the ext­ent to which the ext­ent to which signi­fi­cant fac­tions at the very hig­hest levels of the ruling class must know that main­stream viro­lo­gy is fal­se or at the very least serious­ly fla­wed. This rea­li­ty is only real­ly intel­li­gi­ble if one accepts the ultra-con­so­li­da­ted cha­rac­ter of the cur­rent glo­bal ruling class, which too many Mar­xists remain reluc­tant to do. Yet even a cur­so­ry glan­ce at the handful of orga­niza­ti­ons that con­trol basi­cal­ly the enti­re MAIMS com­plex make just such a con­clu­si­on inevitable.

What we will not do is offer a com­pre­hen­si­ve posi­ti­ve expl­ana­ti­on for the phe­no­me­non now pre­do­mi­nant­ly inter­pre­ted through the frame­work of viro­lo­gy. Nor will we reduc­tively fore­c­lo­se the pos­si­bi­li­ty that useful rese­arch has been done even under and within its very fla­wed frame­work. Inde­ed, a core con­ten­ti­on of this essay is that we are sim­ply not in a posi­ti­on, poli­ti­cal­ly and epis­te­mi­cal­ly, to make such aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve jud­ge­ments. A cor­rect mate­ria­list approach to sci­ence must of cour­se be groun­ded in a cor­rect mate­ria­list assess­ment of our real posi­ti­on, our capa­ci­ties, and our weak­ne­s­ses. In part 4, we will more ful­ly deve­lop this the­me; for now, it is enough to empha­si­ze the pro­vi­sio­nal natu­re of the cri­tique pre­sen­ted here.

Tho­se who have gone down the rab­bit hole, as it were, of vac­ci­ne- and ulti­m­ate­ly virus-skep­ti­cism over the past two or three years, often com­ment upon having been struck by two things in par­ti­cu­lar. The first is how vast, impres­si­ve, and rigo­rous the body of pre-exis­ting hete­ro­dox sci­en­ti­fic and medi­cal thought is. The second, is how red­un­dant it is. Thou­sands, likely tens of thou­sands, of inde­pen­dent rese­ar­chers, sci­en­tists, doc­tors, hea­lers, and others have gone through the same or simi­lar pro­ces­ses, scru­ti­ni­zed the evi­dence for vac­ci­nes or viru­s­es, and found them wan­ting. Most have tried as much as pos­si­ble to avo­id radi­cal or extre­me con­clu­si­ons, and have shown tre­men­dous inge­nui­ty in try­ing to sal­va­ge the over­all viro­lo­gi­cal frame­work while try­ing to incor­po­ra­te all the con­tra­ry data.

Inde­ed, it appears that it has real­ly only been within the con­text of resis­tance to the Coro­na mea­su­res them­sel­ves that a move­ment con­fi­dent enough to call into ques­ti­on the enti­re viro­lo­gi­cal frame­work has gai­ned serious momen­tum, led by Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kauf­man MD, Mike Stone, Dr. Mark Bai­ley, Dr. Kevin Cor­bett, Dr. Ste­fan Lan­ka, Chris­ti­ne Mas­sey the aut­hors of Virus Mania, and many others. This is not a coin­ci­dence. Befo­re Coro­na, the­re exis­ted so many dis­con­nec­ted islands of skep­ti­cism – most incom­ple­te, par­ti­al, cau­tious, some­what blind­ly gro­ping their way through the mate­ri­al. What the ruling class has inad­ver­t­ent­ly done through their Coro­na pro­gram is for­ge unpre­ce­den­ted con­nec­tions bet­ween pre-exis­ting bodies of skep­tics, and sent unpre­ce­den­ted num­bers into their ranks. In their assault on the living stan­dards of their pre­vious­ly some­what loy­al labor-aris­to­cra­cy and midd­le clas­ses, they have pro­du­ced a popu­la­ti­on ali­en­ated enough to serious­ly enter­tain the­se radi­cal pro­po­si­ti­ons. In short, the ruling class’s auda­ci­ty in pushing the Coro­na pro­gram, the unre­len­ting cyni­cism and men­d­aci­ty of their appli­ca­ti­on of viro­lo­gy, will be the undo­ing of the enti­re edi­fice. Gene­ral vac­ci­na­ti­on rates are decli­ning the world over. The glo­bal working class for­ges every day a more acu­te under­stan­ding of the fraud pro­pa­ga­ted against them. Never has the pro­s­pect of a tru­ly total world revo­lu­ti­on been more pos­si­ble. Tho­se who should be the mid­wi­ves of that vic­to­ry, the com­mu­nists, will con­ti­nue to fail and betray huma­ni­ty, if they per­sist in their fana­ti­cal devo­ti­on to ruling class mythology.

Per­haps pre­cis­e­ly becau­se of the sci­entism of the orga­ni­zed Mar­xist move­ment, and the left more broad­ly, much of the most arti­cu­la­te cri­ti­cisms of vac­ci­nes and viro­lo­gy has come from the midd­le class and pet­ty-bour­geoi­sie. Of cour­se, this too is not a coin­ci­dence. This class has more resour­ces, more lei­su­re time, bet­ter means to care for and assess their health and that of their child­ren. In places like Ame­ri­ca, its sett­ler past has imbued it with a par­ti­al­ly ant­ago­ni­stic rela­ti­onship with the cen­tral govern­ment, which incli­nes it towards an incon­sis­tent but not unim­portant civil liber­ta­ria­nism. They have the inde­pen­dent funds to pro­du­ce and to mutual­ly sup­port their own auto­no­mous ideo­lo­gi­cal out­put, within cer­tain boun­da­ries. Their reli­gious ten­den­ci­es can often incli­ne them towards a pro­found skep­ti­cism of sci­ence which, while gene­ral­ly reac­tion­a­ry, can enable real insights in cer­tain, limi­t­ed con­texts – espe­ci­al­ly when sci­ence its­elf is so pro­found­ly corrupted.

His­to­ri­cal­ly, it is important to note that resis­tance to vac­ci­nes in par­ti­cu­lar has been a recur­rent working class cau­se and has often been inter­lin­ked with the labor move­ment. This is exten­si­ve­ly docu­men­ted in Suzan­ne Hum­phries and Roman Bystrianyk’s Dis­sol­ving Illu­si­ons (2013). None­thel­ess, the lite­ra­tu­re with which this sec­tion will have to draw is, on the who­le, of a defi­ni­te­ly pet­ty-bour­geoi­sie cha­rac­ter, with all the limi­ta­ti­ons this impli­es. This is unfort­u­na­te­ly inher­ent in the very pro­fes­sio­nal sta­tus and edu­ca­ti­on that is impli­cit­ly requi­red befo­re one is per­mit­ted to utter even the smal­lest doubt about the ›Sci­ence.‹ With that caveat in place, howe­ver, we implo­re our rea­ders to con­sider the argu­ments and evi­dence pre­sen­ted, to scru­ti­ni­se them, to dou­ble check every stu­dy and cla­im. Final­ly, we urge them to recall the struc­tu­ral bia­ses of sci­ence descri­bed abo­ve– to recall in short that if one is pre­sen­ted with two equal­ly well-desi­gned published stu­dies, one of which indi­ca­tes vac­ci­nes are effec­ti­ve, and ano­ther which doesn’t, the lat­ter is, a prio­ri, more likely to be true. For the sake of con­ve­ni­ence, this sec­tion will he high­ly deri­va­ti­ve of the work Virus Mania by Tors­ten Engel­brecht, Dr. Claus Köhn­lein MD, Dr. Saman­tha Bai­ley MD, and Dr. Ste­fa­no Sco­glio BSc PhD (3rd Eng­lish Edi­ti­on, 2021). Of cour­se, only a very cur­so­ry sam­pling can be pro­vi­ded here. The object of this paper is that other Mar­xists will enga­ge with the broa­der cor­pus of anti-vac­ci­ne and anti-viro­lo­gy lite­ra­tu­re, sub­ject it to tho­rough cri­ti­cism and ana­ly­sis, and inte­gra­te the essen­ti­al insights into our broa­der frame­work and struggle.


Vac­ci­ne advo­ca­tes, when ques­tio­ned or chal­len­ged, almost inva­ria­bly appeal first to aut­ho­ri­ty, second­ly to his­to­ri­cal pro­gress, and third­ly, rather begrud­gin­gly, to published stu­dies. They are much more likely to dis­miss their interlo­cu­tor as a crank befo­re ever rea­ching three, per­haps becau­se the stu­dies which do exist are hard­ly enough to con­vin­ce anyo­ne. Hop­eful­ly, part 1 and 2 of this paper have suf­fi­ced to estab­lish that the fact that the CDC, FDA, WHO, or AAP decla­re some­thing to be true, is a good reason to belie­ve it is so.

Let’s look at the most con­vin­cing argu­ment the vac­ci­na­tio­nists wield, then: our self-evi­dent­ly impro­ved rela­ti­onship, as a socie­ty – in the first world – with the sup­po­sedly infec­tious scour­ges of the past. Alre­a­dy, the quo­ta­ti­ons abo­ve from Kass and Lewon­tin have hop­eful­ly begun to break down some of the com­mon pre­con­cep­ti­ons here. As Lewon­tin in par­ti­cu­lar noted, the­re is no dis­cer­ni­ble impact on dise­a­ses pro­du­ced by eit­her the arti­cu­la­ti­on of the germ-theo­ry of dise­a­se, or by the intro­duc­tion of any of the major vac­ci­nes. This is radi­cal­ly con­tra­ry to so much of the pro­pa­gan­da that we have imbi­bed, that it can only real­ly be absor­bed with the help of graphs.[12] Abo­ve, we alre­a­dy saw how the decli­ne in Meas­les mani­fes­ted no signal indi­ca­ting the intro­duc­tion of the vac­ci­ne. To rei­te­ra­te that point, we can look at a more modern and detail­ed graph:

Meas­les is just one dise­a­se of many though – what does the situa­ti­on look like with Polio?[13]

Polio, too, could be an out­lier of cour­se. Let’s con­sider ano­ther of tho­se frigh­tening-sound­ing, anti­qua­ted dise­a­se sci­ence has saved us from, like Who­o­ping Cough:

How about in com­pa­ri­son to the DTP vaccine?


When we plot Small­pox against Small­pox vac­ci­na­ti­on, do we find com­pel­ling evi­dence of the latter’s bene­fit in com­ba­ting the for­mer? This graph is for Lei­ces­ter, a site of fier­ce working class resis­tance to vaccines:

Lets look at UK deaths from 1938 – 1978 for some of the major infec­tious diseases:

And Mas­sa­chu­setts:

Now con­sider the pro­gres­si­on of Scar­let Fever, a bac­te­ri­al dise­a­se for which no vac­ci­ne has been introduced:

Or, the now wide­ly ack­now­led­ged non-infec­tious dise­a­se, Scurvy:

Or, inde­ed, the ›infec­tious‹ Per­tus­sis com­pared with the ›unin­fec­tious‹ Scur­vy in the UK:

Or the same with Meas­les, again in the UK:

When we look, at the actu­al pat­terns of sup­po­sedly infec­tious dise­a­se in the modern era, the peren­ni­al cla­im of vac­ci­na­tio­nists – that we are much bet­ter off now, after the intro­duc­tion of vac­ci­nes, then we were befo­re, of cour­se pro­ves true. But the­re is also no evi­dence of a con­nec­tion bet­ween the­se phe­no­me­na. On the con­tra­ry, it is abun­dant­ly clear that some­thing else must explain the reduc­tion in death and dise­a­se. The­re is no long term his­to­ri­cal-obser­va­ti­on data which actual­ly shows any effi­ca­cy for vac­ci­nes whatsoever.

It is dif­fi­cult to stress how dam­ning this simp­le, wide­ly available his­to­ri­cal con­text is for the case for vac­ci­nes, becau­se bet­ter forms of evi­dence for them sim­ply don’t exist. The sci­en­ti­fic stan­dards for estab­li­shing the safe­ty or effi­ca­cy of vac­ci­nes are uni­que­ly low, even for the pro­found­ly insuf­fi­ci­ent stan­dards which exist in the car­tels of the MAIMS com­plex have erec­ted. No curr­ent­ly available vac­ci­ne has ever actual­ly been sub­jec­ted to a long term ran­dom­ly con­trol­led tri­al to dis­cern eit­her its safe­ty or its effi­ca­cy. Not a sin­gle vac­ci­ne has ever been shown to actual­ly redu­ce fre­quen­cy of the ill­ness which it sup­po­sedly pro­tects against. To estab­lish their effi­ca­cy, vac­ci­nes must demons­tra­te an ade­qua­te anti­bo­dy titer, not direct effi­ca­cy against real ill­ness. It is important to note here that most vac­ci­nes don’t pro­du­ce ade­qua­te titers wit­hout adju­vants, i.e. toxins like mer­cu­ry and form­alde­hyde. So it is not the sup­po­sedly bio­lo­gi­cal­ly spe­ci­fic sub­s­tances, but the inflamm­a­to­ry toxins included along with them, that pro­du­ce the results which frau­du­lent­ly jus­ti­fy the claims of effi­ca­cy. As Hans Tolz­in has obser­ved, »The rai­sed titer is pro­ba­b­ly an immu­ne reac­tion to the num­e­rous toxins and che­mi­cals pre­sent in vac­ci­na­ti­ons … So far, neither the PEI nor the RKI, the fede­ral Dise­a­se con­trol Cen­ter in Ger­ma­ny, have been able to pro­vi­de me with sci­en­ti­fic evi­dence that a high titer is a gua­ran­tee of no dise­a­se.«[14]

The sort of stu­dy which would con­clu­si­ve­ly demons­tra­te that vac­ci­nes are safe and effec­ti­ve – dou­ble-blind, pla­ce­bo con­trol­led, long term – are sim­ply never car­ri­ed out. Gene­ral­ly, this is ratio­na­li­zed with the argu­ment, now very fami­li­ar in the con­text of Covid vac­ci­nes, that it would be une­thi­cal to depri­ve peo­p­le of such life-saving medi­ci­ne. Hop­eful­ly one is begin­ning to see the depth of the men­d­acious illo­gic at work here. The very rare ins­tances whe­re any­thing clo­se to such an ade­qua­te stu­dy has been car­ri­ed out make abun­dant­ly clear why they are not done more often. In the 1960s, for ins­tance, the WHO con­duc­ted a lar­ge stu­dy on the BCG vac­ci­ne for Tuber­cu­lo­sis in India, com­pa­ring equal­ly lar­ge vac­ci­na­ted and unvac­ci­na­ted groups. They found no increased pro­tec­ti­ve effect in the vac­ci­na­ted group, and signi­fi­cant­ly more ill­ness and death.[15] In 2012, a stu­dy com­pa­ring an influ­en­za vac­ci­ne with a true pla­ce­bo in child­ren found that »the­re was no sta­tis­ti­cal­ly signi­fi­cant dif­fe­rence in the risk of con­firm­ed sea­so­nal influ­en­za infec­tion,« and the vac­ci­ne group »had a hig­her risk of acu­te respi­ra­to­ry ill­ness with non influ­en­za infec­tions.«[16] A lar­ge meta-ana­ly­sis con­duc­ted by Tom Jef­fer­son of the Coch­ra­ne Col­la­bo­ra­ti­on, and repli­ca­ted in BMJ, found that »evi­dence from sys­te­ma­tic reviews shows that inac­ti­va­ted vac­ci­nes have litt­le or no effect on the effects mea­su­red.«[17]

Vac­ci­nes are con­cluded to be effec­ti­ve sim­ply becau­se, in short term stu­dies, they are able to increase anti­bo­dies in the blood, even though anti­bo­dies have not been pro­ven to be spe­ci­fic, and the­re is no evi­dence estab­li­shing that the pre­sence of anti­bo­dies even cor­re­la­tes with redu­ced likeli­hood of future ill­ness. The very few long term stu­dies which try to deter­mi­ne whe­ther popu­la­ti­ons vac­ci­na­ted against a spe­ci­fic dise­a­se actual­ly suf­fer less from the actu­al dise­a­se than unvac­ci­na­ted popu­la­ti­ons do not in fact yield any evi­dence of effi­ca­cy – but they are admit­ted­ly far too few in num­ber to draw decisi­ve con­clu­si­ons from. Yet it is very easy to make the obvious logi­cal and ratio­nal con­clu­si­on here: if good evi­dence could be glea­ned for the effi­ca­cy of the­se high­ly pro­fi­ta­ble and high­ly con­tro­ver­si­al pro­ducts, we would know about it! The fact that for all their efforts the vac­ci­na­tio­nists can­not give us even one of their clas­sic coo­ked, con­tri­ved stu­dies, pro­ves bey­ond a shadow of a doubt how utter­ly use­l­ess and dan­ge­rous the­se pro­ducts must real­ly be.

What about harms from vac­ci­nes? Again, and for the same reasons descri­bed abo­ve, the sorts of stu­dies which would be nee­ded to defi­ni­tively pro­ve that vac­ci­nes are safe sim­ply are not done. Despi­te the fact that most vac­ci­nes are desi­gned and mar­ke­ted with an inten­ded, long-term (inde­ed, gene­ral­ly life-long) effect, health and safe­ty stu­dies are only done in the short term, often over a mat­ter of days or weeks. Moreo­ver, they are car­ri­ed out, not against true pla­ce­bos, but against other vac­ci­nes which have alre­a­dy been (frau­du­lent­ly) declared safe. Moreo­ver, one must recall that even regar­ding the­se short-term stu­dies, they are pro­du­ced under the con­di­ti­ons which Jacob Stre­gen­ga com­pel­ling argues we should have, a prio­ri, extre­me­ly low con­fi­dence.[18] Some stu­dies which reve­al the real poten­ti­al harms of vac­ci­nes have, howe­ver, slip­ped through the cracks.

For ins­tance, a num­ber of stu­dies have found that, over­all, the unvac­ci­na­ted are sub­stan­ti­al­ly healt­hi­er than the vac­ci­na­ted. [19] [20] [21] A 2011 stu­dy found that »the more vac­ci­na­ti­ons a coun­try has had, the hig­her the mor­ta­li­ty rate is for babies aged up to one year in that coun­try.«[22] Inte­res­t­ingly, the dra­ma­tic reduc­tion in infant vac­ci­na­ti­ons during the recent alle­ged »pan­de­mic« has cor­re­spon­ded with decreased infant mor­ta­li­ty. Data from a stu­dy led by the Robert Koch-Insti­tu­te (RKI, the Ger­man equi­va­lent of the CDC) cle­ar­ly show­ed more all­er­gies, deve­lo­p­men­tal dis­or­ders, infec­tions, and chro­nic dise­a­ses in the vac­ci­na­ted. The aut­hors, with serious con­flicts of inte­rests, used dubio­us exclu­si­ons in order to deny the­se results, par­ti­cu­lar­ly exclu­ding migrant child­ren bet­ween 11 and 17, who make up a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te seg­ment of the unvac­ci­na­ted in that age ran­ge in Ger­ma­ny.[23]

Ano­ther signi­fi­cant source of data comes from stu­dies which look at the timing of vac­ci­na­ti­on, often show­ing that the later vac­ci­nes are admi­nis­te­red, the les­ser the harms. The­se of cour­se neces­s­a­ri­ly imply some risk from the vac­ci­ne its­elf– which could pre­su­ma­b­ly be fur­ther miti­ga­ted by not admi­nis­te­ring it at all! One 2020 ana­ly­sis found that »vac­ci­na­ti­on befo­re 1 year of age was asso­cia­ted with increased odds of deve­lo­p­men­tal delays, asth­ma, and ear infec­tion.« As Engel­brecht et​.al. obser­ve, the »stu­dy was uni­que in that all dia­gno­ses were veri­fied using abs­trac­ted medi­cal records from each of the par­ti­ci­pa­ting pedia­tric prac­ti­ces.« [24] The lead aut­hor of the stu­dy con­cluded that »The results defi­ni­te­ly indi­ca­te bet­ter health out­co­mes in child­ren who did not recei­ve vac­ci­nes within their first year of life. The­se fin­dings are con­sis­tent with addi­tio­nal rese­arch that has iden­ti­fied vac­ci­na­ti­on as a risk fac­tor for a varie­ty of adver­se health out­co­mes.« [25] Ano­ther stu­dy found that child­ren who are given the DTP vac­ci­ne later, have a lower risk of Asth­ma at age 7.[26] The high­ly respec­ted and ortho­dox Coch­ra­ne Col­la­bo­ra­ti­on published an ana­ly­sis in 2012 which loo­ked at many of the stu­dies con­cer­ning the MMR com­bi­ned vac­ci­nes. They found serious flaws across the board, and none of the stu­dies met their metho­do­lo­gi­cal cri­te­ria. Most signi­fi­cant is their con­clu­si­on about the 2001 Fom­bon­ne and Chakrab­ar­ti stu­dy, which is the most wide­ly cited ›refu­ta­ti­on‹ of the link bet­ween autism and MMR vac­ci­na­ti­on: »The num­ber and pos­si­ble impact of bia­ses in this stu­dy was so high that inter­pre­ta­ti­on of the results is impos­si­ble.«[27]

As demons­tra­ted abo­ve, the com­mon per­cep­ti­on that broad his­to­ri­cal trends pro­vi­de evi­dence for the bene­fits of vac­ci­nes is fal­se. On the other hand, in the past half cen­tu­ry, espe­ci­al­ly sin­ce the Rea­gan era trans­fer of lia­bi­li­ty for vac­ci­ne inju­ries away from pri­va­te com­pa­nies and onto the popu­la­ti­on, vac­ci­na­ti­on has explo­ded. Are we rea­ping the bene­fits in a new gol­den era of good health? Quite the con­tra­ry. Befo­re 1986, under 13 per­cent of child­ren had chro­nic dise­a­ses— that num­ber has risen to 54% in the vac­ci­ne gene­ra­ti­on.[28] The­re is a com­mon, per­ni­cious right-wing pro­pa­gan­da line, that this is all just an issue of over-sen­si­ti­ve over-dia­gno­sing. While we cer­tain­ly do live in a pro­found­ly and incre­asing­ly over-medi­cal­i­zed socie­ty, the cla­im that the explo­si­on of chro­nic ill­ness can be redu­ced to over­dia­gno­sis, at least in the case of Autism, cle­ar­ly does not stand up to scru­ti­ny.[29] Bet­ween 1986 and now, Autism rates in the USA have gone from 1 in 2,500 to 1 in 36. Anyo­ne wil­ling to serious­ly enga­ge with this rea­li­ty will find the­se num­bers con­firm­ed in their own per­so­nal field, espe­ci­al­ly if they are wil­ling to over­look the men­d­acious sto­ries con­tri­ved by big phar­ma to trans­fer guilt onto others, abo­ve all mothers — e.g, for their indul­gence in drugs, negli­gence, etc. As RFK Jr. has obser­ved, the »CDC spa­res no expen­se sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly track­ing the source of 800 meas­les cases. But when asked about the cata­clys­mic epi­de­mic of upwards of 68,000 new autism cases annu­al­ly, CDC shrugs.«[30] A CDC Whist­le­b­lower, Dr. Wil­liam Thom­po­son, testi­fied under oath that his supe­ri­ors at the CDC orde­red him to des­troy data show­ing a link bet­ween vac­ci­nes and autism, and to publish a frau­du­lent stu­dy dis­miss­ing the link«[31] David Ras­nick recounts a par­ti­cu­lar­ly tel­ling incident:

In June of 2000, a group of high level govern­ment sci­en­tists and health offi­ci­als from the phar­maceu­ti­cal indus­try, FDA, CDC, and WHO gathe­red for a high­ly secret mee­ting in Nor­cross, Geor­gia, USA to dis­cuss the safe­ty of a host of com­mon child­hood vac­ci­nes admi­nis­te­red to infants and young child­ren. From the CDC’s mas­si­ve data­ba­se, it was clear that the mer­cu­ry-based thi­me­ro­sal was respon­si­ble for a dra­ma­tic increase in autism and a host of other neu­ro­lo­gi­cal dis­or­ders among vac­ci­na­ted child­ren. Ins­tead of taking imme­dia­te steps to alert the public and rid the vac­ci­ne sup­p­ly of thi­me­ro­sal, the offi­ci­als and exe­cu­ti­ves spent most of two days dis­cus­sing how to cover up the dama­ging data. Accor­ding to tran­scripts of the mee­ting obtai­ned under the Free­dom of Infor­ma­ti­on Act, many at the mee­ting were con­cer­ned about how the dama­ging reve­la­ti­ons about thi­me­ro­sal would affect the vac­ci­ne industry’s bot­tom line.[32]

The USA has world’s most aggres­si­ve vac­ci­ne sche­du­le and, by most mea­su­res, inclu­ding infant mor­ta­li­ty, the sickest popu­la­ti­on in the deve­lo­ped world. The pre­sent gene­ra­ti­on will be the first in a cen­tu­ry to lose IQ – as RFK Jr. asks, »Could the­se decli­nes be the out­co­mes of injec­ting vir­tual­ly every child with mul­ti­ple doses of two of the worlds most potent neu­ro­to­xins – mer­cu­ry and alu­mi­num – in bolus doses begin­ning on the day of birth?«[33] Main­stream insti­tu­ti­ons even ack­now­ledge that vac­ci­ne inju­ries are sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly unre­por­ted. Germany’s Paul Ehr­lich Insti­tu­te esti­ma­tes that 95% of adver­se reac­tions go unre­por­ted in Ger­ma­ny.[34] Antho­ny R. Maw­son, of the Depart­ment of Epi­de­mio­lo­gy and Bio­sta­tis­tics at the Jack­son Sta­te Uni­ver­si­ty wro­te in 2018 that

Over $3 bil­li­on has been paid by the US Vac­ci­ne Inju­ry Com­pen­sa­ti­on Pro­gram for vac­ci­ne-asso­cia­ted inju­ries and deaths, and only about 1 per­cent of vac­ci­ne-asso­cia­ted inju­ries are offi­ci­al­ly repor­ted to the Vac­ci­ne Adver­se Events Report­ing Sys­tem. The long-term effects of vac­ci­na­ti­on on children’s health remain vir­tual­ly unknown but are assu­med to be limi­t­ed sole­ly to pre­ven­ti­on of the tar­ge­ted dise­a­se. Stu­dies have been recom­men­ded by the Insti­tu­te of Medi­ci­ne to address this ques­ti­on. Howe­ver, ran­do­mi­zed con­trol­led tri­als, the ›gold stan­dard‹ for such rese­arch, have been con­side­red une­thi­cal becau­se they nor­mal­ly invol­ve depri­ving some child­ren of the nee­ded vac­ci­nes in order to crea­te a con­trol group. Vac­ci­nes also have a qua­si-reli­gious sta­tus as a ›sacred cow‹ of medi­ci­ne and public health, which has dis­cou­ra­ged sci­en­ti­fic inquiry, and cri­tics are often atta­cked per­so­nal­ly and pejo­ra­tively labe­led as ›anti-vax­xers.‹[35]

Ste­genga dis­mis­ses anti-vac­ci­na­tio­nists out of hand, on the grounds that they sup­po­sedly enga­ge in even more egre­gious, unwar­ran­ted extra­po­la­ti­on than phar­maceu­ti­cal advo­ca­tes who cla­im one or two stu­dies are suf­fi­ci­ent to estab­lish a cla­im. In so doing, he mana­ges to for­get the core struc­tu­ral imba­lan­ce which is the basis of his who­le argu­ment: published stu­dies are mas­si­ve­ly ske­wed in favor of show­ing posi­ti­ve bene­fits and no harms in poten­ti­al­ly pro­fi­ta­ble phar­maceu­ti­cals. Under such con­di­ti­ons, even a small signal of harms or inef­fi­ca­cy for vac­ci­nes should be alar­ming. Like­wi­se, the fact that vac­ci­na­tio­nists are unwil­ling or unable to pro­du­ce solid, com­pel­ling evi­dence for vac­ci­nes con­sti­tu­tes a very strong ratio­na­le for con­clu­ding that vac­ci­nes are in fact dan­ge­rous and inef­fec­ti­ve. If they were safe and effec­ti­ve, the phar­maceu­ti­cal indus­try would cer­tain­ly make sure we could find that infor­ma­ti­on as easi­ly as pos­si­ble! Now that virology’s con­cre­te bene­fits have been serious­ly cal­led into ques­ti­on, a brief his­to­ri­cal sketch of the field of viro­lo­gy is in order, and its radi­cal impli­ca­ti­ons can hop­eful­ly be asses­sed with a tru­ly open mind.

Viro­lo­gy: A Brief His­to­ri­cal Sketch

A virus par­tic­le was not obser­ved first and sub­se­quent­ly viral theo­ry and patho­lo­gy deve­lo­ped. Sci­en­tists of the mid and late nine­te­enth cen­tu­ry were preoc­cu­p­ied with the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of ima­gi­ned con­ta­gious patho­ge­nic enti­ties. The obser­va­tions of the nai­ve induc­tion­ist did not iden­ti­fy a virus a prio­ri, and then set about stu­dy­ing its pro­per­ties and cha­rac­te­ristics. The extant pre­sup­po­si­ti­on of the time was that a very small germ par­tic­le exis­ted that may explain con­ta­gi­on. What came the­re­af­ter aro­se to ful­fill the pre­sup­po­si­tio­nal premise.

Mark Bai­ley, »A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy,« 18

As shown abo­ve, the­re are good reasons to belie­ve the germ-theo­ry of dise­a­se beca­me estab­lished as the domi­nant para­digm of capi­ta­list medi­ci­ne as much for eco­no­mic and ideo­lo­gi­cal reasons as for its intrin­sic truth con­tent. This, of cour­se, does not mean that it has no truth con­tent. Para­si­tes like lice mani­fest­ly spread from host to host, indu­cing ill­ness. Like­wi­se, bac­te­ria, unli­ke viru­s­es, have been well-cha­rac­te­ri­zed and iso­la­ted, though their cen­tra­li­ty to the dise­a­se pro­cess is pro­ba­b­ly, at the very least, great­ly over­sta­ted. The field of viro­lo­gy aro­se out of the pre­sump­ti­on that cases of dise­a­se in which no patho­gen could be found, must be cau­sed by some patho­gen, like bac­te­ria, but smal­ler still.

It is alre­a­dy wide­ly ack­now­led­ged that in at least some cases, that pre­sump­ti­on pro­ved fal­se. Scur­vy, pel­la­gra (rough skin), and beri­be­ri (miner’s and prisoner’s dise­a­se) were all at one point pre­su­med con­ta­gious befo­re, as Engel­brecht et. al. wri­te »ortho­do­xy final­ly admit­ted, through grit­ted tee­th, that vit­amin defi­ci­en­ci­es were the true cau­se.«[36] It is wort­hwhile here, for a moment, to enter into the phe­no­me­no­lo­gy. A tight­ly packed ship would set out. Even­tual­ly, a crew of a simi­lar class, with a simi­lar nut­ri­tio­nal pro­fi­le befo­re dis­em­bark­ment, and a vir­tual­ly iden­ti­cal diet and con­di­ti­ons on board, could start suf­fe­ring from spe­ci­fic vit­amin defi­ci­en­ci­es at a rough­ly simi­lar time. Yet how much it could look and feel like infec­tion! One can almost always come up with a hypo­the­ti­cal rou­te of trans­mis­si­on. Human ima­gi­na­ti­on can fill in all the rest. The point to stress here is that not­hing objec­tively dif­fe­ren­tia­tes a sailor’s per­cei­ved expe­ri­ence of ›cat­ching‹ scur­vy from his neigh­bor, and your own of cat­ching the flu, or ›Covid‹, or wha­te­ver else.

Ope­ra­ting with the germ-theo­ry as a para­digm, a field was estab­lished based on pro­ving infec­tions with bio­lo­gi­cal mate­ri­al from which bac­te­ria and lar­ger para­si­tes had been remo­ved. Bai­ley notes that in the case of the very first alle­ged virus to be dis­co­ver­ed, the Tob­ac­co Mosaic Virus, the »dis­co­ve­rer« hims­elf, Dmi­ti­ri Iva­novs­ky, noted the mani­fest envi­ron­men­tal cau­ses of the dise­a­se – but was dead set on none­thel­ess fit­ting it into a germ-theo­ry model. He was able to mana­ge this by exclu­ding any valid con­trol com­pa­ri­sons in his expe­ri­ments.[37] The foun­da­tio­nal expe­ri­ments of viro­lo­gy are cha­rac­te­ri­zed by the appli­ca­ti­on of abnor­mal amounts of bio­lo­gi­cal mate­ri­al, in ways that both do not mimic sup­po­sed natu­ral trans­mis­si­on mecha­nisms, and are gene­ral­ly intrin­si­cal­ly suf­fi­ci­ent to indu­ce ill­ness them­sel­ves – and, of cour­se, a lack of con­trols which would expo­se that to be the case. At best, this often amounts to injec­ting lar­ge amounts of sup­po­sedly viral mate­ri­al into the nostrils of test ani­mals – thanks to modern abs­trac­ted mea­su­ring tech­ni­ques, this is often now enough to manu­fac­tu­re »trans­mis­si­on,« becau­se the most tri­vi­al ‘sym­ptoms’ can be declared signi­fi­cant in con­junc­tion with a posi­ti­ve test. Befo­re the won­ders of PCR and anti­gen tests, howe­ver, intr­epid sci­en­tists wan­ting to ›trans­mit‹ a dise­a­se would often have to resort to such tech­ni­ques as injec­ting bio­lo­gi­cal slur­ries extra­c­ted from ill sub­jects direct­ly into the cra­ni­um or spi­nal cord of test ani­mals – this all for agents sup­po­sedly so con­ta­gious they are pre­su­med, in the wild, to spread via the sligh­test snee­ze, cough, or even touch. It is again important to remem­ber that signi­fi­cant finan­cial incen­ti­ves, the pro­s­pect of fame, and a lack of a rigo­rous sci­en­ti­fic method with ade­qua­te con­trols, are a dan­ge­rous for­mu­la, even wit­hout pre­sum­ing any con­scious ill-intent.Though it is bey­ond the scope of this paper, it is worth not­ing here that the­re is exten­si­ve evi­dence com­pi­led in Virus Mania to estab­lish that such lumi­na­ries as Lou­is Pas­teur and Robert Koch did in fact deli­bera­te­ly enga­ge in at least some con­scious fraud.

Let’s con­sider, as an illus­tra­ti­on, a key expe­ri­ment in estab­li­shing the viral theo­ry of meas­les, con­duc­ted in 1911. After fai­ling to con­ju­re up any trans­mis­si­on of meas­les in smal­ler ani­mals, John F. Ander­son and Joseph Gold­ber­ger expe­ri­men­ted on nine rhe­sus mon­keys. They injec­ted them with defi­bri­na­ted blood from four human meas­les pati­ents, and 4 mana­ged to come down with ›meas­les sym­ptoms‹ (fever and rash). No con­trol group was given blood from healt­hy (i.e. non meas­les pati­ents), and of cour­se, this method has not­hing to do with the sup­po­sed aero­sol trans­mis­si­on of meas­les.[38] Ano­ther land­mark in viro­lo­gy was Pey­ton Rous’s sup­po­sed suc­cess in docu­men­ting cell-free trans­mis­si­on of Sar­co­ma in Chi­ckens. Mark Bailey’s descrip­ti­on is worth quo­ting at length:

His metho­do­lo­gy invol­ved grin­ding up chi­cken tumor mate­ri­al, fil­te­ring it, and injec­ting it direct­ly into other chi­ckens with the obser­va­ti­on that some of them would also deve­lop tumors. He repor­ted that the »con­trol« expe­ri­ments con­sis­ted of injec­ting unfil­te­red tumor mate­ri­al into chi­ckens which ten­ded to result in much lar­ger tumors. Rous pos­tu­la­ted the pre­sence of a cau­sa­ti­ve ult­ra­mi­cro­sco­pic orga­nism but con­ce­ded that, ›an agen­cy of ano­ther sort is not out of the ques­ti­on.‹ Inde­ed, the expe­ri­ment fai­led to pro­vi­de any evi­dence of an infec­tious and repli­ca­ting par­tic­le. It sim­ply show­ed that dise­a­sed tis­sue intro­du­ced by an unna­tu­ral and inva­si­ve rou­te into ano­ther ani­mal could cau­se it to exhi­bit a simi­lar dise­a­se pro­cess. The cla­im that in 1925 patho­lo­gist Wil­liam Gye demons­tra­ted Rous had found a virus is also fal­se. He mere­ly asser­ted that a virus was at work in the­se expe­ri­ments and con­spi­cuous­ly sta­ted, ›I wish par­ti­cu­lar­ly to stress one aspect of the search for the invi­si­ble viru­s­es, and that is that the ani­mal test is the final pro­of of the pre­sence of the orga­nism in an ino­cu­lum.‹ Again, the ›final pro­of‹ did not invol­ve the actu­al iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of an infec­tious orga­nism in the ino­cu­lum — it sim­ply demons­tra­ted tumor for­ma­ti­on fol­lo­wing injec­tion of dise­a­sed tis­sue. Fur­ther, it was deter­mi­ned in 1927 that sar­co­ma of the fowl could be indu­ced by the injec­tion of dilute arse­nious acid and for­eign embryo­nic pulp. The car­ci­no­ge­nic effects were also repli­ca­ted fol­lo­wing the equi­va­lent bac­te­rio­lo­gi­cal fil­tra­ti­on that Rous per­for­med and the dise­a­se was shown to ari­se from the for­eign tis­sue, not from the host tis­sues. The viral hypo­the­sis should have been thrown out but half a cen­tu­ry later the estab­lish­ment kept it ali­ve and reward­ed Rous with a Nobel pri­ze in 1966 for, ›his dis­co­very of tumor-indu­cing viruses.‹

In 1954, when John Enders and Tho­mas Pee­b­les clai­med they had pro­pa­ga­ted the meas­les virus in human and mon­key kid­neys cells, no fur­ther tole­rance should have been exten­ded to virology’s unsci­en­ti­fic expe­ri­ments. Enders and Pee­b­les added throat washings and blood to their cell cul­tures and on obser­ving CPEs [cytopa­thic effects], or dying and brea­king down cells in their test tubes, con­cluded that the in vitro appearan­ces, ›might be asso­cia­ted with the virus of meas­les.‹ They did warn that, ›cytopa­thic effects which super­fi­ci­al­ly resem­ble tho­se resul­ting from infec­tion by the meas­les agents may pos­si­bly be indu­ced by other viral agents pre­sent in the mon­key kid­ney tis­sue or by unknown fac­tors,‹ but went on to inap­pro­pria­te­ly con­clude that, ›this group of agents is com­po­sed of repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of the viral spe­ci­es respon­si­ble for meas­les.‹ Enders and Pee­b­les per­for­med no con­trol expe­ri­ments to check whe­ther the cul­tu­re pro­ce­du­re its­elf, that is the stres­sing of the cells in a test tube, would pro­du­ce the same CPEs, ther­eby inva­li­da­ting the evi­dence for their con­clu­si­on. Ide­al­ly, seve­ral con­trol expe­ri­ments should have been done: some with no human-deri­ved samples added, some with human-deri­ved samples from well sub­jects, and some with human-deri­ved samples from unwell sub­jects, but said not to have meas­les cli­ni­cal­ly or some other alle­ged ›viral‹ con­di­ti­on.[39]

Or con­sider Polio, the real cau­se of which will be dis­cus­sed below. As Engel­brecht et. al wri­te: »A cor­ner­stone for the polio-as-virus theo­ry was laid down in 1908 by sci­en­tists Karl Land­stei­ner and Erwin Pop­per,« with their expe­ri­ments lau­ded by the WHO as »mile­sto­nes in the obli­te­ra­ti­on of polio.« They took

a dise­a­sed pie­ce of spi­nal mar­row from a lame nine-year-old boy, chop­ped it up, dis­sol­ved it in water and injec­ted one or two who­le cups of it intra­pe­ri­to­ne­al­ly (into the abdo­mi­nal cavi­ties) of two test mon­keys: one died and the other beca­me per­ma­nent­ly para­ly­zed. Their stu­dies were plagued by a mind-bogg­ling ran­ge of basic pro­blems. First, the »glop« they pou­red into the ani­mals was not even infec­tious, sin­ce the para­ly­sis didn’t appear in the mon­keys and gui­nea pigs given the alle­ged »virus soup« to drink, or in tho­se that had it injec­ted into their extremities.

Short­ly after, rese­ar­chers Simon Flex­ner and Paul Lewis expe­ri­men­ted with a com­pa­ra­ble mix­tu­re, injec­ting it into mon­keys’ brains. Next, they bre­wed a new soup from the brains of the­se mon­keys and put the mix into ano­ther monkey’s head. This mon­key did inde­ed beco­me ill. In 1911, Flex­ner even boas­ted in a press release that they had alre­a­dy found out how polio could be pre­ven­ted, adding, of cour­se, that they were clo­se to deve­lo­ping a cure.

But this expe­ri­ment shows no pro­of of a viral infec­tion. The glop used can­not be ter­med an iso­la­ted virus, even with all the will in the world. Nobo­dy could have seen any virus, as the elec­tron micro­scope wasn’t inven­ted until 1931. Also, Flex­ner and Lewis did not dis­c­lo­se the ingre­di­ents of their ›injec­tion soup.‹ By 1948, it was still unknown »how the polio virus inva­des humans,« as expert John Paul of Yale Uni­ver­si­ty sta­ted at an inter­na­tio­nal polio­mye­li­tis con­gress in New York City.

Apart from that, it is very pro­ba­ble that the injec­tion of for­eign tis­sues in the mon­keys’ cra­ni­ums trig­ge­red their polio-like sym­ptoms. And when one con­siders the amount of injec­ted mate­ri­al, it can hard­ly be sur­pri­sing that the ani­mals beca­me ill. Con­trol­led tri­als weren’t even car­ri­ed out — that is, they negle­c­ted to inject a con­trol group of mon­keys with healt­hy spi­nal cord tis­sue. Neither did they assess the effects of che­mi­cal toxins like hea­vy metals injec­ted direct­ly into the brain. All of the­se fac­tors make the expe­ri­ments vir­tual­ly wort­hl­ess.[40]

Inci­den­tal­ly, the Simon Flex­ner men­tio­ned abo­ve was none other than the noto­rious Abra­ham Flex­ner, who over­saw the impo­si­ti­on of a germ-theo­ry based, all­o­pa­thic approach on medi­cal edu­ca­ti­on first in the United Sta­tes, and then in Euro­pe– all with amp­le fun­ding and sup­port from Car­ne­gie and Rocke­fel­ler. For a pro­found exam­p­le of how cruel and unsci­en­ti­fic viro­lo­gy remains to this day, one should read Bailey’s decon­s­truc­tion of a modern covid expe­ri­ment led by the Ger­man media dar­ling Chris­ti­an Dros­ten.[41] That said, it is only within the scope of this paper to cite a few illus­tra­ti­ve examp­les, in the hopes the rea­ders will begin to con­sider the pro­found­ly unsci­en­ti­fic natu­re of this field. Tho­se inte­res­ted in a more com­pre­hen­si­ve account are urged to read Virus Mania in full, as well as Mark Bailey’s essay. To reca­pi­tu­la­te, viru­s­es were pre­su­med to exist in num­e­rous cases whe­re bac­te­ria, fun­gi, or para­si­tes could not be found. Infec­tious­ness, and thus the exis­tence of an unseeable patho­gen (i.e., a virus) was ›estab­lished‹ via unsci­en­ti­fic expe­ri­ments which fai­led to eit­her rea­li­sti­cal­ly mimic sup­po­sed means of trans­mis­si­on or incor­po­ra­te meaningful controls.

When the elec­tron micro­scope was deve­lo­ped, it was of cour­se neces­sa­ry that it be used to final­ly reve­al the­se viru­s­es (fol­lo­wing the model of fun­gi and bac­te­ria, which can be iden­ti­fied with a simp­le light micro­scope). Yet the­re was a pro­blem: »under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons even healt­hy cells pro­du­ce a who­le ran­ge of par­tic­les that could look like so-cal­led tumor viru­s­es (onco­vi­ru­s­es).«[42] This is a core point: the­re was and is no sci­en­ti­fi­cal­ly estab­lished mecha­nism for dif­fe­ren­tia­ting par­tic­les which are pro­du­ced by cells under stress (exo­so­mes and/​or extra­cel­lu­lar vesic­les) and alle­ged viru­s­es. Once the elec­tron micro­scope was inven­ted (paten­ted in the 1930s), samples who­se viral sta­tus had alre­a­dy been estab­lished by the dubio­us methods descri­bed abo­ve were imaged, and par­tic­les found the­re in were chris­ten­ed this or that virus – voil­la![43]

Bai­ley quo­tes an artic­le which appeared in the jour­nal Viru­s­es in May 2020, lamen­ting the fact that »nowa­days, it is an almost impos­si­ble mis­si­on to sepa­ra­te EVs [extra­cel­lu­lar vesic­les] and viru­s­es by means of cano­ni­cal vesic­le iso­la­ti­on methods, such as dif­fe­ren­ti­al ultra­cen­tri­fu­ga­ti­on, becau­se they are fre­quent­ly co-pel­le­ted due to their simi­lar dimen­si­on.«[44] Now cer­tain­ly the tech­no­lo­gy hasn’t got­ten worse, nor pre­su­ma­b­ly has the natu­re of the par­tic­les them­sel­ves chan­ged! What appears to be the case is ins­tead that the impro­ve­ment of the tech­no­lo­gy has made it har­der to get away with the unju­s­ti­fied claims of the past.

Fol­lo­wing on the heels of elec­tron micro­sco­py, the sci­ence of ›cul­tur­ing viru­s­es‹ fol­lo­wed. It is important to grasp that viro­lo­gy uses the Eng­lish term ›iso­la­ti­on‹ in a fashion total­ly uncon­nec­ted to its lay or com­mon usa­ge. Many have argued that this usa­ge is so distant as to con­sti­tu­te a form of fraud (inten­tio­nal or not) its­elf. In viro­lin­gua, iso­la­ti­on is gene­ral­ly taken to mean the ’suc­cessful‹ pro­pa­ga­ti­on of a virus in a cell cul­tu­re. After all, we are told, viru­s­es by their natu­re requi­re a cell to repro­du­ce in, so they can­not be tru­ly iso­la­ted int­act, in the nor­mal sen­se of the word. So viru­s­es must be cul­tu­red in cells – inva­ria­bly not the human cells they sup­po­sedly infect in real life – with spe­ci­fic che­mi­cals and addi­ti­ves. Yet viro­lo­gists, curious­ly enough, never seem to con­sider whe­ther this com­pli­men­ta­ry poti­on its­elf, which pro­found­ly stres­ses the cells in the cul­tu­re, in regu­lar ways, might in fact pro­du­ce the sup­po­sed »viral cul­tu­re.« As Bai­ley observes

Vero E6 mon­key cells have long been favor­ed by viro­lo­gists, sup­po­sedly due to their »sui­ta­bi­li­ty« to host many viru­s­es, but sus­pi­cious­ly also, becau­se the aneu­plo­id kid­ney line is more sus­cep­ti­ble to toxic insults from addi­tio­nal ingre­di­ents such as the ubi­qui­tous neph­ro­to­xic anti­bio­tics and anti­fun­gals added to the cul­tu­re mix. When one group attempt­ed to cul­tu­re SARS-CoV‑2, they had no desi­red result with human ade­no­c­ar­ci­no­ma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), human embryo­nic kid­ney cells (HEK-293T), and a big brown bat kid­ney cell line (EFK3B), but then declared they had a ›viral iso­la­te‹ fol­lo­wing the obser­va­ti­on of CPEs [cytopa­thic effects] in Vero E6 cells. As is typi­cal, the­re see­med to be no sen­se of iro­ny for them that the pur­por­ted human respi­ra­to­ry virus can­not be shown to ›infect‹ the rele­vant cell type, let alo­ne the rele­vant spe­ci­es. And their expe­ri­ments were once again inva­li­da­ted by the absence of appro­pria­te con­trol cul­tures.[45]

As Engel­brecht et. al also note, the Nobel Pri­ze win­ner bar­ba­ra McClintock dis­co­ver­ed that »the gene­tic mate­ri­al of living beings can con­stant­ly alter, by being hit by »shocks,« which »can be toxins« or »from other mate­ri­als that pro­du­ced stress in the test tube. This in turn can lead to the for­ma­ti­on of new gene­tic sequen­ces.«[46]

Dr. Ste­fan Lan­ka pro­pa­ga­tes a pro­found­ly anti-mate­ria­list, idea­list frame­work for explai­ning dise­a­ses, groun­ded at least par­ti­al­ly in the »Ger­ma­nic New Medi­ci­ne« of the anti-semi­te Ryke Geerd Hamer. None­thel­ess, he has clai­med to have per­for­med high­ly signi­fi­cant expe­ri­ments which must be imme­dia­te­ly exami­ned and repro­du­ced by any honest advo­ca­tes of viro­lo­gy. If his fin­dings are true, they mas­si­ve­ly con­firm the sus­pi­ci­ons of viro­lo­gy cri­tics. For, essen­ti­al­ly, Lan­ka has under­ta­ken to do the ›con­trols‹ con­sis­t­ent­ly lack­ing in viro­lo­gy expe­ri­ments. What he has found is that the CPEs which are clai­med as pro­of of viral dama­ge in cell-cul­tures can be indu­ced in cell cul­tures strict­ly by the labo­ra­to­ry pro­ce­du­re its­elf (i.e. wit­hout the pre­sence of the sup­po­sed virus).[47]

As Engel­brecht et. al. show, even as plia­ble a medi­um for ›fin­ding‹ viru­s­es to meet the needs of one’s theo­ry as elec­tron micro­sco­py was ulti­m­ate­ly too gre­at a fet­ter to an aggres­si­ve­ly expan­ding viro­lo­gy, deter­mi­ned to find a ›viral‹ cau­se for can­cer and much else. Thus ever more media­ted, inde­ter­mi­na­te means for iden­ti­fy­ing viru­s­es were nee­ded. For ins­tance, the dye­ing method of Elec­tron micro­sco­py was ela­bo­ra­ted to over­co­me the labo­rious and time-con­sum­ing use of ear­lier thin-sec­tions tech­no­lo­gy. As they observe:

through the air-dry­ing pro­cess that was neces­sa­ry for the stai­ning, the par­tic­les beca­me total­ly defor­med, so that they appeared as par­tic­les with long tails. They were full-blown arti­fi­ci­al pro­ducts of the labo­ra­to­ry, and they still loo­ked exact­ly like so many other non-viral cel­lu­lar com­pon­ents … a few sci­en­tists did in fact ack­now­ledge the dye method was dubio­us. But ins­tead of admit­ting defeat and retur­ning to the thin-sec­tions method, they began bas­hing elec­tron micro­scope tech­no­lo­gy! Other rese­ar­chers were in turn so anxious­ly preoc­cu­p­ied with final­ly fin­ding can­cer viru­s­es that they casual­ly over­loo­ked the wort­hl­ess­ness of dye method results, and theo­ri­sed that the ›tail­ed‹ par­tic­les were a cer­tain type of virus.[48]

An even more signi­fi­cant inno­va­ti­on in libe­ra­ting viro­lo­gy was the dis­co­very by Howard Temin and David Bal­ti­more of rever­se tran­scrip­ta­se, an enzy­me which can con­vert sin­gle-stran­ded RNA into dou­ble-stran­ded cDNA, thus final­ly pro­vi­ding an expl­ana­ti­on for the pre­vious­ly dis­co­ver­ed sup­po­sed viru­s­es which appeared to con­tain only RNA. with no DNA (thus appar­ent­ly lack­ing the capa­ci­ty for repli­ca­ti­on). As Engel­brecht et​.al. observe:

The­re was so much enthu­si­asm about the dis­co­very of rever­se tran­scrip­ta­se that virus hun­ters rash­ly assu­med that rever­se tran­scrip­ta­se was some­thing very typi­cal of retro­vi­ru­s­es. They pro­clai­med some­thing like this: if we obser­ve rever­se tran­scrip­ta­se acti­vi­ties in our test tubes (in vitro), then we can be sure that a retro­vi­rus is pre­sent as well (even if the virus’ exis­tence has never been pro­ven or rever­se transcriptase’s role hasn’t been estab­lished, for ins­tance, in the con­text of HIV). Yet, it was pre­su­med that the (indi­rect­ly detec­ted) pre­sence of rever­se tran­scrip­ta­se was suf­fi­ci­ent enough to pro­ve the exis­tence of a retro­vi­rus, and even a viral infec­tion of the tes­ted cells in vitro.[49]

It was this logic that allo­wed Luc Mon­tagnier to announ­ce the dis­co­very of a virus which would later beco­me known as HIV in 1983, based on the obser­va­ti­on of rever­se tran­scrip­ta­se acti­vi­ty in a cell cul­tu­re. This was despi­te the fact that Temin and Bal­ti­more them­sel­ves had sta­ted ten years pri­or that »rever­se tran­scrip­ta­se is a pro­per­ty that is inna­te to all cells and is not res­trai­ned to retro­vi­ru­s­es«![50] We will return to AIDs / HIV in more depth in Part 4. Here, we should note that rever­se tran­scrip­ta­se has its­elf been eclip­sed by new sur­ro­ga­te mar­kers, such as anti­bo­dy tests, PCR viral load tests, and hel­per cell counts. The­se trends eli­ci­ted some resis­tance within the sci­en­ti­fic com­mu­ni­ty its­elf, promp­ting 14 renow­ned viro­lo­gists of the »old guard« to direct an appeal to the young high-tech­no­lo­gy-focu­sed gene­ra­ti­on of rese­ar­chers, which was published in Sci­ence in 2001:

Modern methods like PCR, with which small gene­tic sequen­ces are mul­ti­pli­ed and detec­ted, are mar­ve­lous [but they] tell litt­le or not­hing about how a virus mul­ti­pli­es, which ani­mals car­ry it, how it makes peo­p­le sick. It is like try­ing to say whe­ther some­bo­dy has bad breath by loo­king at his fin­ger­print.[51]

Suf­fice it to say, this war­ning was not hee­ded. Now, high­ly abs­trac­ted, tech­no­lo­gi­cal methods pre­do­mi­na­te. Of cour­se, this is not uni­que to viro­lo­gy. As Richard Levins has argued

we have an incre­asing ratio­na­li­ty in the small, at the level of the labo­ra­to­ry, more and more exqui­si­te know­ledge of detail, along with irra­tio­na­li­ty in the sci­en­ti­fic enter­pri­se as a who­le, which allows it to be drawn into all kinds of des­truc­ti­ve, self-limi­ting, and une­thi­cal acti­vi­ties.[52]

Kary Mul­lis won the 1993 Nobel Pri­ze in Che­mis­try for inven­ting the PCR tech­no­lo­gy which is the basis of the PCR test. He went on to shar­ply cri­ti­ci­ze the tech­no­lo­gies misu­s­ed by viro­lo­gists, not­ing that

I don’t think you can misu­se PCR. [It is] the results; the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of it. If they can find this virus in you at all – and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost any­thing in any­bo­dy. It starts making you belie­ve in the sort of Bud­dhist noti­on that ever­y­thing is con­tai­ned in ever­y­thing else. If you can ampli­fy one sin­gle mole­cu­le up to some­thing you can real­ly mea­su­re, which PCR can do, then the­re are just very few mole­cu­les that you don’t have at least one sin­gle one of in your body. That could be thought of as a misu­se: to cla­im that it [a PCR test] is meaningful. It tells you some­thing about natu­re and what is the­re. To test for that one thing and say it has a spe­cial mea­ning is, I think, the pro­blem. The mea­su­re­ment for it is not exact; it is not as good as the mea­su­re­ment for app­les. The tests are based on things that are invi­si­ble and the results are infer­red in a sen­se. It allows you to take a minis­cu­le amount of any­thing and make it mea­sura­ble and then talk about it. PCR is just a pro­cess that allows you to make a who­le lot of some­thing out of some­thing. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or any­thing like that.[53]

As Mul­lis fur­ther empha­si­zed: »The PCR test doesn’t tell you that you are sick. The­se tests can­not detect free, infec­tious viru­s­es at all.«[54] Just as with the appeal of the ‘old guard,’ so too were Mul­lis’ cri­ti­cisms unhee­ded. Inde­ed, viro­lo­gy has gone on to abu­se the tech­no­lo­gy in ever more fan­ta­stic ways. Par­ti­cu­lar­ly important for modern viro­lo­gy is the tech­ni­que of shot­gun sequen­cing cru­de samples. The­se methods use cer­tain geno­mic tem­pla­tes, based on the foun­da­tio­nal viral frauds dis­cus­sed abo­ve. The­se are used to algo­rith­mi­cal­ly work through piles of gene­tic mate­ri­al to con­s­truct end­less new fami­ly trees of viru­s­es. In short, the field has beco­me total­ly unmoo­red from any mate­ri­al bio­lo­gi­cal rea­li­ty whatsoe­ver. For a detail­ed and illus­tra­ti­ve descrip­ti­on of this in the case of Sars Cov 2, see Bai­ley, »A Fare­well to Virology.«

What is worth brief­ly rei­te­ra­ting here is the unsci­en­ti­fic, uncri­ti­cal approach which pre­vails in viro­lo­gy – abo­ve all the lack of con­trols, and the pro­found unwil­ling­ness to even con­tem­p­la­te that infor­ma­ti­on from any one of the high­ly rami­fied, segre­ga­ted bran­ches of which modern sci­ence is now con­sti­tu­ted, might be serious­ly fla­wed or fal­se. Popu­lar epi­de­mio­lo­gi­cal methods like ›clus­te­ring‹, for ins­tance, can easi­ly crea­te an ›epi­de­mic‹ whe­re none is: if one looks in a spe­ci­fic area for indi­vi­du­als with spe­ci­fic sym­ptoms (or bet­ter, sim­ply posi­ti­ve results to a inde­ter­mi­na­te test) one can decla­re con­ta­gi­on when in fact some social or envi­ron­men­tal fac­tor (eit­her direct­ly, or in making peo­p­le vul­nerable to an other­wi­se harm­less micro­be) or sheer chan­ce is the real cau­se. Clus­te­ring easi­ly made epi­de­mics out of scur­vy, beri­be­ri, and pel­la­gra.[55] Even as fer­vent a devo­tee of MAIMS as the New York Times cover­ed a sup­po­sed out­break of who­o­ping cough in Dart­mouth-Hitch­cock in 2006 which was later admit­ted to be based on exclu­si­ve­ly ›fal­se posi­ti­ves‹ of PCR tests.[56]

Fur­ther­mo­re, we should empha­si­ze the end­less inven­ti­ve­ness with which viro­lo­gists mana­ge to sal­va­ge their core the­ses in the face of con­tra­ry evi­dence. Inde­ed, they ope­ra­te much more like scho­la­s­tic theo­lo­gi­ans than the Enligh­ten­ment ide­al of sci­en­tists. For ins­tance, Engel­brecht et. al. note how the »slow virus« theo­ry attai­ned gre­at popu­la­ri­ty in the 1960s, when the noti­on was pro­pa­ga­ted that such micro­be cul­prits could sleep for years in a cell befo­re brea­king out, or even caus­ing can­cer. When after many labors no viru­s­es could be found in tumors, a fur­ther theo­ry was deve­lo­ped: »a virus could pro­vo­ke an infec­tion, then lie dor­mant in a cell for as long as it wan­ted – and final­ly, at some point, trig­ger can­cer even when the virus is no lon­ger pre­sent.«[57] They fur­ther obser­ve: »just as with polio ear­lier, the geno­me of a so-cal­led slow virus has never been iso­la­ted and the par­tic­les clai­med to be (slow) viru­s­es have never been imaged with an elec­tron micro­scope, but the virus hun­ters embra­ced this suspect theo­ry and adapt­ed it to a num­ber of modern ailm­ents.«[58]

The­se men­tal gym­nastics may not be sur­pri­sing to anyo­ne who has clo­se­ly obser­ved viro­lo­gists over the past three years. What is per­haps more striking is how such super-subt­le theo­ries are again and again wed­ded to the most cru­de and vul­gar prac­ti­ces – as well as the most reac­tion­a­ry pre­ju­di­ces – in order to bols­ter them. Con­sider the exploits of Car­le­ton Gaj­du­sek to estab­lish his pro­to-pri­on expl­ana­ti­on for the neu­ro­de­ge­nera­ti­ve Kuru dise­a­se of Papua New Gui­nea, which he clai­med was spread through the (almost cer­tain­ly apo­cryphal) nati­ve prac­ti­ce of con­sum­ing the brains of the deceased:

A clo­se look at Gajdusek’s tri­als on apes, with which he aimed to show trans­mis­si­bi­li­ty, should have sho­cked the sci­en­ti­fic com­mu­ni­ty into dis­be­lief. But ins­tead, they reco­gni­zed the­se papers as pro­of of trans­mis­si­bi­li­ty and igno­red the fact that neither fee­ding the apes brain mush, nor injec­ting them with it had any effect on the chim­pan­ze­es. So, Gaj­du­sek con­duc­ted a bizar­re expe­ri­ment, in order to final­ly indu­ce neu­ral sym­ptoms in the test ani­mals. He ground up the brain of a kuru pati­ent into a mush full of pro­te­ins, along with a num­ber of other sub­s­tances, and pou­red this into the living apes by dril­ling holes into their skulls. This so-cal­led disease’s alle­ged trans­mis­si­bi­li­ty was foun­ded only upon the­se expe­ri­ments! How could it pos­si­bly deri­ve pro­of of Gajdusek’s can­ni­ba­li­stic hypo­the­sis? Par­ti­cu­lar­ly sin­ce the hypo­the­sis pro­po­ses that the dise­a­se could appear in humans through inges­ti­on of infec­ted brains, and not through direct sur­gi­cal inser­ti­on into the brain​.To com­pound mat­ters, Gaj­du­sek was the only living wit­ness of can­ni­ba­lism in Papua New Gui­nea. He repor­ted on the­se can­ni­ba­li­stic rites in his 1976 Nobel Pri­ze-win­ning lec­tu­re, even show­ing pho­to­graphs of the event. But in the mid-1980s, it was dis­co­ver­ed that Gajdusek’s pho­tos, with which he aimed to docu­ment can­ni­ba­lism, actual­ly show­ed pig fle­sh, not human fle­sh. An anthro­po­lo­gi­cal team loo­ked into this cla­im and they did find sto­ries of can­ni­ba­lism, but no authen­tic cases. Gaj­du­sek later had to admit that neither he hims­elf, nor others he met had seen the can­ni­ba­li­stic rites. Roland Scholz, pro­fes­sor of bio­che­mis­try and cel­lu­lar bio­lo­gy … respon­ded to this reve­la­ti­on by say­ing that, ›the sci­en­ti­fic world seems to have been taken in by a myth.‹[59]

The evi­dence in favor of viro­lo­gy is weak, on its own terms, and that its his­to­ri­cal foun­da­ti­ons are dubio­us. This has been mas­ked by a com­plex and impres­si­ve tech­ni­cal edi­fice. As we stres­sed in Part 1, howe­ver, neither the sca­le, nor intri­ca­cy, nor appa­rent inter­nal con­sis­ten­cy of a belief sys­tem are good reasons for belie­ving it to be true. None­thel­ess, skep­ti­cal rea­ders may still insist that the­re are dise­a­ses which viro­lo­gy has hel­ped tre­at, and that is sure­ly incom­pa­ti­ble with the fal­si­ty of its core doc­tri­ne. Let’s take a look, then, at a few illus­tra­ti­ve cases of sup­po­sedly viral dise­a­ses for which far more com­pel­ling alter­na­ti­ve expl­ana­ti­ons exist.


As abo­ve, here we will cite only a few illus­tra­ti­ve examp­les, with the hope that rea­ders will read the much more exhaus­ti­ve account to be found Virus Mania and other lite­ra­tu­re. One of Engel­brecht et. al.’s most com­pel­ling argu­ment is for a mul­ti-cau­sal expl­ana­ti­on for Polio, with major fac­tors for its emer­gence and per­sis­tence being poi­so­ning by various pesti­ci­des (DDT, lead arse­na­te). They show that not only had the death rate for Polio decreased by 47% and 55% in the US and Eng­land respec­tively befo­re the intro­duc­tion of the Saik vac­ci­ne, but also that the­re is a remar­kab­le cor­re­la­ti­on bet­ween Polio inci­dence and Per­sis­tent Pesti­ci­des[60]:

What is par­ti­cu­lar­ly striking about Polio is that the­re is also com­pel­ling evi­dence for a coor­di­na­ted limi­t­ed hang-out ope­ra­ti­on. Engel­brecht et al. high­light the fact that Rachel Carson’s 1962 text Silent Spring, which famously brought the adver­se envi­ron­men­tal effects of DDT into the public awa­re­ness, focu­sed on dama­ge to ani­mals, and con­spi­cuous­ly fai­led to empha­si­ze stu­dies which had stron­gly sug­gested DDT as a cau­se of Polio.The text was fun­ded by the Rocke­fel­ler Foun­da­ti­on. While it did

con­tri­bu­te to DDT’s ulti­ma­te pro­hi­bi­ti­on… this was a decep­ti­ve vic­to­ry, which only hel­ped to secu­re the public belief that demo­cra­tic regu­la­ti­ve mecha­nisms still func­tion­ed effec­tively. In actu­al fact, the che­mi­cal indus­try – becau­se the public thought the poi­so­no­us demon had then been defea­ted – was able to estab­lish its like­wi­se high­ly toxic orga­no­phos­pha­te on the mar­ket wit­hout a pro­blem. And, fatal­ly, nobo­dy dis­cus­sed its important cen­tral topic: that poi­sons like DDT could cau­se seve­re dama­ge like polio.[61]

Or let’s con­sider Bovi­ne spon­gi­form ence­pha­lo­pa­thy (BSE), sup­po­sedly cau­sed by pri­o­ns, which can be trans­mit­ted to humans and cau­se Creutz­feldt – Jakob dise­a­se. (CJD) In the 1960s, ence­pha­lo­pa­thy in sheep was reco­gni­zed as a gene­tic dise­a­se which could be eli­mi­na­ted with ade­qua­te bree­ding pro­to­cols.[62] Yet with the deve­lo­p­ment of »modern high-per­for­mance catt­le bree­ding,« as Engel­brecht et. al, obser­ve, »most cows are des­cen­ded from only a few bulls that are often rela­ted to each other.«[63] Roland Scholz has obser­ved »A sin­gle bull in a region’s inse­mi­na­ti­on insti­tu­te could then be the father of many of a district’s catt­le herds, and simul­ta­neous­ly also their grand­fa­ther.«[64] Yet when an out­break of CJD and BSE occur­red in the UK, ins­tead of explo­ring this obvious poten­ti­al cau­se of ence­pha­lo­pa­thy in catt­le, the micro­be-hun­ters declared that BSE was cau­sed by cows con­sum­ing meat and bone meal with pri­o­ns in it- and that CJD was cau­sed by peo­p­le eating tho­se cows. This was despi­te the fact that CJD cases were obser­ved in nor­t­hern Scot­land, while the catt­le with BSE were found in sou­thern Eng­land. The theo­ry that BSE meat trig­ge­red the CJD would only make sen­se if meat from south of Eng­land only eaten in Scot­land.[65]

What was not wide­ly ack­now­led­ged was that 1985, a law was pas­sed requi­ring Bri­tish far­mers to app­ly the high­ly toxic insec­ti­ci­de phos­met to the necks of catt­le. The only other count­ries whe­re phos­met was used in simi­lar high con­cen­tra­ti­ons, Ire­land and Switz­er­land, were count­ries whe­re almost all BSE occur­red. At least one orga­nic far­mer who did app­ly phos­met encoun­te­red no BSE, though his catt­le ate a meal that should have trans­mit­ted it, if it were pri­on based. The Bri­tish govern­ment repea­led the law ear­ly in the 1990s, and the Bri­tish BASE inves­ti­ga­ti­ve board even admit­ted phos­ment was a »cofac­tor« in the BSE onset. Pri­va­te rese­arch sub­stan­tia­ted this con­nec­tion, but aut­ho­ri­ties would not pur­sue it fur­ther.[66]

No expe­ri­ments exist which pro­ve the trans­mis­si­on of BSE via pri­o­ns, cer­tain­ly not via the mecha­nism of trans­mis­si­on wide­ly accept­ed (con­sump­ti­on of infec­ted brain mate­ri­als). Two alter­na­ti­ve hypo­the­ses, eit­her inde­pendent­ly or in com­bi­na­ti­on, far more com­pel­lingly explain obser­ved BSE phe­no­me­non: com­mer­cial bree­ding prac­ti­ces which inad­ver­t­ent­ly rai­se the risk of BSE in pur­su­it of other more pro­fi­ta­ble cha­rac­te­ristics (like increased milk out­put), or poi­so­ning through expo­sure to toxins like phos­met. What is most likely is that the abo­ve bree­ding prac­ti­ces led to a lar­ge popu­la­ti­on of par­ti­cu­lar­ly sus­cep­ti­ble catt­le who were thus high­ly vul­nerable to phos­met.[67] The micro­be theo­ry, none­thel­ess, prevailed.

The non-infec­tious­ness of the influ­en­za is both a well-estab­lished fact, and one which is cle­ar­ly known by at least the upper eche­lons of the Ame­ri­can mili­ta­ry-intel­li­gence appa­ra­tus. Inde­ed, rather than some­thing which modern sci­en­ti­fic evi­dence has reli­e­ved us from, Arthur Firs­ten­burg has com­pi­led com­pel­ling evi­dence which shows that

Influ­en­za, in its pre­sent form, was inven­ted in 1889, along with alter­na­ting cur­rent. It is with us always, like a fami­li­ar guest — so fami­li­ar that we have for­got­ten that it wasn’t always so. Many of the doc­tors who were floo­ded with the dise­a­se in 1889 had never seen a case befo­re. [68]

Accor­ding to Firstenberg:

Sud­den­ly and inex­pli­ca­bly, influ­en­za, who­se descrip­ti­ons had remain­ed con­sis­tent for thou­sands of years, chan­ged its cha­rac­ter in 1889. Flu had last sei­zed most of Eng­land in Novem­ber 1847, over half a cen­tu­ry ear­lier. The last flu epi­de­mic in the United Sta­tes had raged in the win­ter of 1874 – 1875. Sin­ce anci­ent times, influ­en­za had been known as a capri­cious, unpre­dic­ta­ble dise­a­se, a wild ani­mal that came from nowhe­re, ter­ro­ri­zed who­le popu­la­ti­ons at once wit­hout war­ning and wit­hout a sche­du­le, and dis­ap­peared as sud­den­ly and mys­te­rious­ly as it had arri­ved, not to be seen again for years or deca­des. It beha­ved unli­ke any other ill­ness, was thought not to be con­ta­gious, and recei­ved its name becau­se its comings and goings were said to be gover­ned by the ›influence‹ of the stars.[69, 70]

Not only does Firs­ten­burg pro­ve, with exten­si­ve evi­dence, that the modern, regu­lar year­ly pat­tern of influ­en­za emer­ged with the glo­bal elec­tri­fi­ca­ti­on, he shows that influ­en­za pan­de­mics over the past three cen­tu­ries have been more likely during peaks of solar acti­vi­ty. During the Maun­der Mini­mum bet­ween 1645 to 1715, when sun spots were excep­tio­nal­ly rare, no pan­de­mics of the flu were repor­ted. [71] Of cour­se, the who­le noti­on that Influ­en­za is infec­tious does not fit at all with actu­al dise­a­se pat­terns. Firs­ten­burg is worth quo­ting at length here:

If influ­en­za is pri­ma­ri­ly an elec­tri­cal dise­a­se, a respon­se to an elec­tri­cal dis­tur­ban­ce of the atmo­sphe­re, then it is not con­ta­gious in the ordi­na­ry sen­se. The pat­terns of its epi­de­mics should pro­ve this, and they do. For exam­p­le, the dead­ly 1889 pan­de­mic began in a num­ber of wide­ly scat­te­red parts of the world. Seve­re out­breaks were repor­ted in May of that year simul­ta­neous­ly in Buk­ha­ra, Uzbe­ki­stan; Green­land; and nor­t­hern Alber­ta. Flu was repor­ted in July in Phil­adel­phia and in Hill­s­ton, a remo­te town in Aus­tra­lia, and in August in the Bal­kans. This pat­tern being at odds with pre­vai­ling theo­ries, many his­to­ri­ans have pre­ten­ded that the 1889 pan­de­mic didn’t ›real­ly‹ start until it had sei­zed the wes­tern step­pes of Sibe­ria at the end of Sep­tem­ber and that it then spread in an order­ly fashion from the­re out­ward throug­hout the rest of the world, per­son to per­son by con­ta­gi­on. But the trou­ble is that the dise­a­se still would have had to tra­vel fas­ter than the trains and ships of the time. It rea­ched Moscow and St. Peters­burg during the third or fourth week of Octo­ber, but by then, influ­en­za had alre­a­dy been repor­ted in Dur­ban, South Afri­ca and Edin­burgh, Scot­land, New Bruns­wick, Cana­da, Cai­ro, Paris, Ber­lin, and Jamai­ca were report­ing epi­de­mics in Novem­ber; Lon­don, Onta­rio on Decem­ber 4; Stock­holm on Decem­ber 9; New York on Decem­ber 11; Rome on Decem­ber 12; Madrid on Decem­ber 13; and Bel­gra­de on Decem­ber 15 Influ­en­za struck explo­si­ve­ly and unpre­dic­ta­b­ly, over and over in waves until ear­ly 1894. […]

Influ­en­za works its capri­ce not only on land, but at sea. With today’s speed of tra­vel this is no lon­ger obvious, but in pre­vious cen­tu­ries, when sail­ors were atta­cked with influ­en­za weeks, or even months, out of their last port of call, it was some­thing to remem­ber. In 1894, Charles Creigh­ton descri­bed fif­teen sepa­ra­te his­to­ri­cal ins­tances whe­re enti­re ships or even many ships in a naval fleet were sei­zed by the ill­ness far from land­fall, as if they had sai­led into an influ­en­zal fog, only to dis­co­ver, in some cases, upon arri­ving at their next port, that influ­en­za had bro­ken out on land at the same time. Creigh­ton added one report from the con­tem­po­ra­ry pan­de­mic: the mer­chant ship »Wel­ling­ton« had sai­led with its small crew from Lon­don on Decem­ber 19, 1891, bound for Lyt­tel­ton, New Zea­land. On the 26th of March, after over three months at sea, the cap­tain was sud­den­ly shaken by inten­se febri­le ill­ness. Upon arri­ving at Lyt­tel­ton on April 2, »the pilot, coming on board found the cap­tain ill in his berth, and on being told the sym­ptoms at once said, ›It is the influ­en­za: I have just had it mys­elf.‹ An 1857 report was so com­pel­ling that Wil­liam Beve­ridge included it in his 1975 text­book on influ­en­za: »The Eng­lish war­ship Arach­ne was crui­sing off the coast of Cuba ›wit­hout any cont­act with land.‹ No less than 114 men out of a crew of 149 fell ill with influ­en­za and only later was it lear­nt that the­re had been out­breaks in Cuba at the same time. […]

The age dis­tri­bu­ti­on is also wrong for con­ta­gi­on. In other kinds of infec­tious dise­a­ses, like meas­les and mumps, the more aggres­si­ve a strain of a virus is and the fas­ter it spreads, the more rapidly adults build up immu­ni­ty and the youn­ger the popu­la­ti­on that gets it every year. Accor­ding to Hope-Simpson, this means that bet­ween pan­de­mics influ­en­za should be attack­ing main­ly very young child­ren. But influ­en­za keeps on stub­born­ly tar­ge­ting adults; the avera­ge age is almost always bet­ween twen­ty and for­ty, whe­ther during a pan­de­mic or not. The year 1889 was no excep­ti­on: influ­en­za fel­led pre­fe­ren­ti­al­ly vigo­rous young adults in the prime of their life, as if it were mali­cious­ly choo­sing the stron­gest ins­tead of the wea­k­est of our species. […]

If an epi­de­mic strikes, and you come down with the same dise­a­se as ever­yo­ne else, but an influ­en­za virus can’t be iso­la­ted from your throat and you don’t deve­lop anti­bo­dies to one, then you are said not to have influ­en­za. But the fact is that alt­hough influ­en­za viru­s­es are asso­cia­ted in some way with dise­a­se epi­de­mics, they have never been shown to cau­se them.

Seven­teen years of sur­veil­lan­ce by Hope-Simpson in and around the com­mu­ni­ty of Ciren­ces­ter, Eng­land, reve­a­led that despi­te popu­lar belief, influ­en­za is not rea­di­ly com­mu­ni­ca­ted from one per­son to ano­ther within a house­hold. Seven­ty per­cent of the time, even during the ›Hong Kong flu‹ pan­de­mic of 1968, only one per­son in a house­hold would get the flu. If a second per­son had the flu, both often caught it on the same day, which meant that they did not catch it from each other. Some­ti­mes dif­fe­rent minor vari­ants of the virus were cir­cu­la­ting in the same vil­la­ge, even in the same house­hold, and on one occa­si­on two young brot­hers who shared a bed had dif­fe­rent vari­ants of the virus, pro­ving that they could not have caught it from each other, or even from the same third person.William S. Jor­dan, in 1958, and P. G. Mann, in 1981, came to simi­lar con­clu­si­ons about the lack of spread within families. […]

The embar­ras­sing secret among viro­lo­gists is that from 1933 until the pre­sent day, the­re have been no expe­ri­men­tal stu­dies pro­ving that influ­en­za —eit­her the virus or the dise­a­se— is ever trans­mit­ted from per­son to per­son by nor­mal cont­act.[72]

Inde­ed, as Firs­ten­burg shows, in the case of Influ­en­za, the expe­ri­ments that would show infec­tion have been done. The­re is, fur­ther­mo­re, amp­le evi­dence of the real causes:

The ent­ry of the United Sta­tes into the Gre­at War on April 6, 1917, sti­mu­la­ted an expan­si­on of radio broad­cas­ting that was as sud­den and rapid as the 1889 expan­si­on of electricity. […]

When the United Sta­tes ente­red the war in 1917, it chan­ged the ter­rain in a hur­ry. The United Sta­tes Navy alre­a­dy had one giant trans­mit­ter at Arling­ton, Vir­gi­nia and a second at Dari­en, in the Canal Zone. A third, in San Die­go, began broad­cas­ting in May 1917, a fourth, at Pearl Har­bor, on Octo­ber 1 of that year, and a fifth, at Cavi­te, the Phil­ip­pi­nes, on Decem­ber 19. The Navy also took over and upgraded pri­va­te and for­eign-owned sta­ti­ons at Lents, Ore­gon; South San Fran­cis­co, Cali­for­nia; Bol­i­nas, Cali­for­nia; Kahu­ku, Hawaii; Heeia Point, Hawaii; Say­ville, Long Island; Tucker­ton, New Jer­sey; and New Bruns­wick, New Jer­sey. By late 1917, thir­teen Ame­ri­can sta­ti­ons were sen­ding mes­sa­ges across two oce­ans. Fif­ty more medi­um and high powered radio sta­ti­ons rin­ged the United Sta­tes and its pos­ses­si­ons for com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on with ships. To equip its ships the Navy manu­fac­tu­red and deploy­ed over ten thousand low, medi­um, and high powered trans­mit­ters. By ear­ly 1918, the Navy was gra­dua­ting over four hundred stu­dents per week from its radio ope­ra­ting cour­ses. In the short cour­se of a year, bet­ween April 6, 1917 and ear­ly 1918, the Navy built and was ope­ra­ting the world’s lar­gest radio network. […]

In July 1918, ano­ther 200-kilo­watt arc was added to the sys­tem the Navy had taken over at Say­ville. In Sep­tem­ber 1918, a 500-kilo­watt arc went on the air at a new naval sta­ti­on at Anna­po­lis, Mary­land. Mean­while the Navy had orde­red a second, more powerful alter­na­tor for New Bruns­wick, of 200-kilo­watt capa­ci­ty. Instal­led in June, it too went on the air full time in Sep­tem­ber. New Bruns­wick imme­dia­te­ly beca­me the most powerful sta­ti­on in the world, out­clas­sing Germany’s flag­ship sta­ti­on at Nau­en, and was the first that trans­mit­ted both voice and tele­gra­phic mes­sa­ges across the Atlan­tic Oce­an cle­ar­ly, con­ti­nuous­ly, and relia­bly. Its signal was heard over a lar­ge part of the earth. The dise­a­se that was cal­led Spa­nish influ­en­za was born during the­se months. It did not ori­gi­na­te in Spain. It did, howe­ver, kill tens of mil­li­ons all over the world, and it beca­me sud­den­ly more fatal in Sep­tem­ber of 1918. By some esti­ma­tes the pan­de­mic struck more than half a bil­li­on peo­p­le, or a third of the world’s popu­la­ti­on. Even the Black Death of the four­te­enth cen­tu­ry did not kill so many in so short a peri­od of time. No won­der ever­yo­ne is ter­ri­fied of its return. […]

But the­re is no evi­dence that the dise­a­se of 1918 was contagious.

The Spa­nish influ­en­za appar­ent­ly ori­gi­na­ted in the United Sta­tes in ear­ly 1918, see­med to spread around the world on Navy ships, and first appeared on board tho­se ships and in sea­ports and Naval sta­ti­ons. The lar­gest ear­ly out­break, lay­ing low about 400 peo­p­le, occur­red in Febru­ary in the Naval Radio School at Cam­bridge, Mas­sa­chu­setts. In March, influ­en­za spread to Army camps whe­re the Signal Corps was being trai­ned in the use of the wire­less: 1,127 men con­trac­ted influ­en­za in Camp Fun­s­ton, in Kan­sas, and 2,900 men in the Ogle­thor­pe camps in Geor­gia. In late March and April, the dise­a­se spread to the civi­li­an popu­la­ti­on, and around the world. Mild at first, the epi­de­mic explo­ded with death in Sep­tem­ber, ever­y­whe­re in the world at once. Waves of mor­ta­li­ty tra­ve­led with asto­nis­hing speed over the glo­bal oce­an of huma­ni­ty, again and again until their force was final­ly spent three years later. Its vic­tims were often sick repea­ted­ly for months at a time. One of the things that puz­zled doc­tors the most was all of the blee­ding. Ten to fif­teen per­cent of flu pati­ents seen in pri­va­te prac­ti­ce, and up to for­ty per­cent of flu pati­ents in the Navy suf­fe­r­ed from nose­bleeds, doc­tors some­ti­mes describ­ing the blood as ›gus­hing‹ from the nostrils. Others bled from their gums, ears, skin, sto­mach, intesti­nes, ute­rus, or kid­neys, the most com­mon and rapid rou­te to death being hemor­rha­ge in the lungs: flu vic­tims drow­ned in their own blood. Aut­op­sies reve­a­led that as many as one-third of fatal cases had also hemor­rha­ge into their brain, 12 and occa­sio­nal­ly a pati­ent appeared to be reco­ve­ring from respi­ra­to­ry sym­ptoms only to die of a brain hemorrhage. […]

This is con­sis­tent not with any respi­ra­to­ry virus, but with what has been known about elec­tri­ci­ty ever sin­ce Ger­hard did the first expe­ri­ment on human blood in 1779. It is con­sis­tent with what is known about the effects of radio waves on blood coagu­la­ti­on. Erski­ne and Knight saved their pati­ents not by fight­ing infec­tion, but by giving them lar­ge doses of cal­ci­um lac­ta­te to faci­li­ta­te blood clot­ting. Ano­ther asto­nis­hing fact that makes no sen­se if this pan­de­mic was infec­tious, but that makes good sen­se if it was cau­sed by radio waves, is that ins­tead of striking down the old and the infirm like most dise­a­ses, this one kil­led most­ly healt­hy, vigo­rous young peo­p­le bet­ween the ages of eigh­te­en and for­ty – just as the pre­vious pan­de­mic had done, with a litt­le less vehe­mence, in 1889. […]

Alt­hough the infec­tious natu­re of this ill­ness was wide­ly assu­med, masks, qua­ran­ti­nes, and iso­la­ti­on were all wit­hout effect. Even in an iso­la­ted coun­try like Ice­land the flu spread uni­ver­sal­ly, in spi­te of the qua­ran­ti­ning of its vic­tims. The dise­a­se see­med to spread impos­si­bly fast. ›The­re is no reason to sup­po­se that it tra­ve­led more rapidly than per­sons could tra­vel [but] it has appeared to do so,‹ wro­te Dr. Geor­ge A. Soper, Major in the United Sta­tes Army.

But most reve­al­ing of all were the various heroic attempts to pro­ve the infec­tious natu­re of this dise­a­se, using vol­un­teers. All the­se attempts, made in Novem­ber and Decem­ber 1918 and in Febru­ary and March 1919, fai­led. One medi­cal team in Bos­ton, working for the United Sta­tes Public Health Ser­vice, tried to infect one hundred healt­hy vol­un­teers bet­ween the ages of eigh­te­en and twen­ty-five. Their efforts were impres­si­ve and make enter­tai­ning reading:

We coll­ec­ted the mate­ri­al and mucous secre­ti­ons of the mouth and nose and throat and bron­chi from cases of the dise­a­se and trans­fer­red this to our vol­un­teers. We always obtai­ned this mate­ri­al in the same way. The pati­ent with fever, in bed, had a lar­ge, shal­low, tray­li­ke arran­ge­ment befo­re him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some ste­ri­le salt solu­ti­ons, using per­haps 5 c.c., which is allo­wed to run into the tray; and that nostril is blown vigo­rous­ly into the tray. This is repea­ted with the other nostril. The pati­ent then gar­gles with some of the solu­ti­on. Next we obtain some bron­chi­al mucus through coug­hing, and then we swab the mucous sur­face of each nares and also the mucous sur­face of the throat… Each one of the vol­un­teers… recei­ved 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I have descri­bed. They recei­ved it into each nostril; recei­ved it in the throat, and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will under­stand that some of it was swal­lo­wed. None of them took sick.

In a fur­ther expe­ri­ment with new vol­un­teers and donors, the salt solu­ti­on was eli­mi­na­ted, and with cot­ton swabs, the mate­ri­al was trans­fer­red direct­ly from nose to nose and from throat to throat, using donors in the first, second, or third day of the disease:

None of the­se vol­un­teers who recei­ved the mate­ri­al thus direct­ly trans­fer­red from cases took sick in any way… All of the vol­un­teers recei­ved at least two, and some of them three ’shots‹ as they expres­sed it.

In a fur­ther expe­ri­ment 20 c.c. of blood from each of five sick donors were mixed and injec­ted into each volunteer:

None of them took sick in any way. Then we coll­ec­ted a lot of mucous mate­ri­al from the upper respi­ra­to­ry tract, and fil­te­red it through Man­dler fil­ters. This fil­tra­te was injec­ted into ten vol­un­teers, each one recei­ving 3.5 c.c. sub­cu­ta­neous­ly, and none of the­se took sick in any way.

Then a fur­ther attempt was made to trans­fer the dise­a­se ›in the natu­ral way,‹ using fresh vol­un­teers and donors:

The vol­un­teer was led up to the bedside of the pati­ent; he was intro­du­ced. He sat down along­side the bed of the pati­ents. They shook hands, and by ins­truc­tions, he got as clo­se as he con­ve­ni­ent­ly could, and they tal­ked for five minu­tes. At the end of the five minu­tes, the pati­ent brea­thed out as hard as he could, while the vol­un­teer, muz­zle to muz­zle (in accordance with his ins­truc­tions, about 2 inches bet­ween the two), recei­ved this expi­red breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the pati­ent brea­thed out… After they had done this for five times, the pati­ent coug­hed direct­ly into the face of the vol­un­teer, face to face, five dif­fe­rent times … [Then] he moved to the next pati­ent whom we had sel­ec­ted, and repea­ted this, and so on, until this vol­un­teer had had that sort of cont­act with ten dif­fe­rent cases of influ­en­za, in dif­fe­rent stages of the dise­a­se, most­ly fresh cases, none of them more than three days old … None of them took sick in any way.

›We ente­red the out­break with a noti­on that we knew the cau­se of the dise­a­se, and were quite sure we knew how it was trans­mit­ted from per­son to per­son. Per­haps,‹ con­cluded Dr. Mil­ton Rose­nau, ›if we have lear­ned any­thing, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the dise­a­se.‹ Ear­lier attempts to demons­tra­te con­ta­gi­on in hor­ses had met with the same resound­ing fail­ure. Healt­hy hor­ses were kept in clo­se cont­act with sick ones during all stages of the dise­a­se. Nose bags were kept on hor­ses that had nasal dischar­ges and high tem­pe­ra­tures. Tho­se nose bags were used to con­tain food for other hor­ses which, howe­ver, stub­born­ly remain­ed healt­hy. As a result of the­se and other attempts, Lieu­ten­ant Colo­nel Her­bert Wat­kins-Pitch­ford of the Bri­tish Army Vete­ri­na­ry Corps wro­te in July 1917 that he could find no evi­dence that influ­en­za was ever spread direct­ly from one hor­se to ano­ther. The other two influ­en­za pan­de­mics of the twen­tieth cen­tu­ry, in 1957 and 1968, were also asso­cia­ted with mile­sto­nes of elec­tri­cal tech­no­lo­gy, pio­nee­red once again by the United States. […]

In each case — in 1889, 1918, 1957, and 1968 — the elec­tri­cal enve­lo­pe of the earth, which will be descri­bed in the next chap­ter, and to which we are all atta­ched by invi­si­ble strings, was sud­den­ly and pro­found­ly dis­tur­bed.[73]

Though for the sake of con­ve­ni­ence we have quo­ted very exten­si­ve­ly from Firs­ten­burg here, rea­ders are urged to read his full argu­ments, which pro­vi­de much more detail­ed evi­dence and expl­ana­ti­on for the sup­pres­sed elec­tri­cal cau­ses of influ­en­za, as well as many other mala­dies denied by the domi­nant sci­en­ti­fic paradigm.

Engel­brecht et. al fur­ther note that the Spa­nish Flu was pre­ce­ded by the unpre­ce­den­ted WW1 vac­ci­na­ti­on cam­paign.[74] Wha­te­ver the real cau­se of influ­en­za, howe­ver, what should be clear by now is that the­re is no good reason for belie­ving it is cau­sed by an infec­tious virus. Inde­ed, the gene­tic sequence chris­ten­ed influ­en­za is ack­now­led­ged even by main­stream sci­ence to have a remar­kab­ly tenuous con­nec­tion with the ill­ness it sup­po­sedly cau­ses. During the peak flu sea­son, only 10 per­cent of »infec­tions« that form in the upper air­way can be tra­ced to ›influ­en­za viru­s­es‹ [75] And while at various points the capa­ci­ty to spread asym­pto­ma­ti­cal­ly was heral­ded as one of the many things which made SARS-Cov‑2 so ter­ri­fy­ing, a stu­dy by a team at the Uni­ver­si­ty Col­lege Lon­don sup­po­sedly found that 77% per­cent of flu infec­tions may show no sym­ptoms. So the virus which sup­po­sedly cau­ses the dise­a­se we call influ­en­za is neither neces­sa­ry nor suf­fi­ci­ent to cau­se its cha­rac­te­ristic features!

Hop­eful­ly, by now, rea­ders are taking serious­ly just how poor­ly the cur­rent, pre­vai­ling theo­ry of viro­lo­gy explains sup­po­sedly viral ill­nesses. We have shown its weak foun­da­ti­ons, as well as the very good reasons why it could have per­sis­ted as a domi­nant theo­ry despi­te its fal­si­ty. This is all the more so once we take serious­ly the impli­ca­ti­ons of Firstenberg’s account, or the evi­dence of coor­di­na­ted col­lu­si­on in cove­ring up the real cau­ses of Polio: that important sec­tions of the ruling class are awa­re, mini­mal­ly, that viro­lo­gy is pro­found­ly fla­wed and easi­ly mani­pulable. If the gre­at influ­en­za pan­de­mics of the past cen­tu­ry were cau­sed by mili­ta­ry tech­no­lo­gy, we should ful­ly expect 1) that this fact would be known and well unders­tood and 2) that it would be a high­ly guard­ed sta­te secret.

This does not mean that signi­fi­cant phe­no­me­na are not stu­di­ed through the fla­wed para­digm of viro­lo­gy, nor even that some effec­ti­ve tech­ni­ques can ari­se from it. A more detail­ed exami­na­ti­on of the field is bey­ond the scope of this paper. What has been shown is sim­ply that the main reasons why the gene­ral popu­la­ti­on reve­res viro­lo­gy do not stand up to scru­ti­ny. The gains in health which are ascri­bed to the inno­va­tions of viro­lo­gy were in fact a pro­duct of the suc­cessful class strugg­le pro­se­cu­ted by the working mas­ses for a bet­ter living stan­dard. Viro­lo­gy has ser­ved as an awe­so­me but­tress to the hegem­o­ny of the ruling class by not only obscu­ring that fact, but in the pro­cess offe­ring them a sophisti­ca­ted means for mani­pu­la­ting, con­trol­ling, sur­veil­ling, and cripp­ling the poten­ti­al­ly rebel­lious popu­la­ti­on which they rule, exploit— and fear, more than any­thing else.

In the final sec­tion of this essay, we will look at the evo­lu­ti­on of viro­lo­gy as a con­scious stra­tegy deploy­ed by the ruling class in the con­text of the glo­bal coun­ter-revo­lu­ti­on I sket­ched out in »Impe­ria­lism Today is Con­spi­ra­cy Pra­xis.« We will look at the evi­dence that HIV / AIDs was a psyop orchestra­ted by the domi­nant fac­tion of the glo­bal ruling class. We will explo­re some of the broa­der poli­ti­cal impli­ca­ti­ons of this theo­ry. We will cla­ri­fy the cor­rect posi­ti­on which Mar­xists should take to ruling class sci­ence, and brief­ly explo­re what a libe­ra­ted, demo­cra­tic worker’s sci­ence could look like.


[1] Richard Levins, »The Two Faces of Science.«

[2] Richard Lewon­tin, Bio­lo­gy as Ideo­lo­gy, »Cau­ses and their Effects«

[3] Engel­brecht et. al.Virus Mania, Intro­duc­tion.

[4] James Cor­bett, »Rocke­fel­ler Medi­ci­ne,« The Cor­bett Report, 2013 https://​www​.cor​bett​re​port​.com/​r​o​c​k​e​f​e​l​l​e​r​-​m​e​d​i​c​i​n​e​-​v​i​d​eo/

[5] https://​edwards​lavs​quat​.sub​stack​.com/​p​/​o​n​e​-​h​u​n​d​r​e​d​-​y​e​a​r​s​-​o​f​-​c​a​t​t​l​e​-​t​a​g​g​ing

[6] Engel­brecht et. al.Virus Mania, Intro­duc­tion.

[7] Edward H. Kass, »Infec­tious Dise­a­ses and Social Chan­ge.« The Jour­nal of Infec­tious Dise­a­ses 123, no. 1 (1971): 110 – 14. http://​www​.jstor​.org/​s​t​a​b​l​e​/​3​0​1​0​8​855.

[8] T. Mohr, »Impe­ria­lism Today is Con­spi­ra­cy Pra­xis,«‑mohr/imperialism-today-is-conspiracy-praxis/

[9] Levins, »The Two Faces of Science.«

[10] Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch. 10

[11] Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch. 10.

[12] All graphs (except other­wi­se noted) are taken from the web­site »Dis­sol­ving Illu­si­ons,« main­tai­ned by aut­hors of the book of the same name, Suzan­ne Hum­phries MD and Roman Bytrianyk. They are trans­pa­rent and scru­pu­lous about their sources, and their graphs can be easi­ly veri­fied. Of cour­se, you can’t find their web­site, https://​dis​sol​vin​g​il​lu​si​ons​.com/, through a goog­le search – though pages sel­ling their excel­lent book are har­der to so bra­zen­ly cen­sor. See all graphs here: https://​dis​sol​vin​g​il​lu​si​ons​.com/​g​r​a​p​h​s​-​i​m​a​g​es/

[13] from Vac­ci­nes: Are They Real­ly Safe and Effec­ti­ve? by Neil Z. Mil­ler, as repro­du­ced in Virus Mania Ch. 2

[14] Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch. 9

[15] »Tri­al of BCG vac­ci­nes in south India for tuber­cu­lo­sis pre­ven­ti­on,« Indi­an Jour­nal of Medi­cal Rese­arch, Sep­tem­ber 1979, cited in Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 11.

[16] Ben­ja­min J. Cow­ling et al., »Increased risk of non-influ­en­za respi­ra­to­ry virus infec­tions asso­cia­ted with receipt of inac­ti­va­ted influ­en­za vac­ci­ne,« Cli­ni­cal Infec­tious Dise­a­ses, June 2012, pp. 1778 – 83 as quo­ted in Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 11.

[17] Robert Fk. Ken­ne­dy Jr., »Greed, Negli­gence and Decep­ti­on in the Vac­ci­ne Indus­try« in Engel­brecht et​.al, Virus Mania, Ch. 8.

[18] See Jacob Ste­genga, Medi­cal Nihi­lism. Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2018., dis­cus­sed at length in Part 2 of this essay.

[19] Joy Gar­ner, « Health Ver­sus Dis­or­der, Dise­a­se, and Death: Unvac­ci­na­ted Per­sons Are Incom­men­sur­a­b­ly Healt­hi­er than Vac­ci­na­ted,« Inter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Vac­ci­ne Theo­ry, Prac­ti­ce, and Rese­arch., Vol.2 No. 2 (2022). Novem­ber 15, 2022 https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​5​6​0​9​8​/​i​j​v​t​p​r​.​v​2​i​2​.40

[20]James Lyons-Wei­ler, & Paul Tho­mas, »Rela­ti­ve Inci­dence of Office Visits and Cumu­la­ti­ve Rates of Bil­led Dia­gno­ses Along the Axis of Vac­ci­na­ti­on,« Int. J. Envi­ron. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(22), 8674; https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​3​3​9​0​/​i​j​e​r​p​h​1​7​2​2​8​674.

[21] Alm, Johan et al.,« Ato­py in child­ren of fami­lies with an anthro­po­so­phic life­style,« Lan­cet, May 1999, pp. 1485 – 1488

[22] Engel­brecht et. al., citing Mil­ler, Neil Z.; Gold­man, Gary S., »Infant mor­ta­li­ty rates regres­sed against num­ber of vac­ci­ne doses rou­ti­ne­ly given: Is the­re a bio­che­mi­cal or syn­er­gi­stic toxi­ci­ty?,« Human & Expe­ri­men­tal Toxi­co­lo­gy, Sep­tem­ber 2011, pp. 1420 – 1428 in Virus Mania Ch. 11.

[23] Mar­tin Hir­te et al.,« Impf­zeit­punkt von Bedeu­tung,« Deut­sches Ärz­te­blatt, Octo­ber 14, 2011, pp. 696 – 697, as cited in Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch. 11.

[24] Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania. Ch. 11

[25] Hoo­ker, Bri­an S.; Mil­ler, Neil Z., »Ana­ly­sis of health out­co­mes in vac­ci­na­ted and unvac­ci­na­ted child­ren: Deve­lo­p­men­tal delays, asth­ma, ear infec­tions and gas­tro­in­testi­nal dis­or­ders,« SAGE Open Medi­ci­ne, May 27, 2020, as quo­ted in Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania. Ch. 11

[26] McDo­nald, Kar­la L. et al., »Delay in Diph­the­ria, per­tus­sis, teta­nus vac­ci­na­ti­on is asso­cia­ted with a redu­ced risk of child­hood asth­ma,« Jour­nal of Aller­gy and Cli­ni­cal Immu­no­lo­gy, March 2008, pp. 626- 631, as cited in Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch. 11.

[27] Demi­che­li, Vitto­rio et al.,« Vac­ci­nes for meas­les, mumps and rubel­la in child­ren,« The Coch­ra­ne Data­ba­se Sys­te­ma­tic Reviews, Febru­ary 15, 2012, as cited in Engel­brecht et​.al., Virus Mania, Ch. 11.

[28] Robert F. Ken­ne­dy Jr., »Greed, Negli­gence and Decep­ti­on in the Vac­ci­ne Indus­try« in Engel­brecht et​.al, Virus Mania, Ch. 8.

[29] Mark F. Bla­xill, »What’s Going on? The Ques­ti­on of Time Trends in Autism.« Public Health Reports (1974-) 119, no. 6 (2004): 536 – 51. http://​www​.jstor​.org/​s​t​a​b​l​e​/​2​0​0​5​6​727.

[30] Ken­ne­dy, Robert F. Jr., »Greed, Negli­gence and Decep­ti­on in the Vac­ci­ne Indus­try« in Engel­brecht et​.al, Virus Mania, Ch. 8.

[31] Ibid.

[32] David, Ras­nick, »The tyran­ny of dog­ma,« Jour­nal of Infor­ma­ti­on Ethics. 24. (2005), pp. 82 – 83


[33] Ken­ne­dy, Robert F. Jr., »Greed, Negli­gence and Decep­ti­on in the Vac­ci­ne Indus­try« in Engel­brecht et​.al, Virus Mania, Ch. 8.

[34] Engel­brecht et​.al. Virus Mania, Ch. 10

[35] Ibid., Ch. 11.

[36] Engel­brecht et. al. Virus Mania, Ch. 2

[37] Mark Bai­ley, »A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy,« 15 Sep­tem­ber 2005,‑farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/ p. 15. (Hence­forth: Mark Bai­ley, »A Fare­well to Virology«).

[38] Tolz­in, Hans U. P., »Das Anste­ckungs-Expe­ri­ment von 1911: Wirk­lich ein Mei­len­stein der For­schung?,« impf-report, 1st quar­ter 2016, pp. 28 – 31 as cited in Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch 11.

[39] Bai­ley, A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy, pp. 16 – 18

[40] Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania Ch. 2.

[41] See Bai­ley, »A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy,« pp. 23 – 26.

[42] Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania Ch. 2.

[43] Tom Cowan, »The Smo­king Gun? Stu­dy Shows »Virus« Is Iden­ti­cal to Nor­mal Cell »Struc­tures«,« June 10, 2021, https://​drtom​co​wan​.com/​b​l​o​g​s​/​b​l​o​g​/​t​h​e​-​s​m​o​k​i​n​g​-​gun

[44] Bai­ley, »A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy« p. 9.

[45] Bailey,»A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy« p. 9.

[46] Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch. 1.

[47] Ste­fan Lan­ka, et al., »Prä­li­mi­nä­re Resul­ta­te der Kon­troll­ver­su­che – Die Reak­ti­on pri­mä­rer huma­ner Epi­thel­zel­len auf strin­gen­te Virusam­pli­fi­ka­ti­ons-Bedin­gun­gen wider­le­gen die Exis­tenz­be­haup­tun­gen aller Viren und von SARS-CoV‑2«, 25 Mar 2022: https://​cold​wel​li​an​ti​mes​.com/​e​i​l​m​e​l​d​u​n​g​/​k​o​n​t​r​o​l​l​e​x​p​e​r​i​m​e​n​t​-​p​h​a​s​e​-​1​-​m​e​h​r​e​r​e​-​l​a​b​o​r​e​-​b​e​s​t​a​t​i​g​e​n​-​d​i​e​-​w​i​d​e​r​l​e​g​u​n​g​-​d​e​r​-​v​i​r​o​l​o​g​i​e​-​d​u​r​c​h​-​d​e​n​-​c​y​t​o​p​a​t​h​i​s​c​h​e​n​-​e​f​f​ekt/​as cited in Bai­ley, Mark, »A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy,« p. 18.

[48] Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 2.

[49] Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 2.

[50] Temin, Howard; Bal­ti­more, David, »RNA-direc­ted DNA syn­the­sis and RNA tumor viru­s­es,« Advan­ces in Virus Rese­arch, 1972; Vol. 17, pp. 129 – 186, quo­ted on in Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 2

[51] As quo­ted in Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 2.

[52] Levins, »The Two Faces of Science«

[53] Mul­lis, Kary as quo­ted in James David, »PCR Inven­tor: ›It does­n’t tell you that you are sick,‹ « Off-Guar­di­an, Oct 5, 2020 https://​off​-guar​di​an​.org/​2​0​2​0​/​1​0​/​0​5​/​p​c​r​-​i​n​v​e​n​t​o​r​-​i​t​-​d​o​e​s​n​t​-​t​e​l​l​-​y​o​u​-​t​h​a​t​-​y​o​u​-​a​r​e​-​s​i​ck/

[54] Ibid.

[55] Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 2

[56] Gina, Kola­ta »Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epi­de­mic That Wasn’t«, The New York Times, 22 Jan 2007: hgps://www​.nyti​mes​.com/​1​4​6​2​0​0​7​/​0​1​/​2​2​/​h​e​a​l​t​h​/​2​2​w​h​o​o​p​.​h​tml as quo­ted in Bai­ley, Mark, « A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy,« 46.

[57] Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 2

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch. 2.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Engel­brecht et. al., Virus Mania, Ch. 5.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Firs­ten­berg, Arthur, The Invi­si­ble Rain­bow, Pro­lo­gue.

[69] Firs­ten­berg, Arthur, The Invi­si­ble Rain­bow, Ch. 7

[70] Ibid.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Firs­ten­berg, Arthur, The Invi­si­ble Rain­bow, Ch. 7

[74] Engel­brecht et. al, Virus Mania, Ch. 7

[75] Ken­ne­dy, R.F. Jr., »Greed, Negli­gence and Decep­ti­on in the Vac­ci­ne Indus­try« in Engel­brecht et​.al, Virus Mania, Ch. 8.

Works Cited

Alm, Johan et al.. »Ato­py in child­ren of fami­lies with an anthro­po­so­phic life­style.« Lan­cet, May 1999, pp. 1485 – 1488.

Ari­ens, Chris. »Here Are the Big­gest Adver­ti­sers on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.« TVNews­er. TVNews­er, March 9, 2018. https://​www​.adweek​.com/​t​v​n​e​w​s​e​r​/​h​e​r​e​-​a​r​e​-​t​h​e​-​b​i​g​g​e​s​t​-​a​d​v​e​r​t​i​s​e​r​s​-​o​n​-​f​o​x​-​n​e​w​s​-​c​n​n​-​a​n​d​-​m​s​n​b​c​/​3​5​9​0​57/.

Bai­ley, Mark. »A Fare­well to Viro­lo­gy. « 15 Sep­tem­ber 2005.‑farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/ .

Ben­ja­min, Wal­ter. Gesam­mel­ten Schrif­ten I:2. Suhr­kamp Ver­lag: Frank­furt am Main, 1974..

Ber­nal, John Des­mond. »The Social Func­tion of Sci­ence.« Modern Quar­ter­ly (1938). https://​www​.mar​xists​.org/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​/​b​e​r​n​a​l​/​w​o​r​k​s​/​1​9​3​0​s​/​s​o​c​i​a​l​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​.​htm.

Bethu­ne, Nor­man. The Wounds. Onta­rio: Litt­le Books of Hope. Nor­man Bethu­ne, The Wounds (Onta­rio: Litt­le Books of Hope).

Bla­xill, Mark F. »What’s Going on? The Ques­ti­on of Time Trends in Autism.« Public Health Reports (1974-) 119, no. 6 (2004): 536 – 51. http://​www​.jstor​.org/​s​t​a​b​l​e​/​2​0​0​5​6​727.

Caplan, Arthur L., James J. McCart­ney, Domi­nic A. Sis­ti, eds. Health, Dise­a­se, and Ill­ness: Con­cepts in Medi­ci­ne. Washing­ton, D.C.: George­town Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2004.

Cowan, Tom. »The Smo­king Gun? Stu­dy Shows »Virus« Is Iden­ti­cal to Nor­mal Cell »Struc­tures«.« June 10, 2021. https://​drtom​co​wan​.com/​b​l​o​g​s​/​b​l​o​g​/​t​h​e​-​s​m​o​k​i​n​g​-​gun.

Craw­ford, Julia. »Does Bill Gates Have Too Much Influence in the Who?« SWI. swis​s​in​fo​.ch, May 7, 2021. https://​www​.swis​s​in​fo​.ch/​e​n​g​/​p​o​l​i​t​i​c​s​/​d​o​e​s​-​b​i​l​l​-​g​a​t​e​s​-​h​a​v​e​-​t​o​o​-​m​u​c​h​-​i​n​f​l​u​e​n​c​e​-​i​n​-​t​h​e​-​w​h​o​-​/​4​6​5​7​0​526.

David, James, »PCR Inven­tor: ›It does­n’t tell you that you are sick,‹ « Off-Guar­di­an, Oct 5, 2020. https://​off​-guar​di​an​.org/​2​0​2​0​/​1​0​/​0​5​/​p​c​r​-​i​n​v​e​n​t​o​r​-​i​t​-​d​o​e​s​n​t​-​t​e​l​l​-​y​o​u​-​t​h​a​t​-​y​o​u​-​a​r​e​-​s​i​ck/.

Engel­brecht, Tors­ten, Köhnlein Claus, Sama­tha Bai­ley, and Ste­fa­no Sco­glio. Virus Mania: How the Medi­cal Indus­try Con­ti­nu­al­ly Invents Epi­de­mics, Making Bil­li­on-Dol­lar Pro­fits At Our Expen­se. 3rd ed. Books on Demand, 2021

Fede­ri­ci, Sil­via. Cali­ban and the Witch. Brook­lyn: Auto­no­me­dia, 2004.

Feyn­man, Richard. »What is Sci­ence?« Pre­sen­ted at the fif­te­enth annu­al mee­ting of the Natio­nal Sci­ence Tea­chers Asso­cia­ti­on, 1966 in New York City, and reprin­ted from The Phy­sics Tea­cher Vol. 7, issue 6, 1969, pp. 313 – 320 on www. Feyn​man​.com. http://​www​.feyn​man​.com/​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​/​w​h​a​t​-​i​s​-​s​c​i​e​n​ce/.

Fitts, Cathe­ri­ne Aus­tin. »The Injec­tion Fraud – It’s Not a Vac­ci­ne.« Sola­ri Report, May 27, 2020. https://​home​.sola​ri​.com/​d​e​e​p​-​s​t​a​t​e​-​t​a​c​t​i​c​s​-​1​0​1​-​t​h​e​-​c​o​v​i​d​-​i​n​j​e​c​t​i​o​n​-​f​r​a​u​d​-​i​t​s​-​n​o​t​-​a​-​v​a​c​c​i​ne/.

Gar­ner, Joy »Health ver­sus Dis­or­der, Dise­a­se, and Death: Unvac­ci­na­ted Per­sons Are Incom­men­sur­a­b­ly Healt­hi­er than Vac­ci­na­ted,« Inter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Vac­ci­ne Theo­ry, Prac­ti­ce, and Rese­arch., Vol.2 No. 2 (2022). Novem­ber 15, 2022 https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​5​6​0​9​8​/​i​j​v​t​p​r​.​v​2​i​2​.40

Hains, Tim. »Fau­ci: Attack­ing Me Is Attack­ing Sci­ence .« Real Clear Poli­tics , June 2021.https://​www​.real​cle​ar​po​li​tics​.com/​v​i​d​e​o​/​2​0​2​1​/​0​6​/​0​9​/​f​a​u​c​i​_​a​t​t​a​c​k​i​n​g​_​m​e​_​i​s​_​a​t​t​a​cking_science.html#!

Illich, Ivan: Medi­cal Neme­sis: The Expro­pria­ti­on of Health: New York: Pan­the­on, 1976;

Kass, Edward H. »Infec­tious Dise­a­ses and Social Chan­ge.« The Jour­nal of Infec­tious Dise­a­ses 123, no. 1 (1971): 110 – 14. http://​www​.jstor​.org/​s​t​a​b​l​e​/​3​0​1​0​8​855.

Lenin, Vla­di­mir. Impe­ria­lism, The Hig­hest Stage of Capi­ta­lism. Moscow: Pro­gress Publishers, 1963. https://​www​.mar​xists​.org/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​/​l​e​n​i​n​/​w​o​r​k​s​/​1​9​1​6​/​i​m​p​-​h​sc/.

Levins, Richard. »The Two Faces of Sci­ence.« Talk pre­sen­ted at Heal­thRoots Poli­ti­cal Eco­no­my of Health Semi­nar Series, Har­vard School of Public Health, Wed. Oct 17th | 12: 30 PM. https://​www​.you​tube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​a​E​A​0​u​t​1​G​uh4

— — – »Sci­en­ti­fic Method for Today’s Mar­ket.« The Mathe­ma­ti­cal Intel­li­gen­cer. 37 (1), 47 – 47, 2015 (March 1).

Lewon­tin, Richard. »Bio­lo­gy as Ideo­lo­gy.« Radio Lec­tu­re for CBC Mas­sey Lec­tures, Novem­ber 1990.‑1.2946847

Lopez, Ger­man. »9 Of 10 Top Drug­ma­kers Spend More on Mar­ke­ting than Rese­arch.« Vox. Febru­ary 11, 2015. https://​www​.vox​.com/​2​0​1​5​/​2​/​1​1​/​8​0​1​8​6​9​1​/​b​i​g​-​p​h​a​r​m​a​-​r​e​s​e​a​r​c​h​-​a​d​v​e​r​t​i​s​ing.

Lyons-Wei­ler, James & Paul Tho­mas. »Rela­ti­ve Inci­dence of Office Visits and Cumu­la­ti­ve Rates of Bil­led Dia­gno­ses Along the Axis of Vac­ci­na­ti­on.« Int. J. Envi­ron. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(22), 8674; https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​3​3​9​0​/​i​j​e​r​p​h​1​7​2​2​8​674.

Mar­gu­lis, Jen­ni­fer. The Busi­ness of Baby. New York: Scrib­ner, 2013.

Marx, Karl. Capi­tal: A Cri­tique of Poli­ti­cal Eco­no­my. Trans­la­ted by Samu­el Moo­re and Edward Ave­ling Vol. 1. Moscow: Pro­gress Publishers, 1954.

— — – Capi­tal: A Cri­tique of Poli­ti­cal Eco­no­my. Trans­la­ted by David Fern­bach. Vol. 2. Lon­don: Pen­gu­in, 1993.

Mohr, T. »Impe­ria­lism Today is Con­spi­ra­cy Pra­xis.« Mag­ma – Maga­zin Der Mas­se, Sep­tem­ber 24 2022.‑mohr/imperialism-today-is-conspiracy-praxis/.

Moo­re, Micha­el, and Meg­han O’Ha­ra. Sicko. Film. United Sta­tes: The Wein­stein Com­pa­ny, 2007.

Ras­nick, David. »The tyran­ny of dog­ma,« Jour­nal of Infor­ma­ti­on Ethics. 24. (2005), 76 – 95. https://​www​.bmar​tin​.cc/​d​i​s​s​e​n​t​/​d​o​c​u​m​e​n​t​s​/​R​a​s​n​i​c​k​1​5​.​pdf .

Smith, Richard. »Whe­re is the Wis­dom? The Pover­ty of Medi­cal Evi­dence. « Bri­tish Medi­cal Jour­nal no. 303, (Oct 5, 1991): 798 – 799. https://​chi​ro​.org/​G​r​a​p​h​i​c​s​_​B​o​x​_​L​I​N​K​S​/​F​U​L​L​/​W​h​e​r​e​_​I​s​_​T​h​e​_​W​i​s​d​o​m​.​s​h​tml

Ste­genga, Jacob. Medi­cal Nihi­lism. Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2018.

Washing­ton, Har­riet A.,  Medi­cal Apart­heid: The Dark Histo­ry of Medi­cal Expe­ri­men­ta­ti­on on Black Ame­ri­cans from Colo­ni­al Times to the Pre­sent. Knopf Dou­ble­day, 2008.

West, Jim. »Ever­y­thing You Lear­ned About the Cau­se of Polio is Wrong. « Green­Med­In­fo, August 21st 2015. https://​green​med​in​fo​.com/​b​l​o​g​/​e​v​e​r​y​t​h​i​n​g​-​y​o​u​-​l​e​a​r​n​e​d​-​a​b​o​u​t​-​c​a​u​s​e​-​p​o​l​i​o​-​w​r​ong.

Wiki­pe­dia con­tri­bu­tors, »Base rate fall­a­cy,« Wiki­pe­dia, The Free Ency­clo­pe­dia, https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​?​t​i​t​l​e​=​B​a​s​e​_​r​a​t​e​_​f​a​l​l​a​c​y​&​o​l​d​i​d​=​1​1​2​5​8​1​0​770

— — — - »Natio­nal Child­hood Vac­ci­ne Inju­ry Act,« Wiki­pe­dia, The Free Ency­clo­pe­dia, acces­sed Janu­ary 14, 2023).

Wik­is­our­ce con­tri­bu­tors. »Page:Congressional Record Volu­me 81 Part 3.djvu/154.« Wik­is­our­ce. https://​en​.wik​is​our​ce​.org/​w​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​?​t​i​t​l​e​=​P​a​g​e​:​C​o​n​g​r​e​s​s​i​o​n​a​l​_​R​e​c​o​r​d​_​V​o​l​u​m​e​_​8​1​_​P​a​r​t​_​3​.​d​j​v​u​/​1​5​4​&​o​l​d​i​d​=​7​8​8​1​645 (acces­sed Janu­ary 13, 2023).

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert