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.

Vaccines

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?

Diphtheria?

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 percent 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 percent 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.

Alternatives

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 percent and 55 percent 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, 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 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.

Footnotes

^[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​.corbettreport​.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://​edwardslavsquat​.substack​.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,« https://magma-magazin.su/2022/09/t‑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://​dissolvingillusions​.com/, through a google search — though pages selling their excellent book are harder to so brazenly censor. See all graphs here: https://​dissolvingillusions​.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

https://​www​.bmartin​.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

^[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, https://drsambailey.com/a‑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://​drtomcowan​.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://​coldwelliantimes​.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​-guardian​.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​.nytimes​.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. https://drsambailey.com/a‑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​.marxists​.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://​drtomcowan​.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. swissinfo​.ch, May 7, 2021. https://​www​.swissinfo​.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​-guardian​.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. Feynman​.com. http://​www​.feynman​.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​.solari​.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​.realclearpolitics​.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​.marxists​.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​.youtube​.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. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1990-cbc-massey-lectures-biology-as-ideology‑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. https://magma-magazin.su/2022/09/t‑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​.bmartin​.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://​chiro​.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://​greenmedinfo​.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​.wikipedia​.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). https://web.archive.org/web/20221125055505/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act.

Wikisource contributors. »Page:Congressional Record Volume 81 Part 3.djvu/154.« Wikisource. https://​en​.wikisource​.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).