The Great SPANISH FLU Hoax & Myth- 1918 Study proves Spanish FLU was NOT the result of a contagious airborne virus; history repeats with corona

This is a history lesson.

The following studies prove that the Spanish Flu was another great Hoax perpetuated on the people of the world. A coverup, if you will, of the true cause of illness.

The Spanish Flu was not the result of communicable, pathogenic, airborne disease at all, but rather a combination of vaccine damage (Mass Vaccine campaigns were underway globally after World War I) and the result of massive radar operations by the Navy, resulting in electrical interference that disturbed the naturally occurring Shumann resonance (around 7.8 HZ) that the body needs to maintain homeostasis.

Schumann Resonance:



For more information, please read 'The Electric Rainbow'. An excellent book on this subject.

Here is a video summary of the following information, if you're not inclined to read:







------------------------------------------

THE SPANISH FLU 'CONTAGION' EXPERIMENTS FAILED MISERABLY

The US Navy performed experiments on 'volunteers' in 1918, attempting to induce illness by exposing them to sick patients with Influenza. All of the experiments failed miserably, proving the virus was NOT the result of a communicable 'virus' at all.

Dr. Rosenau and the US Navy performed the experiment on 100 Sailors, attempting to induce illness in them by aerosolising 'infected' tissue and spraying them, swabbing people's noses with flem from the infected, and even giving them EYEDROP of the 'virus' collected from the infected patients mucus and blood. At one point, they even had the infected cough directly into the volunteers mouth.

A quote from a Study: :book:

Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco.

The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients.

Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face.

None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza.



He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “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, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”69 (p. 313)

[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (secure)]

AWKWARD! the virus hunters of old, as well as those today, can't prove these 'viruses' induce illness. Starting to see why you're not taught proper history?


Here's the original experiment journal of Dr. Rosenau and the US Navy, and their work on 100 Sailors, you can read it in full here:

[link to jamanetwork.com (secure)]


If you don't understand History, you're doomed to repeat it!

There was no communicable virus then, just as there is no communicable virus now. There are only toxins that the body reacts to making you sick. This can occur from manufacturing, vaccines, food poisoning, poor water quality, electrical interference, and a host of manifold incongruent factors that make the body ill. What they're calling a 'virus' is the bodies attempt to heal itself.

This is why today's scientists can't seem to isolate the SARS-2 Corona virus, and only have its 'virion' RNA protein particles; they have never properly separated it from a sample or observed it attacking cells and replicating in a laboratory, let alone via air, because they can't.

The scientists don't have the virus shell en toto, rather they claim they have a 'piece' of protein that came from it, and can only find unproven, uncorrelated 'antibodies' they claim came after the virus. Are you seeing a pattern? Where is the actual virus?

All 'studies' being posited as 'proof of virus' use a fallacious, 80% false-positive, PCR test to 'prove' the virus has spread. The PCR is ubiquitously known for its errors. The virologists have never been able to induce symptoms in a subject by direct transference of these 'virion' particles, since they are in truth, the body producing exosomes to heal itself.



PROBLEMS WITH CORONA STUDIES:

The 'airborn' study performed in China didn't use a control, and only took a tissue sample of a patient, sprayed it onto an object, and waited three hours for it to die. Yet, no CONTROL with a similar blood sample that could prove this was unique to the virus was used, and absolutely zero true experimentation to show it was pathogenic was performed.

In these studies, no electron microscope was used to isolate and observe the virus, they only decided to use one after they 'recreated' the virus with a PCR Polymerase reaction, which alters the sample. Essentially, they had to 'rebuilt' a Frankenstein protein with a machine and computer model, and then claim they observed it in an eleectron microscope. This is not how science works.

Unfortunately, the studies for this corona virus are not worth the computers they were typed on, just as they were useless for the Spanish Flu of 1918. The modern studies fail to isolate via centrifuge, and simply mix a tissue a non isolated sample with lab fluids and antiobiotics, which produce exosomes of their own accord after antibiotic contact. This is why they will never use a control in these studies, because it would prove that any sample could create 'virus particles'.



To top it off, these studies again use the fallacious PCR test to 'prove' the virus spread into monkey Vero cells, while never properly isolating the virus! Again, the PCR is not a proper metric, as I will prove below. These virologists have never seen the virus with an electron microscope and observed it multiplying. In fact, generally they're only doing the experiment with computer models, or 'rebuilding' the sample via RT-PCR, which is fallacious metric since they aren't working with the original sample.

Therefore it is impossible to claim the virus is pathogenic.

A lesson on PCR testing:

A PCR test was built for DNA polymerase reaction, it essentially makes copies of DNA, was not built for RNA, and absolutely should NOT be used for detection of a virus according to its inventor. Indeed, Kerry Mullis, the inventor of PCR, said this very thing, and eschewed its use for 'virus' detection.



RT PCR claims its amplification method using fluorescence to highlight pathogen population can pin down the number to a single molecule.

However, the test results are off by a factor > 3, as for example if a particular pathogen load is tallied at 80000 the actual number could be 20000 or lesser. Besides, to begin with, one should know the baseline fluorescence number of the of the pathogen in the primary isolate before amplification cycles can begin.

Prior to RT-PCR, the initial steps would entail confirmation of the pathogen from electron microscopy and isolation of pure sample of the germ from alleged diseased tissue. Nothing is definitive about the quantification. It’s primarily mathematical fudge and human subjectivity.

As for the RT-PCR qualitatively identifying specific DNA sequences of the pathogen (in this case, SARSCoV-2 RNA virus) in the primary isolate under scrutiny..the claim is fraught with several limitations like contaminants, cross pathogen activity, pathogen debris, human cellular material, number of cycles, primary and secondary reactive test isolate, fallibility of human judgement etc. There is no simple 'positive or negative' in a PCR test.

As for talking in terms of symptomatic, asymptomatic, positives, negatives, false negatives and false positives via PCR is nonsense and ambiguity. You're either sick, or you're not. Logic alone should tell you that if 1000 people have the 'virus', and only 1 of them is sick, then what they're claiming is a pathogenic virus is NOT the cause of illness.


Conclusion: Spanish Flu And Corona Bologna Hoaxes- BUSTED