Tag: germ theory

The no-virus debate: Clare Craig

This is a response to Clare Craig’s essay in the Daily Sceptic titled: The Unsolved Mystery of How Viruses Spread – and Why Germ Theory Isn’t the Whole Answer which asks why the epidemiology of influenza does not support the idea of viral transmission.

Clare is highly unusual amongst virus believers in taking an interest in the epidemiology of influenza and in attempting to explain it. However, this is the correct way to proceed. Evidence must be explained; this is an immutable rule of scientific endeavour. It is no good having a nice sounding theory of small particles, genetic sequences and immunity theory, if your predictions simply do not accord with reality.

If the predictions of virology are insufficient to explain the epidemiology, then there must be some additional or alternative cause of disease which leads to the patterns we see. Clare gives some plausible mechanisms for these.

Compare with the views of the emerging ‘no-virus’ movement who have worked out that no virus has ever been isolated but take no interest whatsoever in the epidemiology of disease. Andrew Kaufman has stated in his interview with Steve Kirsch that “Epidemiology is not science” and Tom Cowan is claiming that there is “no such thing as disease” but that all symptoms are really just signs of the body healing itself and are therefore beneficial.

This is no way to make progress. The epidemiology of influenza is key to its cause, as we have nothing else to work with.

The Unsolved Mystery of How Viruses Spread – and Why Germ Theory Isn’t the Whole Answer – Clare Craig [link]

The essay makes some key claims and presents arguments for each:

  • Viruses exist and are the cause of disease (this post disagrees)
  • The epidemiology of influenza does not support the orthodox view of viral spread (correct)
  • Some other seasonal influence is at work (this post agrees and identifies such influence as some sort of disturbance of the Earth’s magnetic field)

Evidence for viral contagion

Viral genetic material turns up in clusters of sick people. The sequences match. They change over time with new mutations in consistent ways without reverting. Even though testing is not perfect, people with positive tests are far more likely to be sick than not. – Clare Craig

This is not evidence for viral contagion.

The existence of viruses has not been proven and so it is premature to talk of ‘viral genetic material’. Moreover, ‘genetic material’ is said to be present in tissue cultures and not within living organisms; this is the whole aim of so-called viral isolation.

No virus has adequately isolated and so we can never say with any certainty whether or not a particular genetic sequence originated in a virus or somewhere else.

As a consequence of this we can never say with any certainty that changes in measured sequences are the result of ‘mutation’. All that we know is that the results of certain laboratory procedures and software routines produce somewhat reproducible results which vary over time and seem to correlate with disease. Everything else is mere interpretation.

One alternative interpretation is that the body is responding to seasonal variations of the Earth’s electromagnetic field in a stereotypical way. Sick people are in a ‘state’ where metabolism, regulatory processes and gene expression are significantly altered and something of this new state persists in the tissue culture. It is this regulatory persistence which then gives rise to the patterns we see with PCR tests and sequencing results.

Such patterns in the results are then misinterpreted as mutations. The lack of reversion may be caused by the ever changing magnetic field or by the body’s tendency to adapt to almost any stimulus and to produce a noticeably different response when it next encounters a similar stimulus.

The lack of reversion is thereby explained along with the apparent rapid global spread of novel variations in sequences which is now not caused by transmission at all but by the propagation of electromagnetic effects across the globe.

Another interpretation is that a tissue culture forms a biological system of itself which is capable of receiving and interpreting seasonal cues from the environment. In this case, the resulting sequencing results are less related to the state of the original host and more related to the laboratory procedures.

Disease correlates with season and so PCR tests correspond with both season and disease.

PCR and sequencing equipment work by measuring small changes in electrical voltage and so we cannot rule out that seasonal phenomena in the Earth’s magnetic field may have some effect upon the outcome of these procedures by directly influencing the mechanics of the equipment itself. Magnetic variations can be very strong; see the Carrington Event.

Viruses have been well described. Even if isolation methods are not flawless, electron microscopy and crystallography have shown fine-grained details including the shape of structures like the surface of the spike protein.

Viruses have not been adequately isolated and we therefore cannot say that any image seen through an electron microscope is a virus, no matter how well described the morphology. There is little point in looking at a ‘spike protein’ if you can’t demonstrate its function and can’t demonstrate transmission.

Spike proteins may be present in sick individuals but the protein arises from the regulatory status and not the other way around. The spike is a result of sickness, not the cause of it and does not itself constitute a virus.

Morphology, no matter how distinctive, is not proof of function, not proof of virus and not proof of causation of disease.

It has been shown that most so-called viral morphologies can be produced in a clean culture without the presence of a virus. ttps://substack.com/@controlstudies/note/c-192514695

The possibility exists that the images seen in an electron microscope are not even present in the sample but instead are merely artefacts of the microscopy process: https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/09/07/harold-hillmans-artefacts/

At high doses, transmission works. Human challenge trials demonstrate that viral exposure can cause illness when the dose is high enough.

The referenced link shows no human to human transmission, no transmission via breath and no transmission via droplet. It did not isolate a virus properly and therefore did not demonstrate viral exposure via any means at all.

All these arguments presuppose that the existence a virus has already been established and that such a virus has been successfully isolated. Neither of these has happened and so no transmission study is worth anything in this respect.

Genetic tracing of viruses during outbreaks shows that distinct lineages spread from person to person in predictable clusters, confirming person-to-person transmission.

No lineage has been seen to ‘spread from person to person’. Influenza occurs in geographic clusters and such a clustering is merely assumed to have been produced by transmission.

Genetic sequences are assumed to come from a virus but this is not yet proven. The tracing of a sequence is, of itself, not proof of the existence of a sub-microscopic particle containing genetic material and is not proof of any causal link between such sequences and any actual disease.

If individuals are responding in predictable ways to disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field for example, then this will give the impression of transmission. Whole communities will get sunburn at the beach but this does not confirm person to person transmission.

This evidence explains the mechanism of viral infection. But it does not explain the timing of the waves of infection that are characteristic of many viruses like influenza and COVID-19.

No, the evidence does not explain the mechanism of viral infection.

  • Genetic tracing looked at group clustering, not individual mechanisms
  • Genetic coincidences in clusters says nothing about a mechanism
  • Purported morphology of viruses has no relevance to mechanism
  • High dose nasal inoculation is not a natural transmission mechanism

Big Fail.

Where the traditional model fails

Normal-dose challenge trials often fail. The evidence here is strong: under experimental conditions, exposure frequently does not result in illness. A recent study confirmed this again.

“Often fail”? – “Invariably fail” is closer to the truth.

Influenza comes in seasonal waves at specific locations and that is that. If you arrange a trial outside of flu season you will get no new patients. If you attempt a trial during flu season then either nobody gets ill (wrong location) or a reliable 10% of patients will get ill.

Proving actual transmission will be another Big Fail though as control groups will get as ill as the rest of them. See studies in Antarctica, submarines, cruise liners and space stations.

Hospital-acquired infections peak at the same time as cases in the community. If spread were primarily driven by close contact, we would expect a lag, as community infections peak then admissions then within hospital infections. But the expected lag does not occur. In fact, hospital-acquired infections peak before the admissions to the hospital.  

Influenza is caused by exposure to antipathetic EMF whether it be from natural or man-made sources. These are invariably localised, can entrain to a single individual and can penetrate the roof of a building. There is no escape from them: Influenza is a regulatory disorder caused by changes in the weather

The conditions in hospitals with a high degree of ambient EMF, 5G monitoring equipment, patients in close proximity and lack of fresh oxygen (What causes pneumonia?) further weakens patients and expedites outbreaks in hospitals.

I asked a local covid nurse if she was worried about catching the disease. She replied: “No, nurses have very good hand hygiene” She was not worried about transmission by breath.

Doctors, nurses, dentists, care workers, shop till assistants have theoretically far greater exposure than the rest of us and should therefore be sick almost all of the time. This never happens.

Waves occur with seasonal regularity. Epidemic peaks in the UK often occur with peak deaths at predictable times of year before falling away for a time

This is the first big clue to the cause of influenza. If millions of people get sick at certain times of the year, then the time of the year has something to do with getting sick: Influenza is a regulatory disorder caused by changes in the weather

The illusion of viral timing

It is often claimed that respiratory virus waves are driven by viral evolution or viral interference. In this view, waves happen when new variants arise that can evade existing immunity, which increases transmissibility and allows the virus to reinfect previously exposed populations.

The reality is .. much harder to explain by mutation or interference alone.

The timing is too consistent

In the UK and many other temperate countries, waves have arrived roughly every 13 weeks, across multiple years and virus types. This rhythm has held steady through variant shifts, travel restrictions and mass behavioural changes. Random events like mutation and competition do not produce this kind of precision.

Influenza arrives with a seasonal rhythm, strongest at winter solstice, but with smaller waves in summer, spring and autumn. The timing is slightly different for different regions and there are latitudinal patterns. Influenza and weather

Submariners are not protected from infections

Quite. Seasonal changes have an effect even when under water or in space. This suggests the presence of electromagnetic scalar waves (Tesla waves) which can penetrate all forms of matter.

 Faster mutation does not speed things up

In the 24 months before December 2021, pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 accumulated around 20 mutations per year. From January 2022 to mid-2025, Omicron accumulated approximately 25 per year. Despite this 25% increase in mutation speed, the waves kept arriving on the same seasonal schedule. 

This is because mutation is an illusion. Sequences are downstream of disease states and disease states vary strictly with the seasons. See above.

Hospitals are full of virus aerosols year-round but infections still peak and fall

An AI engine could not find an experiment that claims this and so this is likely to be an incorrect inference drawn from an unproven theory.

Viruses have not been shown to exist in hospitals or anywhere else.

Spread skips regions

Each variant of SARS-CoV-2 spread country to country following the same seasonal susceptibility patterns as influenza. Large regions were skipped entirely in early waves e.g. Eastern Europe in spring 2020 and UK, Portugal, Ireland (i.e., the west of Western Europe) in spring 2021. 

This is further support for the idea that the cause of influenza comes directly from the atmosphere. We need a cause which can, at the same time coordinate a disease over a large area but which may also have definite boundaries. An outbreak may cover an area the size of a cruise liner or a whole continent.

Weather systems are a good candidate for this, being organised along the lines of cyclonic vortex structures. Such structures may cover a continent or may be focused down to something a few yards across.

The susceptibility model

The model that makes sense of these observations is one where infectious agents are necessary but not sufficient. The timing of illness must be due to something else.

Infectious agents have not been shown to exist and so cannot be considered necessary.

There must be a third factor that:

  1. Peaks once each season (always in autumn and winter and not always in spring and summer)
  2. Affects only a fraction of the population each season
  3. Can spare certain regions entirely in any given wave
  4. Is capable of synchronising illness peaks across hospitals and communities

Yes, at last we have some agreement.

The necessary factor is some sort of disturbance in the Earth’s magnetic field. Supporting evidence is that influenza outbreaks are sometimes synchronous along lines of latitude and exhibit a general movement from tropics to poles in winter. Exposure to man made EM disturbances such as 5G causes influenza in trials and the initial outbreaks of covid correlated strongly with the rollout of 5G in Wuhan, Italy and New York.

The evidence excludes certain possibilities:

Other environmental factors like electromagnetic or space weather effects have cyclical differences but these track annually, not quarterly.

No. Big mistake here to exclude space weather effects. We have:

  • Seasonal effects of the magnetic field including those in summer, spring and fall
  • Correlations between season and disease
  • Correlations between season and bio-markers
  • Correlations between solar activity and pandemics Sunspots and ‘pandemics’
  • Correlations between magnetic field strength and covid cases
  • Correlations between covid bio-markers and phases of the moon
  • Correlations between specific weather events and influenza Influenza and weather
  • Weather itself as highly seasonal
  • Papers claiming sferics as a cause of regulatory disturbance
  • 7-day harmonics on covid cases
  • Distinctly different behaviour of magnetic flux ropes in winter and summer Magnetic flux ropes
  • Eclipses and comets implicated in disease outbreaks Neutrinos, eclipses and plagues
  • More..
Orlyuk, Romenets

The chart shows a clear correlation between the Kp index of the Earth’s magnetic field and covid cases. Covid cases in red with Earth’s magnetic field in blue (trendline in black)

Nasirpour et al.

This chart from Nasirpour et al. shows a clear association between pandemics and solar activity.

The immune clock

Our immune systems change with the seasons. Gene expression studies show clear and consistent shifts in immune pathways across the year – with January and July as polar opposites and transitional patterns in April and October. These changes are not subtle – nearly a quarter of genes are affected. The pattern is the opposite in Europe to Australia. In some cases, the winter and summer immune profiles are as different as those seen in entirely distinct disease states. 

If there are no viruses then there is no immune system as there is nothing to be immune to!

So what are they measuring?

What is being measured is some parameters of the regulatory system and these are seen to vary across the seasons. The system gets its cues from external sources such as light, temperature and electromagnetic events. Biomarkers have been seen to vary according to the phase of the moon but nobody believes that this is because of gravity or even moonlight and so the only remaining candidate is an electromagnetic signal. See: Magnetic flux ropes The Shnoll Effect Birth date, lifespan and disease Frank Brown Giorgio Piccardi

Now, as gene expression is involved, then anything involving gene expression is involved and that means almost anything.

The ‘immune system’ is regulatory in nature and phenomena such as the coordination of symptoms and sustained high temperature in influenza are surely managed by such a system as opposed to a small viral particle.

Disease is therefore a problem of regulation and regulation is receptive to cosmic rhythms: Frank Brown

Susceptibility and dose

Whatever the factors are that lead to susceptibility they must overcome the mucus barrier of the respiratory tract which is normally impenetrable to viruses.

No, because no virus is involved. Disease is the direct result of atmospheric disturbances on the regulatory system. No material substance is involved.

There are three main explanations for the seasonal cycling seen in human immune gene expression:

  1. The viral mutation model. Immune cycling is downstream of viral exposure. Seasonal waves of infection, with everyone exposed to airborne viruses, drive immune activation, while gene expression shifts reflect that exposure.

Alternatively, gene expression, ‘mutation’ and ‘immune evolution’ are all downstream effects of atmospheric disturbances which are slightly different each year. Affected individuals adapt to specific disturbances and produce different sequencing results thereby creating the illusion of mutation. The illusion of immunity is similarly created as, having adapted to a stimulus, they will likely not succumb to a similar stimulus the following year.

Immunity studies can, to some extent, be ‘repurposed’.

  2. Innate biological rhythm. Each person’s immune system runs on a built‑in annual clock, independent of environment or exposure.
  3. Environmental entrainment. Immune function responds gradually to sustained environmental inputs – atmospheric, electro-magnetic or otherwise – which vary by season and location.

This one is tempting I will admit but I think that it is again incorrect; there are no built-in clocks in the human body and even the idea of ‘entrainment’ is highly doubtful.

Influenza outbreaks conform to a characteristic pattern with narrow peaks which occur close to the winter solstice but which vary in their timing from year. Such variation is not characteristic of entrainment where we would expect very precise timings with any variation taking several annual cycles to develop.

There is disease following tornadoes and earthquakes, both associated with electromagnetic output. There are associations between sferics and headaches and there are almost instantaneous outbreaks associated with humidity changes or the rollout of cell-phone technologies. These rapid responses to randomly timed exposure show that population entrainment is certainly not necessary for the production of disease.

What seems to happen is that our bodies know approximately what sort of rhythm is required and will pick one from the available sources as a timekeeper. Speeding up the metabolism of laboratory animals will not speed up the timekeeping and so the time keeping does not arise from any metabolic process.

Our bodies seem to be able to select and receive any desired rhythm from the environment but unable to produce it internally. See: Frank Brown

The fact that people in Australia have the opposite cycle of immune gene expression indicates that the rhythm is not innate.

Told you so!

Experiments on students in deep underground caves show that they can sustain circadian rhythms with no exposure to light and this has led scientists to think that the rhythm is innate. However, the experiences of astronauts and submarine crew suggest that some influence is still reaching them somehow.

The electromagnetic scalar waves as described by Tesla are said to be capable of penetrating water or rock and so these must be considered as a prime candidate for transmission of environmental or maybe ‘cosmic’ information.

Note that sferics are said to be measurable thousands of kilometres away from the source with little to no attenuation. This is a defining characteristic of a Tesla wave.

This lack of attenuation can only be achieved if the energy of the pulse is strictly contained in a finite footprint. This will clearly result in exposure to only a certain percentage of the population and will confine such exposure to limited geographical regions at any one time.

However, it could well be something we simply have not measured e.g. a seasonal atmospheric phenomenon that is invisible to our current tools.

Yes. This is the way to go.

Contemporary physics is unable to describe biological systems despite the best efforts of both physicists and biologists. Moreover, there are so many anomalies and unexplained phenomena in the world that we must conclude that physics cannot even explain physics!

This incompleteness is important. We must expect to find things that we cannot explain in conventional terms and must not panic too much. The temptation to ignore anomalies must be resisted as must the temptation to use terms such as ‘pseudo-science’ for almost anything outside of orthodoxy. Arguments such as “This cannot be true because there is no physical explanation” are now invalid.

This raises the salience of experimental observations and emphasises the importance of epidemiology. The study of pure correlation is science without a mechanism, it enables us to uncover some aspect of truth even when we have little to no idea of how things work.

References

The Unsolved Mystery of How Viruses Spread – and Why Germ Theory Isn’t the Whole Answer – Clare Craig
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/01/27/the-unsolved-mystery-of-how-viruses-spread-and-why-germ-theory-isnt-the-whole-answer

The spread of the Sars CoV-2 virus depends on the Earth’s magnetic field – M.I. Orlyuk, A.O. Romenets, 2022

Scalar Waves – Konstantin Meyl
https://www.meyl.eu/go/index92d2.html

Revealing the relationship between solar activity and COVID-19 and forecasting of possible future viruses using multi-step autoregression (MSAR) – Nasirpour et al.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33725302/

Natural very-low-frequency sferics and headache – Vaitl et al.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11594631/

Magnetic flux ropes

Abstract: Energy and matter are transferred from the sun to Earth in brief dynamic bursts (magnetic flux events) via electromagnetic filaments, also known as magnetic flux ropes. The ropes initially form at the Earth’s equator and then travel towards the winter pole. These events seem likely candidates for the original causes of regulatory disorders such as influenza and may explain the simultaneity of outbreaks along lines of latitude. Flux ropes that are visible through the movement of air may be what is represented in much ancient art but misinterpreted as depictions of meteorites. Exceptionally powerful flux events may be the cause of ancient craters on the moon, Mars, Earth and other planets and are still detectable today in a weakened form. Flux ropes likely take the form of Birkeland currents.

Below: An artist’s depiction of a magnetic flux rope impacting the Earth.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm?list179029

Description

A flux transfer event (FTE) occurs when a magnetic portal opens in the Earth’s magnetosphere through which high-energy particles flow from the Sun. This connection, while previously thought to be permanent, has been found to be brief and very dynamic. The European Space Agency’s four Cluster spacecraft and NASA’s five THEMIS probes have flown through and surrounded these FTEs, measuring their dimensions and identifying the particles that are transferred between the magnetic fields.

According to NASA, Earth’s magnetosphere and the Sun’s magnetic field are constantly pressed against one another on the dayside of Earth. Approximately every eight minutes, these fields briefly merge, forming a temporary “portal” between the Earth and the Sun through which high-energy particles such as solar wind can flow. The portal takes the shape of a magnetic cylinder about the width of Earth. Current observations place the portal at up to 4 times the size of Earth – Wikipedia

Flux events as the cause of moon craters

The moon, Mars, Venus and to some extent the Earth, are covered with craters which could well have been caused by magnetic flux events. The craters are said to have been caused by the impact of comets, but several factors mitigate against this:

  • Arguments that a lack of atmosphere on the moon allows free passage of comets fail when applied to the Earth
  • All these craters seem to be of a similar depth regardless of their radius and assumed impact mass
  • All the craters on the moon, at least, are circular in shape and never elliptical. This suggests that all impact is perpendicular to the surface of the body. This is too much to be a coincidence and needs some explanation
  • The moon craters show a general spiralling aspect (subjective) and pole clustering unexpected from the impact of random chunks of rock

Are these craters instead the result of powerful magnetic flux ropes which have attached to the moon temporarily and melted the rock into a circle? A magnetic tornado has accumulated debris at its centre and deposited it in a small mound which is easily visible in many pictures. The circular aspect is caused by the tendency of the tornado to ‘ground’ in a least energy pathway or maybe for it to be directly guided by the moon’s gravitational field.

Persistence of ancient rope connections?

Contemporary maps of the moon’s gravitational field show clear anomalies that coincide precisely with existing craters.

https://science.nasa.gov/lunar-science/focus-areas/physical-sciences/

Analyzing GRAIL data: first lunar gravity field solutions at AIUB
https://www.aiub.unibe.ch/forschung/leo_bahn__und_schwerefeldbestimmung/analyzing_grail_data_first_lunar_gravity_field_solutions_at_aiub/index_ger.html

Not the preponderance of anomalies on the visible side of the moon (the side facing the Earth).

The technique used was to have two satellites orbit the moon and to form a radio wave connection between them. As the satellites moved around the moon, interference patterns in the radio waves suggested that the distance between the satellites had changed by a very small amount and this was attributed to small changes in the gravitational field of the moon. The scientists speculate that these gravitational discontinuities are caused by the surface irregularities of the moon.

NASA

Now if we have crater-like shapes on the moon and are measuring the same irregularities out in orbit then it seems inevitable that we would measure the same irregularities if we were in a higher or lower orbit. To rephrase this, there exists a gravitational(?) tube or filament extending from the moon craters to the satellite and beyond.

The images are crisp which implies a sharp edge to the filament. Newtonian gravity is radiative and dissipative; it is inconceivable that it should produce such artefacts. The filaments are sharp and hold their shape and this suggests some centripetal ‘field movement’ typical of electromagnetic fields.

The notion that these are gravity tubes originating in the physical matter of the moon makes it credible that they should simply dissipate into space at larger orbits, but the formulation as electromagnetic filaments allows the possibility that they hold their shape all the way to some other destination. Now since almost all of these anomalies are on the side of the moon that permanently faces Earth, the logical conclusion is that this is where their true origin lies.

A plausible hypothesis

The gravitational filaments in moon orbit are really some sort of electromagnetic current produced by discharge from the Earth, either directly from the surface or from somewhere in the ionosphere. The moon craters were formed millennia ago from the discharge and although the intensity has abated, the connection has persisted and the filaments persist to this day.

The permanent connection between the Earth and moon has affected the rotation of the moon and entrained it to the position of the Earth, giving the rotation we see today whereby the same hemisphere of the moon is permanently facing the our planet.

The discharge of possibly vast amounts of energy from Earth to moon acts as a stabilising influence on our planet’s ionosphere and makes life here less hazardous.

The filaments are permanently tethered to the Earth but must somehow cope with the Earth’s rotation. One possibility is that they ‘drag’ along lines of latitude as the Earth spins and that this causes synchronous effects in the health of the population (see below). The dragging may be continuous or may pause for significant periods at some locations more than others; after all, certain locations on the moon seem able to fix the filaments permanently.

A passing over of a filament or a sudden discharge event may destabilise the human regulatory system causing measurable effects in the health of the population.

If there also exist filaments from the sun to the Earth, then these no doubt will interact with the Earth-moon filaments, causing more disturbances and possibly adding a 29.5 day periodic component to any effects on health or biometrics.

A flux event as the cause of Earthly craters

Many similar craters appear on Earth, with one example, the Eye of the Sahara (Richat structure), shown below. This is claimed to be an eroded bubble in the Earth’s mantle, but could it just as easily have been caused by magnetic flux ropes? Note the concentric circles and alternating directions of the breaks in the rocks.

Flux ropes as Birkeland currents

If a flux rope has come all the way from the sun or makes it to the moon without significant attenuation then there must be some ‘cohesive’ forces that are holding all this energy together and preventing it from dissipating into the cosmos. This observation taken together with the concentric circles shown in once molten rock above, suggests that the flux ropes adopt the form of the alternating coaxial currents referred to by cosmologists as a Birkeland current (See below).

The phenomenon is electromagnetic in nature and arises naturally from the laws of electromagnetism. (Wallace Thornhill)

Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century – Wallace Thornhill
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOAAJ/TOAAJ-4-191.pdf

The Great Serpent as a flux rope

Depictions of some sort of serpent abound on the planet in various forms, here the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio.

The head of the snake is often aligned with the spring equinox and is accepted by many as representing the Sun. Some have interpreted the sculpture as a whole as representing either a solar flare or a stream of meteorites originating at the sun and causing some sort of catastrophe on Earth.

Another interpretation is that what is depicted here is not a violent stream of flaming rocks, but a sinuous plasma tornado initiated by a magnetic flux rope originating from the sun. The serpent may be a mighty tornado or it may be a routine electromagnetic effect that passes by unnoticed.

Elliptical craters

All the craters on the moon are circular but there exist elliptical craters in the Carolina Bays and other places. How are these formed?

An obvious guess is that they are formed by magnetic flux ropes which for some reason hit the surface at an angle. Why? Is this caused by latitude? The season? Some sort of geo-magnetic anomaly in the past that mis-guided the ropes?

They all look the same proportions and so it looks like they were all caused by the same phenomenon and possibly all at the same time. They appear to be lacking a central mound.

A seasonal indicator?

Computer simulations suggest that the behaviour of solar flux ropes is different according to season and may therefore act as an indicator of season. This may be of some relevance to seasonal disease.


“According to NASA, since Cluster and THEMIS have directly sampled FTEs, scientists can simulate FTEs on computers to predict how they might behave. Jimmy Raeder of the University of New Hampshire told his colleagues simulations show that the cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth’s equator and then roll over Earth’s winter pole. In December, FTEs roll over the North Pole; in July they roll over the South Pole.” – Wikipedia

“I think there are two varieties of FTEs: active and passive.” (David Sibeck) Active FTEs are magnetic cylinders that allow particles to flow through rather easily; they are important conduits of energy for Earth’s magnetosphere. Passive FTEs are magnetic cylinders that offer more resistance; their internal structure does not admit such an easy flow of particles and fields. (For experts: Active FTEs form at equatorial latitudes when the IMF tips south; passive FTEs form at higher latitudes when the IMF tips north.) 

So local electro-magnetic conditions are profoundly different in summer and winter, with the winter months transferring more energetic particles from the sun to Earth than the summer months.

What happens of you are standing underneath a sudden influx of energy from the sun?

A cause of disease?

The post: Influenza and field vortices speculated that influenza outbreaks are caused by electromagnetic field vortices in the atmosphere and the post: Influenza and weather found many correlations between weather events and outbreaks but only during winter months.

We need to account for:

  • Influenza is a regulatory disorder caused by changes in the weather
  • The regulatory system is electromagnetic in nature
  • Outbreaks form along lines of latitude
  • Outbreaks are correlated to changes in the weather
  • Changes in the weather are accompanied by changes in the local electromagnetic conditions
  • Outbreaks are seasonal but not related to temperature
  • The northern flu season starts at the equator and moves up the latitudes towards the north pole in winter (Hope-Simpson)
  • The southern flu season moves the other way
  • The correlations with weather events are very precise, but only in the correct season

The question that remains is then: “What is it that defines the season?”. We need to find some reason why the electromagnetic conditions are reliably different in winter, some explanation as to why the ‘season’ moves from south to north each year and a reason why the season does not coincide precisely with the calendar year.

The behaviour of the flux ropes gives us some basis for an explanation although the description is far from complete.

We now have a theoretical model (computer simulation), at least, which:

  • Is electromagnetic in nature
  • Is a highly localised phenomenon
  • Is seasonal in nature
  • Produces different local electro-magnetic conditions in summer and winter
  • Has some possibility of ‘movement’ from south to north
  • Could possibly travel along lines of latitude
  • Is likely linked to solar activity (sunspots etc.)

Latitudinal synchrony

The chart below shows the number of cases of flu measured over a period of 6 years in Cirencester (UK) and Prague.

The pattern matching is striking, with precisely matching timings and similar magnitudes. The same cause is present in both cases in towns which are 800 miles apart but at similar latitudes.

Hypothesis: Magnetic flux ropes are the cause of weather disturbances that lead to influenza outbreaks in these towns. If a flux rope can survive for more than a few hours only, then it traces out a line of disturbed magnetic activity on the ground as the Earth turns beneath it.

Think about what happens as the Earth turns. A rope from the sun cannot remain fixed at a point on the surface as this would mean looping around the planet at night time, which seems unlikely. The footprint of the rope must remain approximately stationary with respect to the sun whilst the Earth turns beneath it.

The flux ropes are described as moving towards the pole in the winter and it is interesting to note that although Prague is at a latitude of 50°, Cirencester is nearly two degrees north of this, at 51.7°. The rope may be spiralling slowly northwards.

Latitudinal gradient

Grenfell et al. in the chart below found a strong correlation between influenza ‘season’ and latitude, with outbreaks occurring later with the more northern latitudes. (The start of July is week zero I think)

This is an important discovery as the usual assumption is that outbreaks are somehow coincident with colder weather. This cannot be true as it would imply a general southerly progression from the north pole downwards.

How to explain?

If we think that influenza is caused by some atmospheric disturbance of electromagnetism, the in the first instance we are looking for some such disturbance that moves from south to north as the northern winter season progresses.

But we already have, from the Wikipedia article: “(Computer) simulations show that the cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth’s equator and then roll over Earth’s winter pole. In December, FTEs roll over the North Pole; in July they roll over the South Pole.”

This looks promising, but it isn’t too clear what is happening here. How long does the rolling take? What happens in October? Does it still roll all the way to the North Pole or does it pause half way?

This lack of clarity doesn’t really help our hypothesis but neither does it contradict it, so flux transfer events are still plausible candidates for the initiation of seasonal outbreaks of influenza.

Ancient petroglyphs and plasma discharge

Much ancient art seems to depict shapes similar to plasma discharge produced in a laboratory (Anthony Peratt) thereby suggesting that our atmosphere may have been considerably more electrically active in the past than it is today.

Crop circles

Crop circles are found mostly on Salisbury plain and have been theorised to have been caused by plasma whirlwinds (Wikipedia)

In Cilycym, Wales a farmer claims to have witnessed such a creation:

Mr William Cyril Williams wrote: “With reference to the corn circles mystery I actually witnessed one being made.  I was standing in a cornfield one morning and saw a whirlwind touching the ground and forming a circle in the corn.  It was just the strength of the wind in the whirlwind that formed the circle”.

The event happened in the late 1940’s when he worked on his father’s farm, Penfedw Farm at Cilycwm.  

https://www.stonehenge-avebury.net/scienceofcropcircles.htm

Gobekli Tepe

Carvings of snakes in Gobekli Tepe could easily depict magnetic flux ropes:

https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/

Newgrange

The rock art at Newgrange clearly depicts some sort of vortex wind flowing over some water:

Plausible hypotheses

Magnetic flux ropes in the past were more abundant and more visible. Even if they could not be seen directly, they could be ‘felt’ or inferred by circles in the grass for example.

Stonehenge, Avebury, Cilycwm, Newgrange and half of Salisbury plain are all at around 51° N, the same latitude as both Prague and Cirencester. This may or may not be of significance.

The flux ropes took up either permanent or seasonal residence at certain sacred places and the locals decided to make use of the intermittent (seasonal) energies associated with them.

Geoffrey Drum (Land of Chem) argues that these places were constructed as fertiliser factories, harnessing energy to facilitate bio-chemical reactions. Very possibly the astronomical orientation of the buildings helped to keep track of the season in order to optimise energy usage.

Smaller constructions are to be found all over the the world and are assumed to be tombs for the local dignitaries. An alternative idea might be that that are attempted healing chambers; the energy has been sensed or even seen by the locals and they have placed their sick there in the hope of rejuvenation.

References

Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth – Tony Phillips
https://web.archive.org/web/20090731010649/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm?list179029

Flux transfer event – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_transfer_event

Global Patterns in Seasonal Activity of Influenza A/H3N2, A/H1N1, and B from 1997 to 2005: Viral Coexistence and Latitudinal Gradients – Grenfell, Finkleman et al.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001296

How to catch a cold

An anecdotal description of a distinctive epidemiological pattern for the common cold suggests the possibility of contagion. Contagion is via bio-field transmission and requires sustained physical proximity or contact. Infectiousness is proportional to intensity. There is no incubation period. The hypothesis finds some support in the results of clinical trials.

Anecdotal evidence

The evidence is from my own personal experience. I hardly ever get ill and cannot remember the last time I visited a GP. I will, however, get the occasional mild cold and the circumstances are almost always the same.

My wife, ‘J’, who almost never gets ill, will visit London for a day trip and return, more often than not, feeling tired and unwell. The following day she will announce that she has a cold and I will likely start to feel unwell too. I will admit to having a cold the following day and take a day or so off work. This pattern has been fairly consistent for the last 40 years.

I used to think that the unusual viral flora in London was the initial cause and that maybe some apprehension on my part contributed to a lowering of the immune system. I no longer believe in viral transfer and am confident each time she returns, that I will not get sick as a consequence; and yet I still get sick.

This has happened one too many times now for me to think that it is a coincidence and so I am prepared to entertain the idea of some sort of contagion.

I will occasionally contract a cold by some other means and J will often then succumb the next day. I can’t remember an occasion when we both got a cold at the same time and it seems to me that the first person to get the cold suffers a little more, with the ‘recipient’ having a milder complaint.

The pattern is so distinctive and persistent that some explanation is demanded.

Hypothesis

  • A cold is a disturbance of the bio-field, a regulatory disorder
  • It can be transmitted by sustained proximity e.g. sleeping in the same bed
  • Contact between areas of skin may be a factor in transmission
  • There is no incubation period as such
  • The transmissibility of the disease is related to its intensity

Key points

The lack of incubation period helps to limit the spread of the disease; people get sick within hours and stay at home instead of spending 10 days wandering round in an asymptomatic state infecting other people.

The idea that intensity of disease is related to transmissibility is new and not quite the same as that of ‘viral load’. A major disturbance of the bio-field leads to ‘stronger’ or ‘more destabilising’ emissions which are more likely to affect another person. People who have the stronger emissions, however, are also those who are more likely to stay at home, thereby further restricting the spread.

On the other hand, those who remain active are the ones with the milder disturbances which are now less contagious. This is somewhat counter to the viral hypothesis where even an asymptomatic ‘super-spreader’ can trigger a global pandemic.

The above points are likely major confounding factors in the epidemiology; ‘spread’ is very limited.

Transmission requires sustained periods of exposure to an antipathetic bio-field, thereby further reducing the chances of transmission. The Common Cold Unit did all they could to prevent transmission this way by insisting upon a separate bedroom for each patient.

Transmission via droplets either on surfaces or in the air may be possible if there is some bio-field activity left in the droplet, but close, sustained contact with an entire human body will have more of an effect.

Biological synchronisation

The idea that biological information can be transferred from one person to another independently of the transfer of any material substance will be hard for some to accept. However, there are multiple papers on this, for example:

Human Heart Rhythms Synchronize While Co-sleeping – Yoon, Choi, Kim et al.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6421336/

The authors found that not only did heart rhythms synchronise, but sleep phases as well. The coupling between individuals was found to be not a phenomenon of mere resonance, but a interaction between the complex systems regulating such processes: “Synchronization is a phenomenon of adjustment of rhythms due to interaction between periodic or weakly chaotic systems (Pikovsky et al., 2003)”

This is the transfer of meaningful biological information.

Sleep synchrony was greatest when couples shared a bed: “A recent study demonstrated significantly more synchronization of sleep stages when couples slept together than when they slept in separate rooms “

More anecdotal evidence

A woman has four children, all boys and the two youngest share a double bed. The children will invariably get sick one at a time about 24 hours apart.

When my (4) kids get the flu, they all catch it one after the other; I take care of them while ill, but rarely catch it myself although it might occasionally happen; my husband whom we share the house and the meals with, but has his own routines and rhythms (that is – acts per se in the family rhythms), never ever “catches” our kids’ flu.

1. The second kid that “catches the cold” after his brother shares a double bed with him.

2. Then – and not always! – and with much less intensity gets ill the other kid that doesn’t share room with the first two but does share everyday life experiences with his brothers.

3. The older one, who shares room but not bed, neither activities with his younger brothers rarely “catches” it. A few years ago, before entering the teenage years, he was also “part of the pack” and the contagion patterns were different, that is: much more similar to point 2.

Can you say anything about the timeline? Do kids catch it within days, hours or weeks?

Roughly 1 day (20-24 hours) apart.

Another anecdote

A young man works with disabled children and spends a large proportion of his time with one child in particular. There is a lot pf physical contact and as winter approaches the child will succumb to diseases typical of care homes such as colds, flu and vomiting sickness. His carer will invariably succumb soon afterwards, with the same specific symptoms.

The carer will take some time off to visit his family and the following day his mother will display symptoms but never his stepfather. Some family connection, emotional closeness or maybe bio-field similarity seems to be implicated.

Similarity to shedding

These stories seem very similar to those narrated by victims of vaccine shedding: Vaccine shedding. Certain individuals seem to transmit and others receive, whilst proximity and relationships seem implicated. In some cases of shedding a woman will suffer symptoms immediately upon being close to her husband in the evenings, only to feel relief when he goes back to work the next day, only to repeat the next evening.

Clinical trials

If catching a cold is so easy, there should be plenty of clinical trials demonstrating this. However, things are not quite that simple, as almost all studies will assume at the outset that contagion is likely and in addition, that the cause is viral transmission.

Almost any coincidence is interpreted as transmission, seasonal factors are ignored and attention is focused upon a restricted range of specific vectors (surface droplets, aerosol) to the exclusion of others. If surface transmission fails then airborne transmission is assumed and if sustained proximity is a factor then airborne transmission is assumed.

Nevertheless, we can still glean something from these studies once these biases are recognised and adjusted for. If sustained proximity is claimed as a factor but no virus was isolated, then we are nevertheless permitted to conclude that: sustained proximity was a factor.

Shared air, holiday colds and fresher’s flu

Shared air seems to be a factor in the transmission of colds and again viral transmission is usually assumed, but other explanations are available.

If a classroom of children are breathing the same air over and again then one possibility is simply that the air has become stale or depleted in some sense. The post: What causes pneumonia? suggests precisely this, that some vital energy has been removed from the air and it is this lack of energy that is responsible for deterioration of the respiratory tract.

Is this phenomenon partly responsible for ‘holiday’ colds, whereby people will succumb either before or after a break, but in either case, after spending a few hours breathing shared and recycled air on a plane in close proximity to a host of other passengers?

Is ‘fresher’s flu’ the same phenomenon?

Seasonal factors

Colds are heavily seasonal but this is never considered a factor in studies as it it always assumed that transmission is via a virus which can spread more or less independently of the time of year. This has never been demonstrated of course and never will be if the existence of a virus is always assumed at the outset, as this assumption automatically invalidates the proof.

An alternative cause for a common cold should at least be considered and since there is a strong seasonal pattern, this alternative should have something to do with the seasons. Associations with changes in the weather further suggest that such changes may actually be causal somehow, particularly if we are now doubting viral infection as a cause.

The post: Influenza and weather suggests a direct destabilising of the regulatory system by atmospheric EMF which produces outbreaks of disease which are geographically and temporally limited in their scope.

This possibility needs to be taken into account when performing clinical trials. The hypothesis here is that a cold is caught and produces symptoms within a few hours and that there is no such thing as asymptomatic transmission. Studies which appear to show contagion over several days or weeks are likely just picking up random cases caused by the seasonal effects mentioned above.

This is not contagion, but a primal cause and patients can be isolated all you like, but nothing will stop them getting a cold short of a solid lead Faraday cage.

Longer periods of study will necessarily yield more cases during flu season, but an off-season study will likely fail in this respect and for these reasons. From the point of view of viral transmission trials then, we expect to find studies that seem inconsistent and hard to interpret and we do in fact find them.

AI research

Time to look at clinical trials for support or contradiction.

I asked an AI engine: “Please list all studies where sustained close proximity was a salient factor in the transmission of the common cold”

AI summary

  • Sustained proximity (hours of being in the same room, regular contacts in household or school) tends to increase risk significantly. The card‑playing experiments and the household transmission studies are prime examples.
  • However, some studies show that even when people cannot touch their face (so reducing contact route), being in close proximity (shared air) over time still leads to infection. E.g. Aerosol transmission of rhinovirus colds with 12 h shared time. PubMed
  • The school study shows that even tens of minutes of close proximity per day can matter, but in that setting, the cumulative exposure in shared classroom air (many hours) seems more important than just minutes of close contact. PMC+1
  • The review (Transmission route of rhinovirus) also notes that while contact/fomite routes are proven, in many indoor settings airborne/small aerosol transmission with proximity and shared space seems to dominate. ScienceDirect

References from AI search

Aerosol transmission of rhinovirus colds (playing cards together for 12 hours) PubMed+1

Donors (infected) and recipients (susceptible) played cards together for ~12 h in enclosed setting. Some recipients were restrained (couldn’t touch their faces) to isolate aerosol vs contact routes. PubMed

High rates of transmission even among those who could not touch faces. Results suggested that over sustained close-proximity (12 h in same room, shared activity), aerosol transmission was strong; fomite-only route (via surfaces heavily used for 12 h) showed no transmissions in that particular experiment. PubMed

Rhinovirus transmission within families with children PubMed

Families were monitored for ~3 weeks after an index child had rhinovirus; includes frequent, close interactions among siblings and parents in a home environment. PubMed

Transmission was common: siblings had ≈1 case per person when index positive; parents lower but substantial rates. Suggests that in household settings (which imply sustained close proximity), spread is frequent. PubMed

Hand‑to‑hand transmission of rhinovirus colds PubMed

Short hand‑contact exposures (10 seconds) between infected & susceptible; this is more immediate than “sustained”, but still implicates repeated close interactions. Not so much long‑duration proximity but frequent enough contact. PubMed

Found that hand contact is very efficient in causing infection compared to large/ small particle aerosols in their setup. PubMed

Systematic review: Transmission route of rhinovirus (2022) PubMed+1

Surveyed many studies, some in natural settings (homes, schools, workplaces) where people share space over sustained periods. The review seeks evidence of how close proximity plays a role. ScienceDirect+1

Conclusion: moderate evidence that airborne transmission (large or small aerosols) is a major route; less strong evidence that hand/fomite + self‑inoculation dominates in real indoor settings. But many studies in shared spaces (which by necessity include sustained proximity) show transmission. ScienceDirect

“Relative contribution of close‑proximity contacts, shared classroom exposure and indoor air quality to respiratory virus transmission in schools” (Swiss secondary school) PubMed+1

Over 6 weeks, students (14‑15 y) wore sensors that recorded daily time spent within ~1.5 m of others (“close proximity”); also shared classroom hours and monitored air quality. Students spent ~21 min/day in close proximity; many more hours in shared classroom. PubMed+1

Time in close proximity modestly associated with higher transmission risk (rate ratio of ~1.16 per doubling of close‑proximity time). But shared classroom time (sustained exposure in closed space) and poor air quality were stronger predictors. This suggests that sustained shared‑space exposure matters more than fleeting close proximity. PubMed+1

Summary

Evidence which is anecdotal but nevertheless forms a distinctive epidemiology leads to novel hypotheses for the mechanisms of initial acquisition and transmission of a common cold. These hypotheses lead to predictions for the general epidemiology that seem consistent with existing studies.

These mechanisms predict that:

  • Contagion is related to prolonged contact or close proximity
  • Infectiousness increases with severity of symptoms
  • Each transmission reduces infectiousness thereby limiting spread
  • Seasonal effects appear spontaneously in a population
  • There is little to no incubation period
  • Droplet transmission is irrelevant
  • The sustained breathing of depleted air causes sickness
  • The sharing of air in classrooms leads to depletion
  • The phenomenon of group sickness gives the impression of contagion

Note that one of the main reasons that people believe in contagion is that many people are observed getting sick at the same time. However, here we find that major outbreaks are in fact caused by non-infective agents (atmospheric effects) and that cases of actual transmission have a lesser impact on the overall epidemiology. Unsurprising, then, if there has been some confusion over this issue.

Harold Hillman’s artefacts

The images below are from electron micrographs of biological tissue. The tissue has been frozen, sliced, stained and finally subject to an electron beam.

The images are claimed to represent nuclear pores seen from different angles but there are good arguments from Harold Hillman to suggest that this is not the case and that what we are seeing are merely artefacts of the microscopy process.

The artefacts on the right consist of what look like small toroidal structures comprised of a dozen or so smaller torii seen at right angles.

Fractal electron ring vortices

In the image below from a video by Bob Greenyer we see the results of electron streams impacting a metal plate(?) or something similar.

The patterns look like the results of the formation of fractal ring vortices in the substrate. A clear ring is seen, as is a subdivision into numerous smaller elements which could also be interpreted as ring vortices.

The similarity to the images above from Hillman is perhaps confirmation of his claims and we can see now that the patterns observed originate not from the tissue at all but from the electron beam itself even before it has impacted the material on the microscope slide.

Electron micrograph images therefore seem more closely related to the fundamental laws of field physics than they are to the structure of a living cell. Certainly the shapes seen above did not exist in the sample prior to being ‘photographed’ and are completely fabricated by the process itself.

Fractal ring vortices

The image below is of a fractal ring vortex taken from the Substack of Michael Clarage: https://michaelclarage.substack.com/p/fractal-toroids-part-1-geometry

These seem natural if regarded as electromagnetic field structures, as the field laws are (almost) scale invariant. If a ring vortex can form at a large scale then it can form at a smaller scale.

Time to consider that what an electron beam really consists of is a stream of charged electromagnetic field vortices which have been mis-interpreted as a stream of charged particles.

Field vortices are slightly different to particles, though, in that they are:

  • Mutable (they can alter their shape)
  • Possess an intrinsic energy
  • Consist of both electric and magnetic fields

Maybe the electrons leave the generator one at a time looking like particles, but they soon use their energy and magnetic fields to organise into a least energy solution appropriate to their new environment which consists of filaments of flowing ring vortices.

The principle of energy cascade drives energy inwards and there is nowhere for it to go so it compresses down into smaller and smaller vortices to form the fractal structures illustrated.

These ring vortices are formed in the beam independently of the target substrate but form similar patterns whether they impact a metal plate or biological tissue.

Longer exposure times create more fractal structure

The Effects of Electron Beam Exposure Time on Transmission Electron Microscopy Imaging of Negatively Stained Biological Samples
http://www.appmicro.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.9729/AM.2015.45.3.150

Biological samples are often stained with metallic dyes and subject to a powerful beam for several seconds or longer.

If the beam is left on for extended periods, more detail becomes apparent: “The results presented here suggest that longer electron beam exposure times provide more electron densities of bio-materials analyzed by TEM imaging, ultimately resulting in optimal visualization of their detailed structural features. “

We can re-interpret this now as meaning that the effect of an electron beam is to arrange particles of metallic dye into stereotypical vortex structures and that the longer a sample is targeted, the more fine detail is created by the beam.

The basic structure of beam and image are set at the outset and longer exposures initiate an energy cascade leading to accumulation at smaller scales. This creates the fractal structures which are misinterpreted as fine-grained biological artefacts.

Exosomes

The pattern here is slightly different but still fractal in nature, with distinct circular structures surrounded by a ring of smaller circles. However, if the method of photography is the same in each case then the electron beam will be adopting a similar fractal structure long before it touches the tissue sample.

See also: Exosomes and anthrobots

Sars CoV-2

Enough said.

Exosomes and anthrobots

The morphology and behaviour of both exosomes and anthrobots is explained largely in terms of fundamental vortex physics. There is little need to involve teleological biological processes and it is debatable whether these entities have any biological significance.

The biological artefacts below are claimed by some to represent the Sars CoV-2 ‘virus’ and by others to represent ‘exosomes’, small packages deliberately created by the cell in order to recycle and transport resources from one place to another.

Very likely neither is the case and they are merely agglomerations of biological material released from dying cells and held together by electromagnetic forces.

We can ask how this phenomenon arises from the basic laws of physics and come to the conclusions that very little biology is involved, that the image need not represent any phenomenon occurring in vivo or even in vitro and that it may be purely an artefact of the electron microscopy process.

From Jamie Andrews’ X feed: https://x.com/JamieAA_Again/status/1959538359618896235

You can see where the cellular debris is just aggregating around the Lipid coating of the vesicle. The cellular debris on the left is just incorporated into a lipid globule on the right and mislabelled as a “Sars Cov 2” this will become very apparent with our latest research. – Jamie Andrews: https://x.com/JamieAA_Again

Material from an deteriorating cell wall appears have clustered around a vesicle somehow. Some sort of organised movement seems to have taken place and granules of something or other seem to move away from the cell and towards a smaller entity.

  • Why?
  • What are the physical forces involved?
  • Where does the energy come from to effect this movement?
  • What is the organisational principle by which this happens?
  • What is it that guides the granules?
  • Why do the vesicles appear to grow just as the cell is dying?

If a general principle of an electromagnetic bio-field based upon a vortex structure is accepted, then there is no mystery here as everything is explained by the natural actions of such a field and that fact that the tissue has been removed from the host field.

The tissue itself retains some of its own energy and field structure but without a supervening field to supply it with morphogenic instructions and a continuing energy supply, it cannot maintain its own integrity and will inevitably deteriorate.

The basic principles of the bio-field is explained here: The nature of the bio-field.

Diffusion is not sufficient

Firstly, note that the granules are clustered around the vesicle that is nearest to the cell wall and form a pattern that differ from the rest of the cell boundary. It seems that they have moved there from somewhere else (the cell itself) and that this movement is somehow goal oriented.

Much movement of particles within cells is said to be ‘Brownian’ in nature, that is to say, driven by a process of random vibration of molecules. The result though is obviously inconsistent with a purely diffusive mechanism and so something else is at play, some goal directed process that has the power to organise inert matter into ordered vesicles.

Fundamental forces

If the granules have been moved, then there must have been some sort of force that moved them. Physicists recognise four fundamental forces in nature:

  • Weak nuclear force
  • Strong nuclear force
  • Gravity
  • Electromagnetic forces

The forces we seek exists outside of the atom, which rules out the first two and I don’t think anyone believes that gravitational forces are nuanced enough to organise biological material. This therefore leaves electromagnetism as the motivational force behind this phenomenon.

It may be claimed that the granules are moved by ‘kinetic’ forces i.e. by the flow of water, but kinetic forces ultimately arise from the electromagnetic repulsive force. However, this is a simplified version of an electromagnetic field force and still leaves unanswered the question of what it is that organises the flow of water in such a situation.

The behaviour of electromagnetic fields is so similar to the behaviour of water that they will surely amount to the same thing at the scale of a water molecule.

Energy supply

Some sort of energy supply is needed. Many sources will point at Brownian, Gibbs or ‘free’ energy as candidates, but again this energy is diffusive and random, it can’t be pointed in a particular direction for example. It really isn’t possible to guide these energies in a such way as to have it appear in exactly the right place at exactly the right time and in the appropriate quantities.

The energy required then will come from a fractal vortex system supplied by the host organism at first and by the tissue sample and microscopy environment later on.

Organisation

The granules appear to have moved from a decaying cell membrane towards a developing exosome. How do they know to do this? How do they know in which direction to move? They are not living things and have no sensory apparatus. They cannot ‘see’ where they are going and have no way of knowing that an exosome is developing nearby.

If this is true and there is no knowledge of the future or of some situation at some distance away then the only conclusion is that they are moving according to local forces only and with the help of local energy only.

All the answers

A fractal electromagnetic vortex structure provides all the answers in a very natural way whilst adhering closely to the most fundamental laws of physics.

The human body forms the outer periphery of the vortex system and directs energy down the vortex cascade all the way to a single cell, which becomes a consumer of this continuous supply. A cell forms a vortex of itself and its outer ‘membrane’ is maintained by the concentrated energy that accumulates here.

When the tissue is separated from the main body, it suffers a drop in energy supply but can live on for a while on energy accumulated from the local environment. A vortex develops in a water droplet on a microscope slide maybe and the heat from a laboratory is organised into a vortex structure and moves inwards towards a cellular vortex.

Eventually the cell starts to deteriorate and the main vortex structure, decimated by the lack of energy, starts to re-fractalise into smaller vortices which accumulate matter to become the vesicles we see. Each exosome is now at the centre of its own vortex and commences to suck energy from the environment in the same manner as a tornado accumulates both matter and energy from apparently still air.

The cellular vortex itself weakens, and the granules move along centripetal field gradient created by the exosomes. The vortex principle is sufficient by itself to create forces, energy and directional movement; no other organisational or energetic influence is required.

he smaller vortices of the exosomes are now in the ascendant and will accumulate any energy released by the dying cell. Cell death is now synonymous with energy depletion and vortex decay. Biological entities use the vortex as a template for morphogenesis (The morphogenesis of capillaries) so the process of constructing an exosome is very similar to the way a cell was constructed in the first place; the same laws of physics apply but, being divorced from the main bio-field, there is no eventual teleological end to the formation of exosomes. The look like biological entities with a useful function but are probably just accretions of cellular debris.

The exosome is now at the centre of its own energy vortex and, typical with such systems, subsidiary vortices will form around the periphery comparable to tornadoes forming around a large anticyclone in hurricane season. These are interpreted as some sort of protein and indeed they may be as this is how proteins are constructed with a ring-like vortex accumulating and arranging matter: The nature of the bio-field. Any sort of attempts to ‘isolate’ such a protein will likely fail as it is a product of a unique vortex structure and will disintegrate as soon as such an environment changes in any way.

Electron microscopy

Electron microscopy is described as using an energetic stream of electrons which is focused by an electromagnetic lens in a way similar to a visible light lens. The electrons are depicted as travelling in straight lines towards the sample, through the sample (without modifying it significantly), and out the other side where they accurately register the forms of the physical matter that was on the slide in the first place.

This all seems highly unlikely and if true, needs considerable proof of itself.

An electron has an electric charge and a moving electron constitutes an electric current. Such a current necessarily generates a magnetic field at right angles to the current and other charged particles moving within this field will have their path deflected by this field. The total sum of all these movements has been observed in plasma physics as constituting Birkeland current, manifesting as a stable filament of counter-rotating and co-axial electromagnetic fields. See below.

Such constructs are visible at larger scales as tornado formations in the atmosphere..

.. and when focused on some sort of receptive plate in a laboratory, will produce interesting fractal torus patterns which look very similar to biological artefacts:

Bob Greenyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw15QYXqva8

Note that these images were not produced by passing an electron beam through a biological sample or through anything at all. All the shapes arise naturally from the interaction of the electron stream with the plate in question and very likely are a reflection of the organisation that was present in the stream even before it hit the plate.

Harold Hillman observed similar structures in electron micrographs of biological samples:

So an energetic vortex stream of charged particles is passed through a sample of biological material consisting of charge-structured molecules and possibly metallic dyes, whilst the biological sample itself relies upon an electromagnetic vortex field to construct and maintain organelles, proteins, vesicles and even entire cells.

In a living organism, the shapes of the vesicles are determined by the bio-field of the organism which is already breaking down once the tissue is removed from the body. Now a powerful stream of electrons, consisting of precisely those type of forces that are used for cellular construction, is fired at the sample. A new type of vesicle is created which bears no relation to anything that a living organism would need to construct.

The construction of the exosome is not a ‘biological’ process with a teleological purpose. There is no biological ‘meaning’ in the artefact and it has no lengthy development process; it is simply the result of electromagnetic forces acting upon cellular debris. The forces are strong and such an artefact can be assembled in the fraction of a second.

I remember someone (Stefan Lanka?) writing that there is no cell membrane as such but that one appears in an instant when tissue is removed from its environment; an apple is broken or cut and some sort of double layer immediately forms, giving the impression of a cellular membrane. The short duration of the creation here lending to support that only physical (electromagnetic) forces are involved as opposed to a lengthy biological development process.

Repair via vortex template

A short video from Michael Levin shows a single celled ‘anthrobot’ repairing a mechanically induced wound.

One very obvious interpretation of this now is that although the physical matter has been misshapen, an electromagnetic vortex persists in a necessarily circular shape and acts as a template for regeneration. Field movement of the vortex simply drags the organic matter back into a circular or spherical shape.

https://thoughtforms.life/anthrobots-age-reversal-ancient-genes-and-what-new-beings-are-telling-us-about-genetics-and-evolution/

In another video, these ‘artificial life forms’ are apparently seen swimming around all by themselves, but another interpretation is possible. Several interesting features stand out as indicative of a driving vortex structure:

  • The bots are said to move by use of cilia but some do not have cilia
  • Motion is chaotic with rapid and apparent random changes in both speed and direction
  • Movement is not always independent of each other with several bots seeming to stick together even through the random motion
  • Multiple bots rotate either on the spot or whilst moving
  • Bots rotate around a centre outside of the bot
  • Orbital debris moves around and with the bot
  • Motion can be rapid even with a low Reynolds number
  • Bots keep moving, even as they disintegrate
https://thoughtforms.life/anthrobots-age-reversal-ancient-genes-and-what-new-beings-are-telling-us-about-genetics-and-evolution/

Hypothesis: All morphogenesis, movement and other activity arises from the action of an electromagnetic bio-field and all suppositions to the contrary are merely an illusion.

The bots look like they are in a water droplet i.e. a circular or hemispherical container. This is the ideal shape for the formation of electromagnetic vortices. Imagine the bots are sitting in such a field of swirling electromagnetic currents similar to the water eddies in the bend of a river. The bots now ‘look like’ they are in such an environment.

Each bot is formed and maintained by its own vortex and moves around via field-interaction with its environment. Several bots can become trapped in an enclosing vortex structure and move around together. Sudden changes in velocity can be explained by sudden changes in a field state; this is behaviour typical of electric fields but not so much in a living organism trying to swim through a medium the consistency of warm tar (low Reynolds flow).

Rotating bots are likely driven by an external vortex flow. The cilia may help with this but are not strictly necessary and are not obviously causal. Bots are seen to be rotating about an vortex external to themselves; they rotate at the centre of their own vortex but at the same time caught in the current of another.

Bots accumulate energy from the environment and form a peripheral membrane as with the exosomes. Surplus energy here is discharged in corona-like filaments which form a morphogenic template for the cilia. The cilia continue to discharge once formed and vibrate as they do so, thereby creating the illusion of ‘swimming’.

The external vortex stream funnels debris towards the vortex centre and this is can be seen in orbit around the anthrobot.

Energy consumption s efficient within such a system, with everything moving ‘with the flow’, creating very little friction and dissipating very little waste. Eventually, however, everything slows down, movement ceases and there is little energy to hold together the vortex of the bot itself, which proceeds to disintegrate.

Disintegration alone is insufficient to stop the bots moving as they are driven by forces and energy flows outside of themselves which persist for some time. If movement came from the organised activity of the bots, it would surely subside as the bots disintegrated, but if the bots and their movement originate from the vortex field itself, we would expect that it is the field (and hence bot-movement) which lasts longer than the integrity of the bot.

The energy source

The preparation supplies some initial energy and the tissue that the bots were created from no doubt has energy within its own bio-field which is transferred to the experimental set-up. After this, one possibility is that the vortex field is fuelled by the heat and light from the laboratory itself.

Heat is described as dissipative, entropic, thermodynamic and random, but once within a vortex structure can be absorbed into the general vortex flow to extend the life of the whole bot community. Partial proof of this are the experiments performed by Gerald Pollack and others, which show that an influx of infrared radiation can be organised to push micro-spheres through a tube.

Another possibility is that vortex discharge direct from the ionosphere is transduced directly by the vortex field within the water droplet. The following diagram shows the electromagnetic field at the surface of the sun. It has already organised itself into a cellular pattern albeit on a rather grand scale.

Now if a similar arrangement is present at the surface of the Earth then this could conceivably be used to fuel the anthrobot community.

Similar comments apply to all tissue and bacterial cultures and could explain seasonal variations of behaviour and cytopathic effects as described by Kaznacheev for example: Mirror Cytopathic Effect

The helix as a fundamental in biology and physics

Anyone not believing that vortex structures can arise naturally without supplementary information just needs to look at the many helical patterns in nature, from ‘God’s DNA’ appearing in cloud structures to entire nebula organised as a double helix. This is surely a fundamental structure of nature and arises from primordial electromagnetic fields.

The appearance of vortex structures and specifically double helix patterns in biological systems should, by now, come as no surprise. Stefan Lanka has asserted that DNA comes ‘out of the nothing’, and once again, an initially outrageous sounding statement turns out to have a good scientific basis in electromagnetic forces and plenty pf precedent in parallel structures throughout the cosmos.

Relevance to ‘virology’

The artefacts shown are said to be a pathogenic virus that is the cause of disease in human beings and, moreover, that it is characterised by a specific genome sequence which has been identified and documented.

However, it is obvious now that:

  • There is no guarantee that the images depicted are valid representations of what happens in biological systems
  • There is no guarantee that they are even representative of what happens in a tissue culture
  • The formation of such artefacts is almost entirely by the basic laws of physics and needs very little input, if any, from a biological system
  • Helical structures can seemingly form anywhere at any time in the cosmos
  • Nobody can link a specific genomic sequence as belonging to one of these artefacts
  • There is no ‘model’ for explaining how a particular genome sequence causes specific symptoms
  • Correlations between these artefacts and either season or latitude may be explained by the direct influence of the Earth’s magnetic field on either the tissue sample itself or the electron stream that ‘illuminates’ it
  • These artefacts very likely have no biological significance whatsoever
  • Virology is just a series of Fairy Tales

The decline in disease

The chart below is from the Dissolving Illusions website and shows the decline of most so called ‘infectious’ diseases from 1840 to 1976. All diseases shown were almost extinct before the mass production of penicillin in 1944 and certainly before the first vaccines in 1957.

The vaccines cannot therefore be responsible for the abolition of these diseases, which begs the question: What is responsible?

https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/

Toxicity?

The answer according to many people now is that these diseases were caused by some sort of poisoning and that improvements in hygiene, sanitation and workplace conditions are what led to the dramatic decline shown.

This cannot be the whole story though.

The mortality rates for scarlet fever in particular show, not a steady decline, but instead huge variations which suddenly settle down circa 1900.

These variations have two outstanding features:

  • Magnitude: They are of a greater amplitude than the overall average decline
  • Periodicity: They show clear and regular cycles

These variations are of an order of magnitude that is actually greater over a 3 year period than is achieved in a hundred year average decline. When the variations exceed the actual trend you have a problem!

What is the explanation then for these short term variations? Improvements in hygiene now seem very unlikely; how to explain a coordinated nationwide predisposition for hand-washing that comes and goes every few years? How to explain any influence that has such a cyclic nature?

Sunspot cycles and pandemics

The chart below from Nasirpour et al shows a striking correlation between many assumed infectious diseases and either high or low sunspot activity.

Sunspot activity typically peaks every 11 years.

Nasirpour et al

The authors conclude:

“Regarding the results of this study, we found that sunspots are the main cause of virus generation in the world.
This research reveals that the biological and astrophysical mechanisms are related to the generation of world pandemics such as COVID-19.“

So although they still think that these diseases are caused by viral infection, the observed pattern itself is not caused by infectious spread but by the sunspot activity somehow.

Could sunspots cause disease?

First note that many of the disease outbreaks started before the sunspot maximum which tends to suggest that it is not the sunspots per se that are the cause of the outbreaks.

Mainstream wisdom is that sunspots originate from deep within the sun according to some internal process. In this case we may somehow be seeing the effects of this process at the Earth’s surface before they are visibly manifest on the Sun’s surface.

Other cosmologists see the solar cycles driven by external forces in the form of ‘galactic wave sheets’ or some such. Electromagnetic filaments between the Sun and the Earth are responsible for coupling events on Earth with those on the sun. Such filaments harness energy from the wider cosmos and propagate waves along the filament to the Sun at one end and the Earth at the other.

Sometimes effects are seen first at the Sun as solar flares and sometimes they appear as disease on Earth before the solar cycles peak.

These electric currents between the Sun and Earth will have an impact upon our weather and electrical discharge from the ionosphere will disturb the regulatory systems of our bodies thus leading to diseases of an inflammatory nature. See: Influenza and weather

Disease and magnetism

There are quite a few papers describing connections between ‘infectious’ diseases and changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. The assumption of a viral intermediary confuses the issue a bit but the correlations are always there and various mechanisms have been postulated.

This paper from Zaporozhan and Ponomarenko  points the finger at altered gene expression and attempts to:

  • Bring attention to periodicity as a common feature of numerous biological processes and to discuss the nature of corresponding regulatory influences
  • Show theoretical possibility of bio-regulatory effects of magnetic fields
  • Outline some signalling pathways capable of implementing bio-regulatory (including genome-regulatory) functions of electromagnetic fields
  • Summarize our knowledge about Geomagnetic field, its principle parameters and sources of variation
  • Review possible evidences of regulatory influence of Solar cycles and corresponding Geomagnetic field perturbations on flu epidemic process
  • Describe probable mechanisms of Solar cycles and Geomagnetic field regulatory influences on virus-host interactions and other biological processes

Earth sun connection

The Sun as an Extremely Sensitively Interconnected and Regulated System – Attila Grandpierre
https://old.konkoly.hu/staff/grandpierre/Sun_Sensitive.pdf

Connections between the sun and Earth are quite surprising, with statistical correlations between the Earth’s rotation rate and solar activity deep within the sun.

“Not only the minimums of the Earth’s rotation show connections with the solar activity period, but also, as Currie (1973) showed, the rotation rate of the Earth actually correlates with the solar activity!” – Attila Grandpierre

Grandpierre notes that sometimes the change in solar activity comes first and at others it is the Earth’s variations that seem to initiate activity in the sun!

A better explanation surely is that energy accumulates in the solar filaments and propagates along the filament to cause correlated events in both Sun and Earth.

Whatever the origin of these phenomena, it seems to have the power to both cause sunspots and affect the rotational speed of the Earth; this is not a ‘subtle’ energy! From this perspective then, the idea that it could somehow be responsible for causing disease on Earth now seems a little less surprising.

The decline in disease

The chart again:

The peaks in the mortality rates for scarlet fever look to be about 5 and a half years apart, i.e. half a sunspot cycle. Now given the strong association between other diseases and sunspots, why should it not be that these cycles are also the result of electromagnetic disturbances?

Moreover, if such an explanation should be found sufficient for the larger variations in mortality then why is there any need of a separate explanation for the general decrease of mortality rates over the century? Something about the cosmos has settled down over the last century or so and the health of humanity has improved as a consequence.

The idea that the observed decline is largely to do with ‘space weather’ will seem like nonsense to many, but if it is supported by the data then it must at least be considered plausible.

See also: Influenza and weather

References:

Dissolving illusions: https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/

Revealing the relationship between solar activity and COVID-19 and forecasting of possible future viruses using multi-step autoregression (MSAR) – Nasirpour et al
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7961325/

Solar filaments and you: https://youtu.be/6JA38XKOVpA

The Sun as an Extremely Sensitively Interconnected and Regulated System – Attila Grandpierre
https://old.konkoly.hu/staff/grandpierre/Sun_Sensitive.pdf

Mechanisms of Geomagnetic Field Influence on Gene Expression Using Influenza as a Model System: Basics of Physical Epidemiology – Valeriy Zaporozhan, Andriy Ponomarenko
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/938

What causes pneumonia?

Legacy biology claims that aggressively reproducing bacteria are responsible for cell death in the lung tissue. The body tries to frantically repair the damage whilst the immune system is responsible for killing off the bacteria at the same time.

The New Biology paradigm is happier with the idea that it is the tissue that dies first and that the bacteria are not causal in the process but are merely opportunist scavengers that live off dead tissue.

But what causes the tissue necrosis in the first place and why is the lung tissue seemingly more susceptible to this type of disorder than other parts of the body? Why is pneumonia common in hospitals with supposedly strict hygiene protocols and why does it seem to be a progression of other respiratory conditions such as influenza. Why don’t the nurses ‘catch’ it?

First consider that the lung tissue needs a continuous supply of energy in order to maintain it. This is assumed to come from oxygen in the blood delivered via the capillary system. The job of the lungs though is to absorb oxygen from the lung cavities and deliver it to the rest of the body and this is achieved via a separate capillary system, the pulmonary capillaries.

The coexistence of two such systems is a complexity not seen in the rest of the body and I will guess that this restricts the number of maintenance capillaries somewhat thereby making the whole system a little delicate and meaning that any extra input of energy in this area would be most welcome.

Konstantin Meyl has stated that such an additional input exists in the form of electromagnetic field vortices which are transferred from fresh air through the lung tissue directly to the bloodstream. Air that has been breathed and had insufficient time to recover is depleted of vortices and depleted of energy.

Gerald Pollack has written a paper going a step further, claiming that there is no exchange of oxygen at all in the lungs and that all energy input is via electrical energy.

Hypothesis: This energy is not merely necessary as an input to the bloodstream, but is vital for the maintenance of local lung tissue. These vortices will be absorbed directly into the lining of the lungs and assist in maintaining healthy cells. Exercise will increase breathing and proportionately increase energy intake. The inhalation of stale air will reduce energy intake.

We can see now the possibility of necrosis prior to bacterial proliferation.

An already weakened patient is confined to bed and immediately suffers a decrease in energy input to the lung tissue and in due course the intake of stale air further reduces available vortex energy.

Nurses and carers do not succumb as they are walking around, breathing more air and not spending 24 hours a day inhaling ‘dead’ gases.

The disease seems to be a progression of a viral infection but it is a consequence of bad treatment instead.

Treatment

If the cause is a lack of energy in the air then we should expect that the treatment should consist of .. exposure to fresh air!

The open air treatment of pneumonia – W P Northrup
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/460480

“Our systematic practice was to put all pneumonia patients during the day, for six hours, on the roof, in the open air, in all weather in which harsh high winds, rain and snow did not prohibit. Indeed, the patients were not always brought in for little sprinkling rains or trivial snowfalls, and many times were out when high snow banks formed a corral about the space in which the beds were grouped” – Northrup (1906)

“Gradually, after most careful precautions and constant watching, it became the firm conviction of all observers that such patients were decidedly benefitted thereby.”

References:

Is it oxygen, or electrons, that our respiratory system delivers? – Gerald Pollack
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030698772400210X

The open air treatment of pneumonia – W P Northrup
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/460480

Influenza is not contagious

Sir Charles Herbert Stuart-Harris (19091996) wrote a book: Influenza and other viruses of the respiratory tract. Stuart-Harris believed that influenza was caused by a virus but Chapter 6. Epidemiology of influenza is extremely interesting and provides plenty of evidence that it is not even contagious let alone caused by a ‘virus’.

The page Influenza and weather puts forth the hypothesis that influenza is not caused by a virus at all but instead is the result of a destabilised bio-regulation which is in turn caused by electromagnetic disturbances in the atmosphere. The data and arguments presented by Stuart-Harris were not collected with this hypothesis in mind and so cannot be said to be biased towards it.

It is interesting therefore to compare this hypothesis with the comments from Sir Charles concerning the observed epidemiology.

Chapter 6: The epidemiology of influenza

“Historically, influenza has been recognised by its power of rapid dispersion throughout the population of whole countries and by the explosive character of its epidemics. Yet, small localised outbreaks with little tendency to spread outside of the affected community have long been known to occur, nor has the individual epidemic feature of influenza invariably been explosive.”

This is the opening paragraph of the chapter, the words chosen by the author himself to summarise his findings. Although he still believes in a viral cause, his priority is to emphasise the puzzling nature of the epidemiology with respect to the idea of contagion.

Sudden increase in 1890

“.. there was an apparent lull amounting almost to extinction of the disease in the period just before 1890. Then in 1890, the pandemic caused a sharp rise in the level of prevalence, and incidence has remained ever since at a higher level than before 1890. Super-imposed on the base-line of inter-epidemic incidence, periodic outbreaks have occurred every two to three years and this periodicity has continued up to the present.“

Almost extinction

Time and again we hear from researchers that influenza ‘vanishes’ from the population at least in certain areas (whole cities!) and always needs to be replenished from ‘elsewhere’.

Fortunate for the virus that it never really disappears from ‘elsewhere’ or it would surely go extinct. Also fortunate that once it gets going again there is always someone to infect all of a sudden or else, again, extinction.

We are asked to believe that the survival of the virus is a matter of chance, a statistical coincidence. Maybe this is credible in the modern world of travel and high population density, but a hundred and fifty years ago? Really?

Q: Why does the virus frequently become almost extinct but never in human history has become actually extinct?

A: Because influenza is caused by field disturbances in the atmosphere. The nature and strength of these disturbances vary slightly from year to year and even if the whole world went a year without flu, it would surely return the following season or the next.

Sudden rise in 1890

This has been attributed by Arthur Firstenburg in his book The Invisible Rainbow to the effects of the installation of domestic electricity, with power lines initially laid out over the roofs of terraced houses.

Very possibly. Flu seems to be caused by disturbances from the atmosphere to an electromagnetic bio-field that serves as the master regulatory system for the human body. One possibility is that the electric field from the power cables is affecting this on a long term basis and adding a chronic weakness to the system and another is that the electric field is somehow modulating the annual flu influence, making it more lethal.

Two to three year cycles

“Super-imposed on the base-line of inter-epidemic incidence, periodic outbreaks have occurred every two to three years and this periodicity has continued up to the present.“

This is similar to the epidemiology of measles. See: Measles.

It is not obvious how this happens on a global scale with an infectious pathogen. The disease is seasonal but with variations. This certainly does not rule out the hypothesis that it is the Earth’s magnetic field that is the cause but does not prove it either.

Watching YouTube videos from the Thunderbolts project (Solar filaments and you) it seems that electromagnetic disturbances on Earth are caused by spiral filaments extending all the way from the Sun and these are measurable to a certain degree.

The filaments end at the surface of the Earth where they are manifest in the topsoil as telluric currents. In between the Sun and Earth they are subject to the influences of all of the other planets thereby resulting in all sorts of odd rhythms and synchrony with other planetary orbits.

There is something to test here, if the correct measurements are made there should be some correlation between influenza outbreaks and the activity associated with these filaments.

Disappearance and sporadic outbreaks

“The pattern of prevalence which has emerged from these national statistics has been that of somewhat irregular periodicity both of influenza A and B, with almost complete disappearance of the virus in between outbreaks.“

“Sufficient evidence of sporadic case occurrences exists, however, for it to be said that the virus is not entirely extinct. But, from an incidence only detected by large-scale surveys, the virus infection develops into an explosive outbreak, without any apparent increasing steps of increasing prevalence“

So again the disappearance of the disease is noted and yet it still returns. Use of the word ‘sporadic’ only serves to highlight the fact that these outbreaks are without and apparent cause. Where was the virus dwelling before it became sporadic?

The virus seems to survive between outbreaks but this is almost by definition a time when there is no obvious chain of infection; the incidence of disease is so low (“almost complete disappearance”) that there is little chance of a diseased person meeting a ‘susceptible’.

An explosive outbreak occurs without any obvious preamble and then disappears equally abruptly.

All this is explained by encounters with field filaments which are abundant during flu season but are restricted geographically and with a random element super-imposed upon these patterns to target individuals in or out of season.

The origin and spread of epidemics.

“The second theory concerning the persistence and spread of human influenza is that the virus exists by a continual case-to-case transmission. This presupposes that there is always an outbreak of influenza somewhere in the world and that as influenza dies out in one country, it develops anew in another area.”

Why this presupposition and why does it wait to die out in one place before developing anew in another area? This phenomenon is better described by the idea of an external influence that sweeps across the face of the planet, leaving a trail of sick people in its wake.

Again and again we see that the evidence is not suggestive of a continually transmitting virus and that extra assumptions must to be made to accommodate the idea.

“Yet the major outbreak of influenza A in the USA, Canada and Great Britain in November 1943 appeared to involve geographically remote areas almost simultaneously, and too rapidly for any chain of infection to have occurred”

This is because no infection has occurred and instead the disease is caused by a global collective of field currents that switch on and off according to season, latitude and geographical location.

“One fact established already is that spread of infection from one area or country to another often appears to occur by direct geographical contiguity rather than along lines of communication such as afford a more rapid chance of infection. Yet in rural areas the importance of infection can often be attributed to a particular individual. Pickles quotes the case of the school in Wensleydale which in 1937 suffered an explosive outbreak of influenza forty-eight hours after a schoolmistress returned from a town. No other cases were present in the town at the time. The schoolmistress herself suffered only a mild attack but it was highly probable (Why?) that she was responsible for introducing the virus into the school.”

Again, not suggestive of infection but instead consistent with a moving field vortex that does not respect lines of communication but descends upon the planet according to its own whims, sometimes moving across the surface and at others disappearing from one location only to pop up a hundred miles distant.

Disease as a distinctive regulatory ‘state’

On a severe local outbreak: “Secondly, the infection appeared to exhaust the capacity of the human herd to respond clinically to other ailments and the epidemiological record carries no instance of any other infectious disease during a period of weeks.”

A truly astonishing sentence. Flu seems to confer immunity (of diseases other than flu) not only upon those who suffer from it but also everybody else in the vicinity!

My assertion is that the disease called influenza is the result of an altered regulatory pattern that mainstream medicine identifies as the ‘immune response’. This regulatory disturbance encompasses the whole of the organism and orchestrates all the symptoms experienced for about five days before returning to normal homeostasis.

There is evidence (Measles) that other ‘infectious’ diseases are of a similar nature, showing typical seasonal and geographic patterns.

From this point of view then it seems obvious that a person cannot be in two different regulatory states at the same time and therefore that they are unlikely to display symptoms of two different regulatory diseases simultaneously.

The paragraph quoted goes much further than this though, asserting that even those who escaped the ravages of the disease are somehow not succumbing to other disturbances.

Now this makes sense if there is a close correspondence between disease states and magnetic conditions. The precise conditions needed for each distinct disease are also distinct and hence if it is flu season then it is not measles season; the magnetic field itself cannot be in two different states at once.

‘Immunity‘

“Both these villages suffered relatively more severely from influenza during the previous influenza A outbreak in 1933.“

Reading literature on ‘immunity’ it seems that in general, the regulatory system will recognise antipathetic stimuli and remember them. Quite often we see that upon a second exposure to a field disturbance, the body will respond differently, sometimes with more resilience and sometimes with an increased sensitivity; a disease takes on the aspect of an ‘allergy’.

Reference is made to the “variable incidence of influenza during one and the same epidemic in similar but separated isolated communities” such as boarding schools and army barracks. “There is no apparent reason why a particular school should suffer intensely and a neighbouring one should escape lightly..”

Because the ‘strength’ of the field disturbance is different at each locale and because the local populations have been exposed to slightly different stimuli over the past few years; they have had different immunological training.

Even the individuals who did not get ill were exposed to the disturbances and have therefor had an opportunity to adapt somewhat.

Associations with other diseases

“Apart, however, from the mortality of pneumonia, which may frequently be ascribed to influenza as the primary cause, deaths from all causes rise during an influenza epidemic. Thus deaths attributed to heart disease and to pulmonary tuberculosis both increase if the influenza epidemic is severe.“

Although other so called infectious diseases seem to disappear, there are many correlations in modern literature between influenza and heart attacks, with researchers invariably concluding that a heart attack is somehow a caused by the influenza virus or of the consequent bio-chemical changes within the body.

To be considered though is the possibility that both flu and heart attacks have the same root cause, which is to say a dysfunction of the bio-field triggered by the magnetic field conditions.

The heart may look like a large robust muscle which is not going to be too upset at a change in the weather, but the heart is not a pump and the blood largely flows by itself, controlled by an electromagnetic bio-field. The power for the flow begins in the capillary beds and is fuelled ultimately by electro-magnetism.

The whole system therefore is arguably susceptible to destabilisation by any similar disturbances from the atmosphere or from man made electro-smog. A heart attack here is not a problem of blockage but a problem of an altered regulation; this time of blood flow.

‘Sporadic’ cases and testing failures

“It is true that among the cases of acute respiratory disease occurring endemically in the population at all seasons of the year and in years when outbreaks of influenza do not occur, there are always some cases which could be diagnosed clinically as cases of influenza. Yet these almost invariably give negative results when tested either directly or serologically for evidence of influenza virus.”

If we can only have positive tests during an electromagnetic disturbance then the idea that the tests themselves are affected directly by such field changes should surely be considered at least?

“Moreover, an occasional case of influenza A or B is detected during an outbreak in which nearly all the other cases are serologically positive for the other virus infection. Such experiences have frequently been recorded and are again evidence that influenza can exist as a sporadic case. However, the occurrence of a series of sporadic cases is no presage of an outbreak within a short space of time.“

This is not really indicative of a viral cause. However, Harris continues: “Its meaning is that the virus is still alive in lean times, when the level of immunity is too high for rapid transfer of infection from one susceptible to another.“

Ok, so how did the virus create the sporadic case? It must have come from somewhere! Viruses need to spread in order to survive and if they aren’t spreading then they are becoming extinct.

Consider the famous ‘R’ number, the average infection rate. What value does this number have out of season when there is no epidemic activity? A value greater than 1 implies a spreading disease, an increase in the number of cases and an increase in the ‘R’ number itself. However a value of less than 1 implies imminent extinction for the virus; cases are diminishing and they are diminishing at an increasing rate. To have an ‘R’ number of exactly 1 throughout summer is just not credible.

Viruses cannot survive the summer period, ergo they do not exist.

Summary

All of the observations cited tend to support the idea that influenza is not contagious but that it ‘descends’ upon the population every winter in stereotypical patterns, both seasonal and geographical.

I had not read this paper when I formulated the hypothesis of field vortices so it is a somewhat independent test of the idea. Stuart-Harris himself clearly is a believer in viruses and so is not cherry-picking his facts in my favour.

References:

Influenza and other viruses of the respiratory tract – Charles Stuart-Harris
Chapter 6. Epidemiology of influenza (p. 107 in the PDF)
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.549293/page/n107/mode/2up?view=theater

R number – New Scientist
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/r-number/

Seasonal variations in coronary heart disease – J P Pell
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10581331/

Frank Brown

Frank Arthur Brown Jr. (1908–1983) looked at the connection between biological activity and ‘cosmic events’. Correlations were found in all manner of organisms between a variety of metrics and a variety of cyclic events such as diurnal rhythms, lunar cycles and the variations in temperature and light.

  • Synchronisation between organisms and cosmic events
  • Synchronisation between organisms a great distance apart
  • Cosmic cycles entrain endogenous phase-setters
  • The main drivers are temperature and light
  • Some cycles have no obvious physical cause
  • Phase correlation with amplitude inversion is seen
  • Correlation with atmospheric pressure even when kept at constant pressure
  • Independence of metabolic rate and clock mechanism
  • ‘Horizontal’ communication between organisms (maybe..)
  • Recognition of geographical location
  • External clocks trigger inherited behavioural patterns
  • Laboratory experiments confirm the electromagnetic nature of stimuli
  • Internal clock mechanisms rely on external input for pace setting

“A zeitgeber is an external or environmental cue that synchronizes an organism’s biological rhythms with its environment. The word comes from German and literally means ‘time giver’“.  – Science direct

No internal clocks

It has long been known that the body maintains a collection of very precise rhythms by which it regulates biological processes. The assumption being that it is the body itself that powers a set of clock-like processes which merely need to be entrained to external triggers to ensure synchrony with the environment.

Frank Concluded that this simply isn’t true. What is happening is that the body maintains a set of phase-responders which respond to external stimuli, producing the cycles which are observed. The difference is that with this setup, the influence of external events is necessary for the continuation of the bio-rhythms and without this influence there would be no cyclic activity and presumably no ‘life’.

“The usual concept of the organism within its rhythmic physical environment must now be supplemented by a concept of the rhythmic physical environment steadily contributing to the internal environment of the organism.

No clear boundary exists between the organism’s metabolically maintained electromagnetic fields and those of its geophysical environment. In terms of the hypothesis for biological clocks that has been presented here, the clocks themselves, being environmentally dependent, possess high mean precision.

It is suggested that the peculiar properties and activities of the organism’s natural phase-shifting mechanism have been responsible for the long held but probably erroneous notion that an independent internal clock system is present.” – Frank Brown

So there is no active clock as such within living organisms, but a set of passive internal pacemakers which entrain to external stimuli in a resonant fashion and the resulting cycles are used to trigger inherited behavioural programs such as feeding, mating hibernating etc.

“Indeed, from this start, it seems quite probable that every other property of the rhythms, known or still unknown, can be accounted for by the appropriate elaboration of the external timer hypothesis.” – Brown

Independence of metabolism

Surely one of the more important discoveries of Frank Brown is the apparent fact that the frequency of the internal cycles is independent of the metabolic rate of the organism.

The main drivers of bio-rhythms are variations in temperature and light but the heating of subjects or the administration of drugs to speed up metabolism did nothing to alter the rate at which the internal pacemakers operated.

“Organisms behave as if they were accurate, or moderately accurate, clocks or tremendous batteries of clocks whose rhythmic cycles are normally integrated into a characteristic phase-map complex. The periods of the clock-timed rhythms appear to be heavily compensated for, or independent of, temperature and to virtually every chemical substance that can influence reaction rates in organisms.” – Brown

So there is a component of biological activity that is independent of biochemistry, independent of what we can physically observe happening in the body.

Conclusion: The ’cause’ of a clock-like process is not a chemical reaction or mechanical process but the interplay between the environmental cycles and some electromagnetic bio-field acting as an antenna. There are no other plausible candidates known to science.

Disease as a regulatory disorder

“No clear boundary exists between the organism’s metabolically maintained electromagnetic fields and those of its geophysical environment.” – Brown

So Frank thinks that the electromagnetic fields are maintained by metabolic processes and yet function independently of them. Possibly, but we can also consider that there exists an almost self-sustaining etheric body that is not only regulated but also powered to some degree by energy from the environment. This would include solar neutrinos and electrical (vortex) discharge from the ionosphere.

With this setup then, it is easy to conceive of diseases such as flu and measles as temporary regulatory disorders produced by either a weakening of, or a disturbance in, the external pace-setters.

Evidence for this is provided by: a strong statistical correlation between weather events and the onset of such diseases, a documented relationship between both physical and electrical ‘weather’, the close coupling of organism and environment described above and the obvious regulatory nature of these disease processes: Influenza and weather – Measles

Water absorption of beans

A handful of beans was placed in a jar of water and the amount of water remaining was measured at timed intervals to give a record of the rate of water uptake. Different strains of beans were used and different spatial arrangements were tried, with some jars placed at a distance and some placed in pairs etc.

The results were extremely interesting indeed.

The top chart shows the water absorption rate of two bean collections at 70 cm apart. There is clearly a synchrony between the two; either they are both subject to the same external influence, they are communicating with each other or both at the same time.

The second chart shows results from a bean sample in a separate laboratory. A near identical pattern is observed thereby suggesting that all these samples are dancing to the same tune, they are driven by some unseen cosmic orchestration which is ultimately controlling the rate of uptake of water.

The bottom line of the chart shows the uptake rate for two groups of beans in close proximity on rotating tables, first clockwise (solid line) and next anti-clockwise (dotted line).

The overall trend is similar to the earlier experiments but Brown notes an interesting feature; there are frequent and temporary inversions of activity whereby a sudden increase in activity of one set of beans is accompanied by a decrease in activity of the other sample that matches the first in both timing and magnitude.

What could account for this? It is almost as if there were competition for a limited resource and it is first one and then the other of the bean pots that is the recipient of the necessary impulse.

Odd phase relationships

Another chart from the book compares the deviation from the mean uptake of water of two bean groups separated by some distance from each other.

In the top graph we see that the two samples are positively correlated, meaning that the higher the uptake of one, the higher the uptake of the other. This gain suggests that the two samples are somehow synchronised across time.

But look at the second chart!

The greater the deviation from the mean of one sample the less the deviation from the other sample. This again suggests that there is perhaps some stream of regulatory information which is of limited supply and that the more it is accessed by one beanpot then the less accessible it becomes for the other.

The sudden ‘flipping’ of the chart above suggesting either that the information stream is not shared evenly between the beans or that the beans themselves are behaving differently in a way that is coordinated both within and between samples.

The interpretation from Frank Brown involves actual communication between the bean samples: “If this sign-changing capacity exists for an organism and, in this instance, for a small cluster of beans then it would appear from the present observations that each of the members of the paired samples of beans, even when present in separate glass or plastic containers, can somehow be influenced by a very weak electromagnetic field produced by the other. By some means, the adoption of a ‘positive’ state in one member of a pair must under some circumstances bias the other member of the pair within their mutual field to adopt the ‘negative’ state.” – Page 457

Possibly, but consider the patterns created by plasma discharge in the video below.

The discharge stream flows from the centre to the surrounding sphere where it entrains somewhat to a particular spot which shows up as a glowing circle. The exact location of discharge varies locally and the spot itself will move slowly across the sphere. The discharge position is stable to the spot location but ‘random’ within the spot radius.

Consider then that the source of the Earth’s electric discharge comes ultimately from the sun, impacts our ionosphere and discharges to the ground in similar patterns to what we see in the video. The overall patterns are regular and seasonal and will also correlate with latitude.

This corresponds with the patterns we see in the experiments of Frank Brown but also with the epidemiology of influenza as studied by various researchers: Influenza and weather

Bearing this in mind then we can imagine a terrestrial magnetic field that exerts a top-down causality on biological systems, that is correlated with the seasons and is able to modulate fine grained influences down to the scale of a pot of beans. If this is so then direct ‘communication’ between beans may not be a necessary assumption. Instead, the state of a bean colony may trigger a phase change in the local magnetic field itself, causing it to flip to an adjacent pot or something similar.

Rather than regarding the external timing mechanism as immutably periodic, the addition of attractor-like properties may explain complexity we see. Some of the assumed complexity attributed to the organism is now apportioned to the environment itself.

Influenza epidemiology

The behaviour of the beans is reminiscent of the epidemiology of influenza. It may be imagined that individuals living in a densely populated area will be more susceptible to influenza during an outbreak but in fact the opposite is true, with those living in rural areas more likely to succumb to the disease.

Influenza is likely caused by electromagnetic discharge from the atmosphere (Influenza and weather) and it is as if there is a limited amount of energy to go around so that if you are in a large city it may well be that somebody else is the recipient of the ‘lightning’ strike and you are given a free pass for the year.

Global synchronisation

“Parallel and concurrent variations in bean samples as widely separated as
Woods Hole, Massachusetts and Evanston, Illinois, suggest wide geographic scope
of at least one of the major effective subtle parameters.” – Frank Brown

Correlation with atmospheric pressure

The metabolism of all living things (Brown) will fluctuate in synchrony with barometric pressure even when they are kept in a pressure controlled environment:

“It should be emphasized that while exhibiting their pressure correlations the organisms themselves are being maintained under constant pressure, and hence that pressure and the well-known solar and lunar tides of the atmosphere cannot be the immediately effective factor for the organisms. But of tremendous import for the clock problem is the fact that of the several species of plants and animals already studied in our laboratory, all exhibit the same kind of metabolic correlation with the same specific barometric pressure parameters. This has been shown to be true throughout the gamut of living things, from algae to vertebrates.” – Frank Brown

The oyster experiment

Oysters moved from the coast to an inland station still synchronised to the phases of the moon even in the absence of tide or visible light:

“Oysters transported in light-proof containers from their habitat in New Haven harbour to pans of sea water in a photographic darkroom in Evanston, Ill., gradually re-phased their rhythm of shell-opening over a 2-week period from the exact lunar-day time of high tide in New Haven harbour to the exact times of lunar zenith and nadir at Evanston, Ill, the theoretical time of high tides in Illinois were there a coastline. This new phase relationship then remained unchanged through a full month during which the study was continued.” – Frank Brown

Phase inversions

There are many cases of phase inversions within or between species. An organism may display maximum activity at full moon and minimal activity during a new moon, giving a good statistical correlation between activity and visible light.

This may change however with maximum activity now being displayed at new moon and vice-versa thus leading to a negative correlation.

These phenomena cannot therefore be studied by simple statistical correlation as the correlation shifts with time and between colonies of animals. This is further evidence should any be needed that what is on display is some coupling of resonant systems, both biological and meteorological.

“The mean monthly patterns of the snails through the five-year span of this
study tended significantly to display a common bimodal form with minima occurring
between new moon and first quarter and between full moon and third quarter,
However, for some measured parameters, or at certain times, a monthly pattern
for the snails was registered which was negatively correlated, with high statistical
significance, with the more typical one, Minima and maxima had exchanged places.

“Inversion of geo-physically dependent patterns including both lunar day and
monthly ones has been reported between different species, within a single species
at different times, and even concurrently within ,a single species under slightly
different experimental conditions (Brown, 1960; Brown and Chow, 1973, 1976),
Such inversions comprise a phenomenon which is probably commonplace, It is
postulated that the inverting tendency reflects the organisms’ sign and strength of
response to an effective atmospheric factor which is capable of being altered,
even tipped between positive and negative. with changing physiological state of the
organism and by effects of other uncontrolled, or imposed, environmental conditions.

“Indeed the sign has been described to differ between one portion of a lunar or solar
cycle and another” – Frank Brown

So what is going on?

We have, in the most abstract form:

  • Some sort of rhythmic influence in the atmosphere
  • A selection of internal pace-setters or resonators
  • A mechanism for entrainment (synchrony) between the two
  • Inherited behavioural patterns (e.g. feeding) that are triggered by the pace setters (not by the atmospheric influences directly)

Or, as Frank Brown puts it:

  • First, there is the development of inherited recurring patterns linked to one or another of the geophysical cycles.
  • Second, there is the development of a phase-response system and adaptive resettability of the rhythms by relevant environmental stimuli, including dominantly the light and temperature cycles.
  • Third, with the phase lability of the rhythms and their peculiar phase-response
    activity complex, free-running cycles slightly modified in period by differing light and temperature levels, as well as influences of genetics and some chemicals, are rationally explained as effects on auto-phasing or of systematic phase drifting relative to the natural exogenous cycles.
  • The inherited rhythms, once developed in the individual, adaptively become capable of a labile phase relationship with the publicly timed clock cycles. They can be phase displaced to any degree in response to light cycles or other zeitgeber. Such changes follow geographical translocations, or altered artificial light-dark schedules in the
    laboratory.

Phase shifting by light

Once a rhythm is established it can be fine tuned or phase shifted by alterations in visible light:

“Under the hypothesis of auto-phasing it is postulated that the organism uses its daily rhythmic fluctuation in sensitivity to light to effect a daily shift in its phase relations relative to its environmentally imposed 24-hour periodicity. The manner of action, in general terms, would be as follows: The organism reaching a “light-sensitive” phase in its daily cycle, and encountering the illumination of a constantly luminated environment, would be given a shifting stimulus whose strength, within limits, would be a function of the level of the illumination. Though physically the light is held constant, in stimulative effectiveness for the organism it is rhythmic as a consequence of rhythms in the organism’s own responsiveness.”

New science is needed

Classical science cannot explain the observations:

“Indeed, major concepts of biology have commonly arisen from observation and induction, rather than by deduction from what is known. Efforts in postulation of hypotheses and deducing tests for them may never lead to the correct answers if the hypotheses are rooted in established ones which are not relevant to the problem at
hand. The clocks of life appear to demand an admission of ignorance about a lower level of organization of life.” – Frank Brown

The problem of ‘measurement’

If the precise mechanisms are unknown then how can we be sure that our (often rhythmic) laboratory conditions are not responsible for some of the effects we see?

“The quantitative, and often even qualitative, character of results may be in part determined by uncontrolled factors even as subtle as the proximity of other individuals of the same, or possibly even different species as well as by time within the not widely acknowledged relatively predictable solar and lunar circadian cycles, and monthly and annual ones. Less predictable variations associated with movements of weather systems, and fluctuations in solar activity may also be expected to impose significant influences.

“And not least, the existence of the phenomenon indicates that we are operating
within the range of a biological “uncertainty principle.” There is now clear reason
to presume that the uses of modern methods, facilities and equipment for making
precise measurement of diverse parameters in living systems exert of themselves
an influence upon the system being measured. an influence effected by the invariable and characteristic weak accompanying alterations in electromagnetic fields produced by these. Biological processes will reflect in their measured values the methods and conditions under which the measurements are made, and the differences may be substantial.” – Brown

The bean controls its own rate of water absorption

“The nature of the phenomenon for beans is of such character that it appears
probable that the living embryo within the dried seed possesses the capacity to
regulate to a substantial degree the rate of water absorption by the seed upon its
submergence.“- Frank Brown

[We should not rule out the possibility that it is the seed itself that controls its own water supply at the cellular level. How would the embryo exert control over what happens at a billion molecules distance?]

Summary

Frank Brown discovered that a large part of the information that is essential for healthy regulation lies outside of the Human body in the form of some sort of electromagnetic field. The pace-setters within the body adopt a flexible coupling with this field and are therefore of an electromagnetic nature themselves.

The resulting rhythms are independent of metabolic rate and so ultimately independent of the physical substance of the body. An effective bio-field therefore acts as a receiver and interpreter for the cosmic rhythms, each of which will be assigned an inherited pattern of behaviour.

The response of biology to these influences is all pervasive, complex and meaningful., and transcends mere ‘correlation’. These results give plausibility to the idea that disease is a result of cosmic influences whilst adding confounding factors to laboratory ‘control’ experiments.

Related pages:

References:

External factors in the mechanisms on biological clocks – Frank A Brown

Birth date, lifespan and disease

There is a large body of research showing correlations between date of birth and subsequent health outcomes, with one paper showing a dramatically reduced lifespan (by nearly 10 years!) for those born during high sunspot activity.

For people born at certain times in history, susceptibility to chronic disease increases significantly and life expectancy is reduced:

  • Schizophrenia
  • Bipolar disorder
  • Cancer
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Autism

Correlation exists with several factors:

  • Year of birth
  • Time of year
  • Latitude
  • Sunspot activity
  • Local weather conditions

Sensitivity of foetal development is suspected with assumed mechanisms of altered bio-chemistry and disrupted gene expression. Several causal factors have been proposed:

  • Ultraviolet light
  • Temperature
  • Seasonal toxins
  • Infection from the mother
  • Vitamin D deficiency

Autism is very clearly linked to the (seasonal) vaccine schedule and it seems that the younger the patient at time of injection the greater the likelihood of injury. An association is therefore expected with both date of vaccination and month of birth.

This no doubt plays some role in the cause of other conditions as well but there does seem to be some other contributory factor at work. Correlations are reported with both latitude and solar activity and life expectancy is measured in mostly older subjects who would not have been subjected to such a ‘rigorous’ vaccine schedule as today’s infants.

This page will make a case for the direct influence of cosmological factors via electromagnetic field disturbances.

Hypothesis: These problems are caused by dramatic changes in the Earths magnetic field which propagate to the surface via discrete currents and affect gene expression. The origin of these changes is ultimately the sun and this explains the correlations with season, latitude and solar activity.

Credit: Michael Shay and University of Delaware

The hypothesis:

  • Fits the general ‘pattern’ of available evidence
  • The idea of solar filaments is described by Michael Clarage here
  • Mainstream science is starting to investigate the idea of magnetic disturbances here
  • Electromagnetic activity is correlated with weather here
  • Similar correlations are found between weather and assumed ‘infectious’ diseases – Influenza and weather – Measles – Influenza and field vortices
  • Similar diseases are found to be associated with man-made disturbances of the Earth’s electromagnetic field arising from radio masts and cell-phone towers – 5G and Covid
  • Electromagnetic fields have been found to affect gene-expression in many laboratory experiments
  • Vortices in the form of Tesla waves can penetrate deeper into biological tissue than ultra-violet light

So electromagnetic filaments emerge from the sun and make their way to the Earth where they impact our magnetosphere, causing local disturbances which can affect the general regulatory system and morphological gene expression of both the mother and the developing foetus.

The sun’s magnetosphere is subject to influences from other bodies in the solar system and these disturbances add a fine grained structure to the rhythmic variations coming from the sun. We should therefore expect correlations with:

  • Season and latitude
  • Solar flares and sunspots
  • Localised geographic clusters
  • Lunar cycles
  • Other planetary orbits and alignments

For scientific evidence for the general effect of these phenomena on biological systems read:

  • Cosmic influences on humans – J T Burns
  • External factors in the mechanisms on biological clocks – Frank A Brown

In the J T Burns book, both the brain and foetus seem particularly susceptible to ‘cosmic’ influences and so psychological and developmental disorders should be expected.

Genetic imprinting and biological information

Once established, schizophrenia was exacerbated by lunar cycles with different types of the disease responding to different phases of the moon. A tentative hypothesis might be that the magnetic irregularities might form stereotypical patterns and that developing embryos are ‘imprinted’ or ‘sensitised’ with this information and will recognise it later on in life and respond with corresponding symptoms.

Support for the idea that magnetic disturbances carry biological ‘information’ may be found in the epidemiology of influenza and measles where we have two seasonal diseases breaking out in a predictable fashion in different places on the planet at slightly different times. Both, I think, are caused by ‘field vortices’, which begs the question: “How is it determined which disease is produced?”

The obvious inference here is that the atmospheric signals are not just ‘noise’ but contain some distinguishing features, i.e. information.

This may sound far fetched but it isn’t so different from the (admittedly refuted) theory of viruses whereby a small package of field information wreaks havoc with the body. DNA is composed of ‘matter’ for sure but it is only recognised by its radiant field structure (there is nothing else!) so a direct comparison is appropriate.

Much of the observations of virologists are therefore accurate but they didn’t need to have the information in RNA and didn’t need to assume transmission, as the information comes straight from the magnetosphere at the appropriate times of year and at the appointed latitude.

The major problems with virology are therefore circumvented. There is now no need to explain the lack of human to human transmission for there is none and there is no need to explain the failure to isolate a physical particle as no such thing is necessary; we are dealing with pure ‘energy’ as the cause of disease and it is delivered in exact accordance with the observed epidemiology.

The evidence

Lifespan

Solar energy at birth and human lifespan – George E Davis Jr, Walter Lowell
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30015061/

Methods: The data used 78 million death records from the National Centre for Health Statistics (NCHS) from 1979 to 2013 with accidents, suicides, and war casualties deleted resulted in ~63 million records

Results: Males of all races born with a UVR intensity as estimated by sunspot number (SSN) ≤ 90 had an average lifespan of 74.4 years, for females of all races, 78.1 years; males born with >90 had an average lifespan of 66.3 years, for females of all races, 70.2 years, resulting in a lifespan decrease of 8.1 years for males and 8.5 years for females (!)

For African-American males born ≤ 90 SSN, 70.8 years and for >90 SSN, 62.5 years, an 8.3-year decrease; similarly, for African-American females ≤ 90 SSN, 75.0, for >90 SSN, 65.4 years, a 9.6-year decrease. 

We also found that there were twice as many persons with MS born in >80-90 SSN as in the general population. – Davis, Lowell

Month of Birth and Mortality in Sweden: A Nation-Wide Population-Based Cohort Study – Ueda et al

Over 6,000,000 records examined.

“Month of birth was a significant predictor of mortality in the age-spans >30, >50 to 80, and >80 years. In models adjusted for gender and education for ages >30 and >50 to 80 years, the lowest mortality was seen for people born in November and the highest mortality in those born in the spring/summer, peaking in May for mortality >30 years” -Ueda et al

Cancer

Seasonal variation in the month of birth in patients with skin cancer – La Rosa et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2014522

“Month of birth influences the risk of developing several diseases. We investigated the influence of date of birth on melanoma skin cancer (MSC) and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) incidence.” – La Rosa et al

“People born in February to April showed significantly elevated risks of NMSC compared with those born in summertime.”

“Neonatal UV exposure may explain this finding.”

Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression

Challenging the Hypothesized Link to Season of Birth in Patients with Schizophrenia – Tammi Lee Demier

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196325/

“The cause of schizophrenia is unknown; however, one hypothesis is that seasonality of birth contributes to its development, with an excess of winter-spring births observed in those with schizophrenia. There are over 200 studies exploring this issue at the writing of this article with most of the studies revealing a decrease in late summer births and an increase number of winter-spring births of those individuals with the disease.”

“Though season of birth has been considered as a potential link to schizophrenia, seasonality has also been demonstrated in other mental health disorders, such as bipolar disorder and major depression. Torrey et al found that that there was a significant coherence found between schizophrenia, paranoid type, and bipolar disorder, both of which were found to have an excess of winter births, whereas depression had an excess of spring births.”

The role of latitude and infections in the month-of-birth effect linked to schizophrenia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9287767

  •  This largest study to date identified an excess of schizophrenia births in December, January and February.
  • There was no association between latitude and the magnitude of this month-of-birth effect in schizophrenia.
  • There was a negative correlation between monthly severe enterovirus cases and schizophrenia births.
  • These findings carry implications for disease prevention strategies in schizophrenia.

Exacerbation by lunar cycles

Lunar cycle and psychiatric hospital admissions for schizophrenia: new findings from Henan province, China – RanRan Wang et al
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32252567/

Conclusions: Psychiatric admissions for schizophrenia show lunar periodicities. People with schizophrenia tend to be stable in the new moon, but their condition is easily aggravated during the first quarter and full moon. Patients with paranoid schizophrenia are more susceptible to deterioration at the full moon, so merit more attention and care from communities, families, and hospitals. – Wang et al

Multiple sclerosis

The month of birth effect in multiple sclerosis: systematic review, meta-analysis and effect of latitude – Dobson et al
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23152637/

“A significant relationship between latitude and observed:expected ratio was demonstrated in December, and borderline significant relationships in May and August.“

“Month of birth has a significant effect on subsequent MS risk. This is likely to be due to ultraviolet light exposure and maternal vitamin D levels, as demonstrated by the relationship between risk and latitude.” – Dobson et al

Related pages:

References:

Andrew Hall: Extreme Earthly Weather in an Electric Universe | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PvoIi_4JiU

Michael Clarage: Solar Filaments and You! | Thunderbolts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JA38XKOVpA

UD researcher involved in discovery of magnetic explosion in turbulent space
https://www.delawarepublic.org/science-health-tech/2018-05-20/ud-researcher-involved-in-discovery-of-magnetic-explosion-in-turbulent-space

Seasonality and autoimmune diseases: the contribution of the four seasons to the mosaic of autoimmunity – A. Watad et al.

Understanding the connection between platelet-activating factor, a UV-induced lipid mediator of inflammation, immune suppression and skin – E. Damiani et al.

The effect of solar cycles on human lifespan in the 50 United States: variation in light affects the human genome – W.E. Lowell et al.

Early-life origin of adult disease: evidence from natural experiments – A. Vaiserman

The sun determines human longevity: teratogenic effects of chaotic solar radiation – G.E. Davis et al.

Mutations induced by ultraviolet light – G.P. Pfeifer et al.

Solar cycles and their relationship to human disease and adaptability – G.E. Davis et al.

Indirect evidence that ultraviolet-B radiation mitigates multiple sclerosis in the United States – G.E. Davis et al.

Mutation load and human longevity – L.A. Gavrilov et al.

Vaccine shedding

The essay “What We’ve Learned from Over a Thousand Vaccine Shedding Reports” by ‘A Midwestern Doctor’ asserts that the phenomenon of ‘vaccine shedding’ is real and asks what the mechanism could be. This page proposes a possible mechanism involving information transfer via electromagnetic signalling.

From the article:

  • Shedding is very real.
  • We have seen numerous patient cases which can only be explained by mRNA shedding.
  • Most of the people who are highly sensitive to shedding have already figured it out, so if you do not already believe it is an issue for you, you probably don’t need to worry about it.
  • There is still no agreed upon mechanism to explain why it happens.
  • In theory, shedding with the mRNA vaccines should be “impossible.” 

Largely anecdotal evidence

Accepting evidence of this type is fraught with risk as it is likely interpreted and distorted by the subject and can be considered neither objective nor quantitative. However, in this case, the anecdotes demonstrate distinctive patterns which help suggest a specific mechanism: that of of information transfer via an electromagnetic bio-field. The subjects do not know about this mechanism and so cannot be biasing heir reports in favour of it.

  • Patients may demonstrate symptoms only in the presence of another particular (vaccinated) person and symptoms typically vanish when they separate
  • The vaccinated person may test high for certain bio-markers (antibodies)
  • Treatment of the shedder significantly helps the unvaccinated partner
  • Menstrual abnormalities are high on the list of symptoms
  • ‘Secondary’ shedding is recorded
  • People vary highly in their sensitivity
  • A distinct smell is reported from vaccinated individuals
  • Young and apparently healthy people are stronger shedders than the old and frail

Routes of exposure

  • General proximity to the vaccinated person
  • Through skin to skin contact. 
  • Transfer of secretions

The bystander effect

The radiation-induced bystander effect is the phenomenon in which unirradiated cells exhibit irradiated effects as a result of signals received from nearby irradiated cells. Wikipedia. The effect has been seen on not only cells but entire organisms.

Rainbow trout were exposed to low doses of ionising radiation and then placed in a tank with other healthy fish for two hours after which they were killed and dissected. The organs showed damage typical of exposure to ionising radiation even though no such exposure had taken place. A chemical messenger in the water is suggested as the mechanism in the paper but some sort of electromagnetic influence was not ruled out. – Mothersill et al.

This seems to be an almost exact parallel of the shedding phenomenon.

The bio-field hypothesis

Organisms are regulated by a system of electromagnetic scalar waves which organise together to form a de facto bio-field. The field is scarcely measurable by scientific instruments but connections via resonant scalar waves can form between individuals and can have a meaningful biological effect upon the recipient.

Disruption of this field by an external impulse or chemical insult will lead to dis-regulation and a variety of disease states.

External impulses may include:

All these disturbances lead to similar biological mechanisms (e.g. calcium dis-regulation) that in turn manifest as a typical grouping of symptoms and characteristic epidemiology which have been attributed to the spread of ‘viruses’.

The ability of shedding to reproduce flu-like symptoms is proof enough that a virus is not necessary.

The mechanism

The body is regulated by a system of electromagnetic scalar waves that is driven by the brain (What is the brain?) and propagates along the myelin sheath of nerves (Scalar waves and nerves) and thence into the cells and along the microtubules.

Scalar waves were described by Tesla and are a theoretical construct of physicist Konstantin Meyl who has asserted that: “(Biological) information is the structure of a scalar wave”. Resonant connections between transmitter and receiver have been demonstrated in a laboratory and Meyl has proposed that connections between humans is an explanation for transmission of biological information.

Connection between individuals is initially via a scatter approach but once a suitable recipient has been found, the connection becomes one-to-one and may persist over long time periods and spatial separations.

Does this hypothesis fit the pattern of observations?

General proximity: Initial connection is via a scatter approach which diminishes with the square of the distance between transmitter and receiver so we would expect proximity to a vaccinated individual to be almost a necessity.

Skin contact: James Oschman, in his book ‘Energy medicine’ suggests a similar mechanism for Healing Energy and claims increased effectiveness if actual physical contact is made.

Individual sensitivity: Meyl has propose that some individuals may be better transmitters (strong bio-field) whilst others will be better at receiving. This pattern is thought to exist in ESP ‘adepts’ and Meyl suggests that the mechanism could theoretically be used for telepathy and other ‘paranormal’ activities.

EMF hypersensitivity: Some individuals are said to be hypersensitive to EMF from mobile phones etc. These produce scalar waves as an artefact so the mechanism is identical and the existence of ‘sensitives’ in both areas lends a little more support to both phenomena. Symptoms include nausea, brain fog, fatigue, rash, temperature etc.

Transfer of secretions: A small amount of biological material can play host to a stable and semi-permanent scalar wave complex and it is this that is causing the trouble; there is no need for actual absorption of any physical substance. This is reminiscent of the phenomenon of Telegony whereby phenotypical information can be inherited without the need for the transfer of DNA.

Shedding should be impossible: This is because the possibility of an invisible and almost unmeasurable bio-field has not been considered, with all disease effects being blamed on viruses, bio-chemistry and gene expression, i.e. ‘material’ and ‘mechanistic’ descriptions.

Secondary shedding: The original disturbance whether it be a weather condition or a vaccine causes a reaction of the regulatory system and leading to a change in the expressible bio-field and it is this information emanating from this new ‘state’ that is transmitted by means of airborne scalar waves.

In the case of the irradiated fish (above), they do not emanate the original ionising radiation but instead broadcast the new disease state that has been induced by the original radiation. This information is received by other fish and creates a ‘mirror’ disease state in the recipients that in turn can be passed on as secondary shedding.

Young people are vigorous shedders: They have a stronger, more vigorous bio-field? Bio-field strength and integrity wane as we get older. Michael Levin has stated that the ageing process is essentially a loss of bio-field information.

Bio-markers and antibodies: Antibody production is not by the unmodulated laws of chemistry but is mediated by some sort of regulatory mechanism and the same holds for all bio markers. Measurements of such are therefore a reflection of the regulatory state and it is the means of production of this state rather than the original cause that is transmitted from person to person.

A ‘distinct smell’: Conventional wisdom is that smells are the transfer and detection of the chemical structure of a molecule. Konstantin Meyl begs to differ (Scalar waves and nerves) and has a good argument. A smell is simply a scalar wave that can be detected by the nose somehow.

Signals along the olfactory nerve are scalar waves anyhow and to store the information in the brain which is already a large scalar wave complex requires little processing. Regulation, disease, smell, cognition and memories are now all the same thing: scalar-wave bio-information.

Dogs can smell diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s so they are now smelling the disease regulation directly. They are detecting some electromagnetic representation of the disease state itself.

Is the smell alone capable of producing the symptoms?

When sufferers report a metallic taste, are they in fact monitoring their own regulatory state?

Menstruation

Interesting that disruptions of the menstrual cycle feature heavily in the reports. During the outbreak of 2019/2020 this was a very prominent feature of conversation coming from unvaccinated women, some of whom had succumbed to disease and others who had not.

Women temporarily synchronize their menstrual cycles with the luminance and gravimetric cycles of the Moon [paper]

I don’t think anyone believes that women are synchronising directly with the luminance of the moon (or even gravity for that matter) so the effect is produced by something else that correlates with both these cycles of the moon.

Space in the solar system is not empty but filled with electromagnetic filaments stretching between the sun and the planets. The orbiting moon disrupts these filaments and the knock-on effects are used to synchronise biological processes on Earth. Some effects are beneficial and others cause trouble. See: Neutrinos, eclipses and plagues, Influenza and field vortices, Influenza and weather, Measles, The nature of gravity

Cosmic influences on humans, animals and plants – JT Burns This book is an annotated list of studies on the correlations between planetary movements and biological events on Earth. Several hundred papers and books are summarised.

Cosmic events include solar flares, lunar tides, eclipses, strength of Earth’s magnetic field, planetary orbits, planetary alignments and oppositions.

Biological events range from measured chemical reactions to behaviours of individuals including epidemics, admissions to mental hospitals, car accidents, metabolite levels, birth defects, the shape of leaf buds, rate of water uptake in seedlings, blood clotting parameters, blot tests etc.

The brain, nervous system and embryo seem to particularly sensitive to such influences with personalities seemingly affected by the month of conception (more likely than birth date surely?).

A lot of the correlations seem crazy (the thyroid activity of cats is related to the orbit of Mercury for example) and some have been ‘debunked’.

Many researchers tried experiments in Faraday cages or in deep underground caverns. Often some reduction of effect was observed but rarely was it eliminated. Both electric eddy currents and magnetic potential currents seem implicated then with a Faraday cage providing some protection from the former but not the latter.

Summary

The same mechanism (scalar waves) is used for:

  • Bio-regulation
  • Nerve conduction
  • Disease induction
  • Distant cellular interaction
  • Cognition and memory
  • The sense of smell
  • Synchronisation of biological cycles
  • Inheritance
  • Shedding by proximity
  • Shedding by contact
  • Shedding by secretion

No complicated biochemistry needed at this stage. Biochemical reactions are downstream of bio-field activity.

Why is this not already known?

  • Fixation on physically observable and measurable phenomena
  • Attachment to existing knowledge and imagining it to be ‘complete’
  • Fear of accusations of vitalism
  • Lack of understanding of electromagnetic field phenomena
  • The required physics (scalar waves) is relatively new and still not known to most physicists let alone those in the area of biology

References:

What We’ve Learned from Over a Thousand Vaccine Shedding Reports
Author: A Midwestern Doctor
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-shedding-experiences

Communication of Radiation-Induced Stress or Bystander Signals between Fish in Vivo – Carmel Mothersill et al
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es061099y

Women temporarily synchronize their menstrual cycles with the luminance and gravimetric cycles of the Moon
C. Helfrich-Förster, S. Monecke2, I. Spiousas3, T. Hovestadt4, O. Mitesser5, T. A. Wehr
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.abe1358

Measles

This page looks at several interesting papers on the epidemiology of measles and influenza and tries to make sense of them. Cases dramatically decreased before the vaccine rollout. Modern measles is not a childhood disease and outbreaks are correlated with weather conditions.

Travelling waves and spatial hierarchies in measles epidemics – Grenfell, Bjornstad
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11615103_Travelling_waves_and_spatial_hierarchies_in_measles_epidemics

This paper from epidemiologist Bryan Grenfell shows some very interesting features in the epidemiology of measles, A ‘wavelet’ model is created that characterises the UK data as a series of wave-packets that originate from the large cities and spread out over the rest of the country,

Further computer modelling shows how various features of the wave model can be explained by human-to-human transmission driven by population dynamics and seasonal forcing.

The wave patterns are quite surprising, are not obviously connected to the seasons and are not consistent with the idea that measles is the immediate result of a poisoning event.

This paper is a good example of why mathematical modelling is sometimes necessary and how it can give insights into the underlying structure of noisy data.

London measles cases 1944 – 2000

The chart shows the “Wavelet time series analysis for the log-transformed weekly London measles time series” – so the data has already been manipulated somehow.

Several interesting and surprising features are immediately apparent.

The chart starts with an apparent seasonal variation which, by 1950, has transformed into a biennial pattern with strong peaks every two years and a ‘mini’ peak in between the main peaks. The peaks are very well defined.

After 1970 the absolute number of cases declines and the biennial pattern degenerates into just ‘noise’.

Varying time period

Somewhat surprisingly for such a sharply defined pattern, the period is not actually tied to the seasons and is not precisely biennial. Instead, mathematical analysis suggests a period of slightly larger than two years that, even so, varies as time progresses; see the blue line below.

The red line shows the onset of vaccination programs and this is assumed to somehow affect the biennial rhythm.

Phase differences between cities

The modified data from three cities, London, Norwich and Lincoln are plotted on the same chart and we immediately see that measles in the three cities peaks in different years and at different times of the year.

In addition to this, the blue peaks (Lincoln), at first out of step with the other cities, are perfectly synchronised by 1990.

Modelling the data as a flexible wave function

Data such as the above are not expressible as a single mathematical equation and so are not amenable to statistical analysis. What is needed is a further abstraction of the data in order to somehow obtain a quantitative analysis of these phenomena.

The illustration below shows (top chart) the data modelled as a set of ‘flexible’ waves and we can now clearly see a striking pattern, that of three wave functions having no initial phase relation gradually and smoothly attaining a perfect synchrony.

Note that in 1951 the black and red have perfect phase-alignment with each other but are completely in opposition to the blue line of Norwich.

The bottom chart shows the calculated phase difference between Cambridge and Norwich and between Cambridge and London. The averages are non-zero and differ from each other but eventually achieve synchrony in 1962 before starting to diverge again.

Spreading from major cities

The illustration shows the phase difference of disease incidence relative to London.

Measles outbreaks that start in London will radiate outwards from the capital city at a rate of about 5km per week, with the rate of travel depending upon local population densities. The pattern is clear for a radius of about 30km around London with ‘randomness’ in rural areas eventually dominating.

Similar ‘spreading’ patterns exist with all the major cities with things being less clear in the North-East where the proximity of several large cities leads to interference patterns in the spreading waves.

A transmission model

Grenfell does not make the claim that these data prove contagion, rather contagion is assumed and the task of the paper is to try to explain the characteristics of the data in terms of transmission parameters.

  • Measles epidemics are self-limiting and will subside when all ‘susceptibles’ (children) gain immunity
  • ‘Extinction’ events occur in rural areas when the disease dies out for lack of new victims
  • Disease remains ‘endemic’ in larger cities and replenishes the surroundings with virus on an approximately biennial basis when there are enough new children
  • What is effectively random transmission between individuals will form stable attractor patterns at the population level and it is these that are manifest in the data
  • Phase-locking between attractors along with seasonal forcing gives rise to synchrony between cities and an apparent underlying rhythm
  • The decline of measles after the introduction of vaccine programs is assumed to be because of those vaccination programs

Concerns and questions

Seasonal forcing

The stated importance of seasonal forcing seems at odds with the model which at no time shows a precise biennial pattern, which varies across time and is different for each city.

“Because epidemics do not suffer local extinction, and because all the cities experience the same seasonal forcing, no lags are generated.” – Grenfell

“The task is aided by epidemiological models, which capture both the nonlinear dynamics of childhood epidemics as a function of local population size and the impact of significant environmental forcing. This forcing mainly comprises seasonality in transmission, due to schooling patterns, and longer-term variations in susceptible recruitment, due to birth-rate variations and the onset of vaccination” – Grenfell et al

The saw-tooth shape of an epidemic

The paper concentrates on modelling epidemics as waves and therefore does not address the issue of the characteristic ‘saw-tooth’ shape of the epidemics.

Other authors have commented upon this with respect to influenza. We expect from an epidemic that the initial increase in cases is rapid and follows an exponential curve and that thereafter a rounded peak will be reached and a long decline will ensue. The tail end of the curve is expected to stretch out as the disease finds fewer and fewer people to infect.

What we see instead is a very sharp peak that is followed by a decline that is much faster than the initial rise in cases.

Extinction events

The virus is said to disappear from rural areas in between epidemics but to be replenished from the big cities in time for a new outbreak, meaning the survival of the virus depends upon the specific population densities and behaviours. The question then arises: “How did measles survive before modern population densities, primary schools and contemporary commuter habits?”

Measles is ‘endemic’ in large cities

“In the large town, measles is endemic throughout the interepidemic trough, so that a new epidemic occurs as soon as the effective reproductive ratio of infection exceeds unity; this threshold is determined by the accumulation of susceptible children, modified by seasonally varying transmission rates associated with the school year.

“By contrast, in the small town, infection goes extinct locally after an epidemic; therefore, another epidemic cannot happen until an infective `spark’ is received, generally originating in a larger (endemic) community.” – Grenfell

What does it mean to say that measles is ‘endemic’?

Standard transmission models

The graph below shows the outcome of a basic epidemiological model.

Cases (red) initially show a rapid (exponential) increase in numbers as the infection spreads to more and more susceptible individuals. As the number of susceptible individuals reduces so the increase diminishes but still infections remain high as there are still plenty of ‘spreaders’ around.

Source: Benji Tigg

As the number of spreaders starts to wane and the number of susceptibles continues to diminish, the curve takes a steeper downturn and infections decline rapidly.

In computer models such as this a long ‘tail’ is produced as, although new infections are declining rapidly, there is a large pool of infected individuals remaining.

This hides what is really happening which is that contact with an affected individual is becoming increasingly and rapidly unlikely. Take a look at the number of susceptibles; it declines rapidly as soon as the epidemic starts and reaches almost zero even whilst cases are still near their peak.

We have, at peak number of infections, only 0.2 infected people per 1000 which means 2 cases per 10,000 – and the disease is still being passed on somehow!

Even so, the model is assuming a perfect mixing of the population and within this model there is always a non zero probability of a sick person making a transmission to a healthy. In practice I think this would not be the case and that instead there would be a very sharp decline in new cases once the proportion of infected individuals reached some threshold, below which transmission simply did not occur.

‘Non-epidemic’ activity

This then is a glaring weakness in the transmission theory, that the number of susceptible individuals decreases to almost zero during an epidemic and yet must somehow remain above zero for another two years to spark off the next epidemic.

A spreading virus is only able to stay alive by actually spreading and once the effective reproduction rate is below one, it is declining rapidly.

To make any sense of this, modellers must somehow keep the virus alive and yet not spreading during interim periods and so will add some other mode of survival to allow for this:

“We then fit a seasonal regression model to the truncated series to estimate the expected baseline number of deaths in the absence of epidemic activity. A nonepidemic threshold was defined by the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval derived from the seasonal regression model. Only influenza activities that remained above the threshold for >2 consecutive weeks were included in the analysis” – Viboud et al

So there is now something called ‘non-epidemic’ activity for influenza which keeps the virus alive somehow even though there is no measurable spread. In the case of measles, lifetime immunity is claimed which further reduces the possibility of spread in between epidemics.

Without this ‘fix’ to the models there would surely be very many extinction events even in population dense areas.

The decline in measles

The chart shows measles deaths from 1900 to 1960. A strong rhythmic pattern with a period of about 3 years is seen, along with a marked decline, almost to the point of extinction, before vaccines were introduced after 1960.

The vaccines therefore cannot be the cause of the decline in deaths.

Note that these data are averaged over a whole nation so we don’t have the geographical refinement of the Grenfell paper but if we take all these results at face value we have a disease showing an approximate three year cycle that, as global incidence declines, diminishes to a two year cycle, followed by a one year cycle and eventual disintegration of structure into mere ‘noise’.

What produces this? Do Bruce Grenfell’s attractor patterns extend to the whole of the United States as well?

Modern measles age distribution

The chart below from Muscat et al suggests that measles can no longer be considered a disease of childhood.

Seasonality

Measles is seasonal in many countries particularly in the spring:

Modelling seasonal measles transmission in China – Bai, Liu

Measles and the weather

The effects of weather conditions on measles incidence in Guangzhou, Southern China – Yang et al

“The morbidity of measles shows a seasonal variation. In temperate climates, measles outbreaks typically occur in the late winter and early spring every year, whereas in the tropics, measles outbreaks have irregular associations with rainy seasons, which suggests that climatic factors partly underlie the seasonality of measles virus infections.” – Yang et al

Compare with the epidemiology of influenza:

“Influenza seasonality indicates that New Delhi would likely benefit from springtime vaccination (May–June), whereas vaccination in the fall (October–November) would be better for Srinagar. We recently illustrated that India and most other tropical countries in Asia exhibit influenza seasonality that coincides with the monsoon season, June–October” – Koul et al

The charts from Yang et. al. show an increase in measles cases correlated with:

  • Low humidity
  • High sunshine
  • Moderate temperatures



Other researchers have found correlations with both season and specific local weather events:

“Specific meteorological conditions increased the risk of measles, including lower relative humidity, temperature, and atmospheric pressure; higher wind velocity, sunshine duration, and diurnal temperature variation” – Jia et al

“The team discovered a strong and consistent annual pattern of measles outbreaks that was associated with rainfall. Specifically, they found that the rainy season was associated with a lower risk of measles case reporting, whereas measles cases were higher during the dry season.” – Blake et al

“The analysis revealed that there is a statistically significant relationship between weather parameters (Temperature and Rainfall) and the occurrence of measles in the study area.” – Alhaji et al

Cosmic influences on humans, animals and plants – JT Burns This book is an annotated list of studies on the correlations between planetary movements and biological events on Earth. Several hundred papers and books are summarised. Measles is not mentioned.

Cosmic events include solar flares, lunar tides, eclipses, strength of Earth’s magnetic field, planetary orbits, planetary alignments and oppositions.

Biological events range from measured chemical reactions to behaviours of individuals include epidemics, admissions to mental hospitals, car accidents, metabolite levels, birth defects, the shape of leaf buds, rate of water uptake in seedlings, blood clotting parameters, blot tests etc.

The brain, nervous system and embryo seem to particularly sensitive to such influences with personalities seemingly affected by the month of conception (more likely than birth date surely?).

A lot of the correlations seem crazy (the thyroid activity of cats is related to the orbit of Mercury for example) and some have been ‘debunked’.

Many researchers tried experiments in Faraday cages or in deep underground caverns. Often some reduction of effect was observed but rarely was it eliminated. Both electric eddy currents and magnetic potential currents seem implicated then with a Faraday cage providing some protection from the former but not the latter.

So what are the causes?

Viral transmission?

Unlikely:

  • Attempts to transmit any disease in a clinical trial invariably fail
  • Isolation techniques are highly contested
  • Computer models need ‘tweaking’ to get plausible results
  • The need to add a seasonal factor to models suggests a seasonal influence
  • The possibility of extinction events seems too high for virus survival
  • The characteristics of the epidemiology seem too structured for random transmission

Poisoning?

Again unlikely: How to explain the epidemiology?

Annual crop spraying or vaccination schedules might just explain how toxin administration is coordinated over a whole country but it isn’t strictly seasonal and ‘drifts’ from year to year. The epidemiology is complex and has patterns that are both local and global.

Cosmic influences?

To most people this will seem the most unlikely of all, but what else is left?

The epidemiology needs explaining and here we at least have a chance of correlating disease with ‘something’ although at the moment it isn’t even clear what that ‘something’ is.

I doesn’t seem credible that the planet Saturn can have a direct influence on biological processes but more likely that various electrical events in the cosmos can and do have an influence and that these phenomena may well correlate with planetary alignments and solar activity.

These patterns, with seasonal variation and local coincidences with weather events are similar to those seen in the epidemiology of influenza. See here: Influenza and weather

Hypothesis

Population wide biological events are triggered by electromagnetic activity as opposed to gravity and that filaments of such energy pervade the solar system, emanate largely from the sun, connect the sun, planets and moons and will move, interact and intertwine as the planets orbit the sun.

If this is true then certain events and patterns are explained that are not expected from gravitational influence alone. Filament interaction will be roughly rhythmic but with various deviations.

We could expect:

  • Roughly seasonal effects but with various ‘harmonics’.
  • The observed ‘effect’ on Earth may precede the supposed ’cause’ (eg solar flare) because both of these are caused by a third and unsuspected phenomenon.
  • ‘Influences’ of two or more planetary orbits may interact in a complicated way.
  • Odd phase shifting phenomena may be seen
  • Correlations may appear consistent for decades and then disappear, either suddenly or gradually.
  • Random and sudden events seemingly unrelated to planetary motion.
  • Absent or inverted dose-response relationship (weak stimulus seems to give strong response etc.)
  • Relationships which seem outstanding to the eye but disappear upon statistical analysis.

The last above is because it is the wrong things that they are trying to correlate and because the ’causes’ themselves may be only quasi-periodic. The Earth’s rotation speed is not quite constant and solar cycles also vary in length in an unpredictable fashion. Many periodic influences from the solar system are in any case filtered through our ionosphere and weather system which have local rhythms of their own.

All these patterns above are described in the book by J.T. Burns and many are seen in the epidemiology of measles and flu. Many cannot be explained by conventional means so the idea of electromagnetic filaments stands as the most likely explanation for now.

It sounds like almost any pattern of disease outbreak may be possible and that the hypothesis is therefore unfalsifiable. This may well be true at the moment but the hope is that a more detailed understanding of the electromagnetic nature of biology and the electromagnetic activity in the cosmos will some day give something concrete to test against.

Related pages:

References:

Travelling waves and spatial hierarchies in measles epidemics – Grenfell, Bjornstad
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11615103_Travelling_waves_and_spatial_hierarchies_in_measles_epidemics

Modelling a modern day pandemic — Developing the SIR model – Benji Tigg
https://medium.com/geekculture/modelling-a-modern-day-pandemic-developing-the-sir-model-8d77599050ce

Influenza Epidemics in the United States, France, and Australia, 1972–1997 – Viboud et. al.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/1/02-0705_article

The State of Measles and Rubella in the WHO European region – Muscat et al
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26580789/

The effects of weather conditions on measles incidence in Guangzhou, Southern China – Yang et al
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4896574/

Estimation of the relationship between meteorological factors and measles using spatiotemporal Bayesian model in Shandong Province, China – Jia et al
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-16350-y

Measles outbreaks in Niger linked to rainfall and temperature, study finds – Blake et al
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200825110805.htm

Impact of Climatic Variables on the Prevalence of Measles in Wudil Local Government, Kano State, Nigeria – Aljhaji, Nasir
https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1701750.pdf

Differences in Influenza Seasonality by Latitude, Northern India – Parvaiz A. Koul et. al.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/10/pdfs/14-0431-combined.pdf

Cosmic influences on humans – JT Burns
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Influences-Humans-Animals-Plants/dp/0810833131

Modelling seasonal measles transmission in China – Bai, Liu
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1007570415000088

Measles again, this time from the WHO – peaking in spring
https://vaxopedia.org/2019/07/08/when-is-measles-season/

The no-virus debate: Steve Kirsch

These are my thoughts on the debate as to whether viruses exist or not, taking as ‘inspiration’ the video debate between Steve Kirsch and Andrew Kaufman [here] and Steve’s Substack article: here.

I have no qualifications in biology and am certainly no expert in isolation or gene sequencing techniques but these are not the only perspectives.

Priorities:

  • The laws of Physics must be obeyed
  • Statistical principles must given due prominence
  • Theoretical frameworks must be self-consistent
  • Arguments must be logically sound
  • Language should not be ambiguous or misleading
  • Epidemiology needs an explanation
  • Attempts should be made to quantify observations and statements
  • Philosophical musings concerning the nature of existence are irrelevant
  • Arguments should not be rejected for failing to adhere to The Scientific Method.

“Over 130 years of data; none of it inconsistent with virology“

What?! Almost nothing that happens is consistent with virology. The industry just adapts the ideology to fit the data

  • Not everybody gets ill so the idea of immunity was conceived with no proof
  • Genomes are inconsistent thereby giving rise to the (fuzzy) concept of a variant
  • People don’t get sick immediately after contact so an incubation period is assumed but never proven
  • People get ill without contact with other sick people so .. asymptomatic transmission!
  • Flu disappears in winter. Latency is proposed but not proven.
  • Novel behaviours or symptoms are not deemed inconsistent but immediately assigned to a new variant without justification

The biggest inconsistencies are with the epidemiology:

  • Clinical trials consistently fail, eg Rosenau – this needs an explanation
  • Doctors, for example, see ten times as many sick people as the rest of us but don’t get ill ten times as often
  • Sickness within families does not seem to increase the likelihood of becoming ill
  • In situations where the population density is high we would expect an increase likelihood of becoming ill but it is in fact slightly reduced
  • Disease is seasonal and correlated with latitude and changes in the weather – Why?
  • ‘Transmission’ of influenza has historically happened faster than the common mode of transport and has not followed the usual travel infrastructure
  • Conjoined twins do not catch flu off each other
  • Lockdowns don’t work

None of these points require any expertise at all in virology to understand or even the idea of a small particle. They are all inconsistent the idea of transmission per se regardless of any assumptions concerning the mechanism.

A common argument is that doctors somehow acquire immunity by constant contact with sick people and without getting ill. This brings their infection rate down to the precise value it was if they didn’t have the immunity but avoided contact with patients. There is no evidence for this apart from the actual data which we are trying to explain in the first place.

This is clear bunk but circular arguments such as this seems to be sufficient for those who are already invested in the idea of viruses and so the contagion myth continues.

“No virus has ever been isolated!”

“We never say that fire and gravity cannot exist because you cannot ‘isolate’ them.” Kirsch

We hear this a lot from those in the medical profession with gravity, photons and electrons being common examples. This therefore needs addressing.

Gravity is known by its effect on real physical objects and the concept of gravity is verified by quantitative predictions. The speed of falling objects can be measured precisely and its future trajectory can be accurately computed. Same goes for electricity.

The idea of a ‘force’ is a theoretical concept and I am not sure what it means to say that a theoretical concept ‘exists’. Certainly its existence is not qualitatively the same as the existence of an apple, say. The word ‘existence’ needs to be qualified if the context is not clear. The conflation used above is a distraction.

A virus is supposed to be a real thing consisting of real physical material and so the idea of physical existence is pertinent. Viruses are assumed to be too small to see but being part of the physical world they should be amenable to investigation by physical means, they should leave some sort of physical ‘footprint’.

Some method of characterisation and classification is needed and the virologists seem to have decided upon the result of genome sequencing as a way of doing this. As far as I can understand, they are therefore defining a ‘virus’ as the outcome of a series of chemical reactions.

This is fine as far as it goes but these sequences must be shown to have some biological significance or else what is the point? There needs to be some credible model that relates genome sequence to biological action but it seems that none is available. ‘Association’ is not good enough as, given long enough sequence, there will always be some sort of association to be found somewhere.

Koch’s postulates

These are often suggested as being appropriate to ascertain whether or not an organism causes a disease. Postulate 3, however, reads “The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.”. So in order to determine if an organism causes disease we must first see if it causes a disease in addition to the other three postulates!

Clearly the postulates are not fit for purpose. This was not their original intent.

In addition to this, the Postulates clearly take the process of ‘isolation’ as a given. They were formulated to deal with bacteria which are easily visible and characterised by outward form.

Koch’s postulates are therefore not suitable for virology.

Replication of the sequence in millions of people who were diagnosed with COVID

“Each lab is given a sample from an infected person and asked to identify any novel pathogen that has not been seen before using only the data in the sample. In over 100 countries, the genome sequences (which are nearly 30,000 nucleotides long) came back that were virtually identical. This can’t happen by chance. AFAIK, there is only one way it can happen: the same base pathogen is infecting people all over the world” – Steve Kirsch

So on the information we have here:

  • The labs were only given data from sick people
  • There was therefore no control
  • They were specifically told to ignore influenza ‘virus’
  • The sequenced genomes were not identical

Saying that the samples were ‘virtually identical’ is surely persuasive language as opposed to scientific. What is required is some way of quantifying the similarity of two sequences.

Some sort of meaningful, well defined metric is required if we are to compare different genome sequences. To simply give a percentage match is wholly inadequate as we don’t know what the percentage means in biological terms.

A early sequencing of  SARS-CoV-2 sequence gave an 89% match to some bat-sequence. Are these genomes sufficiently similar? Why?

  • Is the total percentage all that matters?
  • Are some pairs more important than others?
  • Are all sub-sequences equally likely?
  • Does the genome have random characteristics or is there necessarily some structure?
  • Are there critical areas in the genome? Is there chaotic behaviour?
  • Do similar sequences necessarily have similar biological function and if so how do we measure similarity of biological function?
  • What are the criteria that determine whether a sequence is a variant or not?

If these issues have been addressed then they are not in common circulation.

“This can’t happen by chance. AFAIK, there is only one way it can happen: the same base pathogen is infecting people all over the world.” – Kirsch

But transmission by breath, say, has never been established and so cannot be cited as a cause. This result is being cited as both evidence and cause at the same time.

‘AFAIK’ is clearly subjective and will change with further knowledge. If we only ever explain things in terms of things we already know then we will never progress, ever.

Our knowledge of biology and even physics is far from being complete and results such as this may be indications of such. To say “I have a fixed and finite set of ideas and I am determined to explain everything in terms of these” is clearly short sighted to put it mildly.

“If viruses don’t exist, how would you explain this?” Transmission was not demonstrated and nor was the ability to cause disease and nor was the actual existence of a particle, merely similar genome sequences.

Universal agreement on the structure of SARS-CoV-2

“So if a virus doesn’t exist, how can there be such universal agreement among all researchers with no dissent whatsoever?” – SK

Agreement has been reached on the structure of something but that thing was never shown to be infectious and was never shown to cause disease and so it cannot be called a ‘virus’.

This is frustrating. The issue here is whether a small piece of RNA can actually cause a disease in a living human being but all that is happening is that geneticists are finding interesting patterns in RNA and agreeing with each other. They are, as Christine Massey would put it, just “doing stuff with cells“.

All this is tangential to the main contention. There is no point on determining the structure of something if it has nothing to do with causing a disease.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR)

“Viruses replicate” – SK

Triggering language again. No particle has been shown to cause disease and therefore no particle can be said to be a virus. This is not pedantry. The constant use of such language tends to bypass cognitive censorship and establish the notion of a virus within the mind of the listener without evidence or argument. We are thus left with an entire planet full of people who believe in viruses – but they don’t know why.

Try: “RNA replicates“. No, it doesn’t. Cells replicate and cells manufacture RNA. However, RNA itself does not and cannot replicate. Again, this might seem picky but the constant use of sloppy language reinforces sloppy (and incorrect) ideas.

The claim that RNA replicates enforces the notion of precision and omits the suggestion that there is any other influence on the sequence other than that of the original sample. This is of course not true and the technology of gene-editing is testament to that.

Again, the notion of replication is a sleight of hand, a useful ‘wallpaper’ to cover the cracks in the narrative. It gives the impression that the same thing happens in vitro as happens in vivo. If this is what virologists are claiming them we would like to see proof of this please.

Similarly, the idea of ‘mutation’ strongly suggests the existence of a stable sequence with minor variations from that sequence but if what we end up with is essentially lots of constantly changing sequences then nothing is really stable and so nothing is really a ‘variant’.

“You can lock these people in a room right after they are sick and the qPCR results will increase by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. That means it is replicating.”

So the people are in a diseased state and for some reason are producing more and more of these particles whatever you want to call them. We have an association here between disease and gene sequence but no proof that it is the RNA that is causing the disease as opposed to the other way around. There was no proof of transmission here either.

“AFAIK, the rise and fall of the amount of genetic material can only explained by foreign (i.e., non-host) genetic material that is capable, either on its own or with the help of a host cell, of replication.”

The claim here is that RNA can replicate all by itself with no help of a host cell! So it is somehow pro-active in manufacturing or assembling sufficient molecular material and before generating enough energy all but itself to stick them together in the correct order?

Why is this only explained by foreign material? Why cannot the ‘host’ itself manufacture it? Human beings are quite capable of creating and folding precision molecules as in the case of proteins. A million people have similar, if not identical, proteins but it doesn’t mean that it was the proteins that made the sick.

Proteins and indeed RNA are not assembled according to a set of digital instructions but by the laws of physics and chemistry. Proteins likely assembled via resonance (Resonant recognition model) and then folded by the adoption of successive attractor states to achieve the final form.

According to Denis Noble and others, new DNA is only vaguely similar to its ‘template’ but becomes to resemble it more closely post-creation. It is therefore a teleological process whose final aim is determined by the cell itself. So the more cycles or whatever, the closer the gene sequence moves to some ‘least-energy’ attractor state.

Antibodies

“A virus can cause antibodies to be created and we can measure that.” – You have not established that it is a virus yet.

“If it isn’t a virus but is simply a reaction to external stress, then why are antibodies being created?”

I don’t know but the ‘word’ in the no-virus community is that antibodies are not antigen specific and that they are some sort of repair mechanism.

What exactly were they working on in the Wuhan Institute of Virology for the past decade?

They were doing stuff with cells the same as everybody else. They are good lab technicians who accurately report their results but just interpret them incorrectly.

Humanised mice are not humans and if no human was made sick by inhaling the breath of another person then no virus was created.

Barnstable County: how did all these people have the same sequence that replicated inside of them?

” Basically, over 1,000 healthy people congregated, and 469 then developed COVID.”

“Virology explains this. It spread between people who were congregating in close quarters, exactly as we’d expect a virus to spread.“

No. This is monster silliness now.

It is stated as a fact that it spread but spreading was not observed, it never is.

Nearly 50% of people got disease but this is not normal. There were rallies that were larger than this which, by the laws of probability, would have certainly contained sick or sickening people and yet nowhere near the same number of people succumbed. Why not?

What happened after the sick people went home to their families? Did 50% of their kin get sick? No, this never happens on this scale.

This is not consistent with virus theory but rather refutes it somewhat.

Attacks of influenza are overwhelmingly related to changes in the weather and are restricted in time and space – Influenza and weather If many people are assembled underneath some antipathetic atmospheric disturbance then many of them will get sick, yes, but there is no spreading and relatives are safe because the causal factor is localised and temporary.

The spread

“If it is a toxin, how do we explain this diagram? Is there evidence that on a certain day that thousands of communities all conspired to release a toxin?”

Influenza is seasonal and travels along latitudes. It has something to do with weather patterns, pressure fronts and downdrafts. It is not inconceivable that toxins accumulate in the air and are concentrated at certain locations.

Other viruses: what are they and why do they match their associated diseases?

No virus has yet been demonstrated and correlation is not causation.

Causation is top down in biological systems and a disease state will lead to very precise changes in the way that RNA is constructed. The drinking of alcohol will alter DNA in a precise fashion, various metabolic patterns can be induced in mice. These traits are codified at the molecular level and passed on to the next generation.

Precise disease states will produce, somehow and for some reason, precise changes in RNA production.

The Washburne paper shows it is HIGHLY unlikely the virus is of natural origin. The genome is consistent with a man-made virus because it has certain genetic fingerprints that have never been found in nature before.

The mere fact of something being man made in no way adds to the likelihood that it is a virus.

The measles virus

“The measles virus is one of the most infectious viruses known to man. An infected person can spread the virus to up to nine out of ten susceptible people who are close contacts.”

Nine out of ten sounds like a lot but it only applies to susceptible people! People who are susceptible get ill – by definition of susceptible!

Again and again: spreading is never directly observed, always assumed. This is why we are in such a mess.

Measles, like many other diseases is seasonal: Seasonal disease. Seasonal and localised incidence has been mistaken for contagion.

Science is about using all available evidence

Yes, so the epidemiology, the seasonality and correlation with the weather, all need some explanation.

The correlation between genome sequences and disease is interesting but is so far just a load of correlations and lack of an explanation does not in any way prove germ theory.

The HART group

The HART group gives some interesting arguments as to why they are rejecting the idea that viruses do not exist. One is a flawed statistical argument and others are observations of genome sequences. None of this explains the epidemiology. This page shows why they are wrong and suggests an alternative model for influenza outbreaks.

The statistical argument is listed at number 1 and is tackled first.
The screenshot below is from their website

  • Note that it is number 1 on their list.
  • Not everybody got sick as part of an outbreak and that number of people is considered “significant“
  • People who shared the same environment got sick at the same time – consider then an environmental cause or trigger
  • The majority of sufferers were part of an “outbreak” i.e. an event where many people got sick.

If an outbreak is defined as a large number of people getting sick at the same time then it isn’t surprising, given the population distribution in a city, that the majority of sick people got sick as part of an outbreak.

Shown here is a city grid of equal sized squares where some squares are densely populated and others not so. This sort of situation is ideal for studying epidemiology if only decent data were available. We can look at how many people in each cell got ill and try to correlate it with population density.

First imagine that some non-infectious pathogen is introduced into some of the cells on a completely random basis. Think of toxic gas being released, 5G death rays maybe or some sort of bio-energy beamed down from space.

We would see then that the chance of a cell showing disease in any of its residents is unrelated to the population of the cell so that a sparsely populated cell is as likely to show disease as one containing many occupants.

In this case then, disease would be correlated to location and since the release of a toxin into a densely populated cell would result in many people being sick we would see in the overall population that the majority of sick people would necessarily come from cells where there were many other sick people.

This is really just saying that the majority of people in a city come from population-dense areas.

This much is obvious. It is also precisely what is described in point 1 of the HART group’s statement above. They even attribute the illness to “having shared the same environment” as opposed to “having been with other sick people“.

Now let us fantasise about infection. If this were possible then we would expect that infection would spread more effectively in densely populated areas. We would also expect an increased likelihood of seeing disease in these areas as there are many more people to introduce the pathogen into the grid square from elsewhere.

Statistical analysis should then show a correlation between cell population and the occurrence of disease in that cell. Recall that in the first case, cells get affected at random and there was no correlation with population density; a 5G death tower does not know how many people there are living nearby.

There is the possibility then that an infection model can be proved or disproved merely by looking at some statistics.

If only somebody had thought to collect some data..

Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was an astronomer and statistician who looked at the epidemiology of flu by studying incidence of the disease in English public (boarding) schools. Some pupils will board at the school and be in contact with each other 24-7 whilst others will go home at weekends or evenings. [paper]

All these schools have children of the same age groups, eat similar food, are subjected to the same harsh exercise regimen and engage in stereotypical social contact. Schools themselves are organised into ‘houses’ and dormitories, giving a controlled structure to the possible transmission routes.

These are ideal conditions to study incidence of influenza. Hoyle looked at epidemiological patterns as described above and found that, for example, a dormitory full of boys was as likely to demonstrate influenza as a solitary boy sleeping at home with his parents.

Hoyle believed in viruses but still concluded:

  • Person to person transmission is ruled out as a significant cause of the disease.
  • The overwhelming cause of the disease comes from ‘elsewhere’.
  • Low level outbreaks occur completely at random and unconnected to each other.
  • Larger outbreaks occur in geographical clusters which vary in size from a whole school and its environs to a single dormitory or part thereof.
  • A virus is ruled out as the actual cause.
  • Viruses are manufactured within the body in response to an external trigger.
  • The external trigger is some kind of ‘virion’ that comes from outer space.
  • [The results do not indicate food poisoning or collective detox.]

The chart below shows that population influenza is best modelled by a simple gaussian distribution with a mean around winter solstice and a 90% interval of only a few weeks.

Observations must be explained and the ‘viral model’ does not explain the epidemiology.

The members of the HART group know this and know that transmission studies have failed, but are still sticking to their model because: “The virus model explains all of the above in a way that no other proposed model can (yet).“

Other individuals have complained of a lack of a better alternative and that viruses are ‘still the best explanation‘ for what they are seeing.

Again, from the HART group: “Scientists form a model that best explains the majority of the evidence. ” So we need to explain the epidemiology.

A statistical model:

  • Seasonal incidence: Outside of the tropics, populations will succumb to influenza in the two weeks either side of winter solstice
  • Latitudinal patterns: Finer grained structure is seen along lines of similar latitude (Hoyle and others)
  • Local outbreaks are delineated by location and are distributed at random

No mechanism is suggested here but we have achieved:

  • Prediction of timing: over 95% of cases will be in midwinter although how many seems to vary a bit.
  • Characterisation of outbreaks as being somehow related to location (we can’t even say environment).
  • Better interpretation of epidemiology: The assumption that clustering implies contagion is incorrect and has been dangerously misleading.
  • Scope for further research: What is there that is special about certain latitudes and locations?
  • A model that actually fits the observed data: Other models based upon the flawed assumption of transmission have failed spectacularly.

This seems like a good basis for a model as being grounded in observed reality. We can refine it later and look for biological mechanisms to explain these patterns but the foundation should be as described above.

The HART group, by contrast seem to want to plunge straight in with assumed bio-molecular causes and to worry about the facts of disease later on. This is the wrong way round to do science: the ‘majority of the evidence‘ needs explaining.

The group is asking the virus sceptics to explain various molecular and genomic phenomena. These all sound very interesting but they do not of themselves constitute disease and have not been shown to cause any disease.

Towards a mechanism

The model described above is purely statistical in nature and may well make useful predictions but it gives us no ‘understanding’ and describes no biological mechanism whereby disease might be caused by seasonal change.

  • Seasonal incidence: This is so precise that the only possible way that this can be achieved by resonant entrainment to some seasonal influence, either daylight hours or maybe the Earth’s magnetic field.
  • Latitudinal coincidence: This again suggests the Earth’s magnetic field is involved.
  • Local outbreaks: Tricky. Hoyle suggests virions from outer space, I will suggest cosmic ray showers or eddies (vortices) in the Earth’s magnetic field, but I am certainly open to alternatives.

What else is it that we need to explain?

The HART group is asking to explain things like a unique RNA sequence found in people who appeared to have similar symptoms, Now nobody goes to their doctor complaining about a unique RNA sequence. We don’t need to explain this, we need to explain the symptoms.

The symptoms, even by mainstream accounts, are caused by an altered bio-regulatory state. This state (erroneously referred to as the ‘immune response’) consists of an an orchestrated sequence of events leading to symptoms that include sweating, muscle aches, elevated temperature and lasts usually five days before returning to normal.

I don’t say ‘returning to homeostasis’ because this state is managed by the body itself and is perfectly stable although not sustainable.

It is this state that causes distress and constitutes what we call ‘disease’.

For this process to fit within our model then, we are looking for some way that it is produced as a direct result of the seasonal rhythms and without the intermediary of a viral particle.

This is the research to be done. It sits firmly within the purview of bio-regulatory medicine and not so much virology or genetics.

Top-down causality is common in biology and is implemented via means of attractor systems which interpret external stimuli to effect change at the cellular and even molecular level. Attractors can be highly sensitive to rhythmic input. It is quite conceivable that people in similar physiological states can produce RNA with similar sequences.

Now since most disease is just assumed to be viral in nature it follows that most disease research is performed by virologists who are really geneticists and think almost exclusively in terms of bottom-up causality, that is to say, that a small piece of RNA has the ability to destabilise a system that demonstrates organisation and robustness to perturbation at all levels.

The idea of an attractor is not something that would readily spring to mind to one trained in biology but it is essential for the understanding of living systems. Attractors are the key to top-down causality, providing an interpretive interface between the organism and its environment.

Influenza is just a sudden phase change in an attractor state triggered by some external input. Genetic events are the end point of attractor activity, not the primal cause.

Why do symptoms differ between individuals?

This is behaviour typical of chaotic attractors. Paths will converge to the attractor but diverge on the attractor so no two people will demonstrate identical disease progression. Attractor phase states are general patterns which are not precisely definable or predictable. Attempts to refine diagnosis by increasing accuracy or number of measurements will just cause confusion as there is no meaning in these details.

Since each individual is on their own specific attractor path and in their own ‘state’ at midwinter, it is now expected that not everybody will get ill at solstice. This is natural behaviour for attractors. We would expect that there is a component of disease risk that is actually independent of other health factors; an element of ‘randomness’.

Attractor states are highly stable, making routine treatment somewhere between difficult and impossible. Phase changes can be sudden and apparently non-causal, resulting in what are usually described as ‘miracle’ cures. So miracles do happen and we now have a scientific explanation for them.

From Mae-Wan Ho

Attractors present a problem from the point of view of determinism . Their behaviour is stable and predictable insofar as they will reliably produce meaningful biological patterns that result in a robustly functioning organism. However, this behaviour is not predictable from examination of their parts and not predictable from any finite history of that behaviour. This is a hammer blow for traditional reductionist science; there will always be something incalculable and unknowable where biological systems are concerned.

Summary:

  • The data comes first, the explanation comes later
  • The mechanism of genetics is interesting but does not cause flu
  • Influenza is a disturbance of organisation – not cellular damage
  • Top down causation is provided for by attractor patterns
  • The presence of attractors implies a ‘cloud of unknowing’
  • Observations (seasonality) require explanations

Related pages:

References:

Why HART uses the virus model – Arguments against “the virus doesn’t exist”
https://www.hartgroup.org/virus-model/

Viruses from space – Fred Hoyle
https://www.hoyle.org.uk/resources/virusesfromspaceCompressed.pdf

Surveillance of influenza and other seasonal respiratory viruses – UKHSA
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-flu-reports/surveillance-of-influenza-and-other-seasonal-respiratory-viruses-in-winter-2021-to-2022

The gene: An appraisal – Keith Baverstock
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33979646/

Epigenetic Regulation of the Mammalian Cell – Keith Baverstock, Mauno Rönkkö
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002290&type=printable

A theory of biological relativity: no privileged level of causation – Denis Noble
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/

“Meaning of Life & the Universe: Transforming” – Mae-Wan Ho
 ISBN-10. 981310886X ; ISBN-13. 978-9813108868