virus – The Library of Atlantis

What are exosomes?

Exosomes are commonly described as “nanoscale particles formed by a lipid bilayer that encapsulates and carries a biologically active cargo of proteins, lipids, RNA and DNA.“

It has been suggested that these particles are what mainstream science is mistakenly identifying as ‘virus’ particles. After all, they are described in a similar way, look the same, have similar structure and are purported to be the carriers of biological-information via RNA strands.

They have been described as ‘cellular debris’ ie the result of cellular breakdown but at the same time many think they have the function of preserving resources by transportation to another cell. This is slightly contradictory maybe. The phrase ‘cellular breakdown’ suggests an increase of disorder but the preserving of resources sounds more like a transformation of order, a ‘managed decline’ where information and energy is not destroyed but merely redistributed to somewhere else.

They are asserted by the mainstream to be a highly functional part of normal cellular activity, are capable of the ‘transfection’ that the virologists use to support the idea of a virus and have been proposed as the basis for a whole bunch of new gene therapies.

How is such a thing constructed? What is their function? What is their relationship to influenza and gene sequencing? What might be their relationship to vortex physics, solar filaments and energy conservation?

Hypothesis

The nucleus of an exosome is an energy vortex arising within the cell. Because of the ‘concentration principle’ the vortex continues to accumulate energy until it has sufficient to manifest some RNA ‘out of the nothing’ as claimed by Stefan Lanka.

The RNA continues to continues to promote a vortex structure and a new ‘vortex radius’ (a sphere of high energy) is created, Energy accumulates at the radius and is used for the construction of the lipid bilayer whereupon the exosome is complete. It can now be transported out of the cell and either into another cell or simply excreted as observed.

Information transfer within biological systems is via electromagnetic scalar waves. The exosome arises from such a structure; it needs both energy and information for its own construction.

If too much energy should arise within the cell then that energy needs to be expelled, it needs to go somewhere else. Exosome production is a neat solution for this; the energy is packed up in a scalar wave hosted by the RNA and ejected, possibly to be reused in another cell. The construction and transport of an exosome necessarily results in a net loss of energy for the cell, there is no getting around this.

Exosomes are described as ‘biologically active’ but what makes a piece of RNA ‘active’? If the core of an exosome is now a vortex field then this field has built in energy, an intrinsic propensity to ‘move’ to have some effect in a biological system. The word ‘active’ is fully justified in this case.

It is the structure of this vortex, the information held within it, that causes the manufacture of the physical particle and so there arises the possibility that a similarly structured vortex could enter from the outside and that this would trigger the construction process. This is the basis of ‘transfection’ which seems to ‘spread’ the exosomes a bit but doesn’t seem to lead to any systemic disease.

The vortex principle of energy management

The basic laws of electromagnetism mandate that ‘field energy’ will rotate in a circular fashion and will have a tendency to form various helical, toroidal or vortex-like structures. Energy at a distance from a vortex will spiral inwards and a concentration will occur at the vortex radius.

Energy is always available at a vortex centre for various tasks. Classical biology has energy as essentially dissipative and prone to disorder but this makes it very difficult to even imagine what goes on in a cell from an organisational perspective.

The vortex principle starts with a constant flow of energy as a given, with accumulation at various points within the cell. This is the basic flow that the cell has available to it and ‘life’ can be considered as consisting of relatively minor modulations of this general structure.

Energy spirals in from ‘afar’ so there is always a sufficient quantity but if there is too much energy then the excess needs to be dissipated against the vortex flow. The physical movement of RNA away from the cell is but one way to do this and because of the continual inward flow, there is always enough energy around to accomplish this.

Try imagining this the other way around and you just can’t do it. If energy is generally scattered all over the place in a radial fashion and you run out of it then how are you going to refuel? You have no energy left to move anything around or somehow ‘place an order’ for more! You are left with an energy void, a thermodynamic heat death.

The inward spiralling vortex is a necessity from this point of view.

What is influenza?

Influenza is the influence of seasonal variations in the Earth’s magnetic field. The field is twisted into helical structures which discharge from our atmosphere towards the ground. Small body hairs act as antenna and conduct the vortex into the body where it flows around under its own energy along sympathetic conduits.

Flu vortices do not belong in the cells but end up there anyhow and commence to accumulate energy. Exosomes are the result and are excreted. The creation and expulsion of so much tissue necessitates a net energy loss resulting in fatigue and dysfunction at least.

Exosome RNA is sequenced and imagined be viral RNA.

Exosomes and their RNA are therefore associated strongly with influenza but the disease is not transmissible from human to human and it is not the physical RNA that causes the initial problems but the electromagnetic vortex information. The RNA is a result of the energetic disturbance and not the cause.

Caveat: Things are probably not quite this simple and there are likely extra layers of complexity:

Field vortices are likely modified on entering the body either through the skin or body hairs
All input to the body is ‘interpreted’ to some degree and this allows for immunity effects
At some point with influenza a critical point is reached and a systemic reaction takes place which produces the familiar fever etc.

Transfection

The mechanism of transfection is now explained as an active tunnelling of the vortices from one cell to another. This is not so credible with RNA as it has no ‘agency’ of its own. It has no motive energy, cannot reproduce and so cannot be considered to be ‘active’ as described.

Supporting evidence

5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells – Fioranelli et al
https://scienceintegritydigest.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/fioranelli.pdf

This paper raises the possibility that virus particles can be produced by the vibration of cells at certain frequencies which create hexagonal structures similar to the alleged shape of the virus. Reinterpretation: scalar waves produced as artefacts of the 5G antenna are responsible for the creation of exosomes.

Sunspots and covid

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

“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.”

Anti-Aging by longitudinal magnetic waves: A new approach by modulating ATP-Levels – Schnabl, Schnabl, Meyl

Introduction of scalar waves into plants slows ageing via the promotion of ATP production. ‘Imprinting’ of the waves with different plant sources shows variable results indicating the transfer of ‘information’ from one to the other.

The input of electromagnetic energy has had a direct causal effect on cellular processes.

https://www.oatext.com/anti-aging-by-longitudinal-magnetic-waves-a-new-approach-by-modulating-atp-levels.php

Viruses from space and other matters – Hoyle, Wickramasinghe
https://www.hoyle.org.uk/resources/virusesfromspaceCompressed.pdf

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe examined the epidemioloy of flu and decided that:

a) It was not contagious
b) It was somehow linked to meteorological events
c) It could be described as being caused by ‘virions’ from space

A virion according to the authors is some sort of particle that can enter the population and cause the production of flu ‘virus’ within the body. This resulting virus would lead to disease but was not transmissible person to person; only the original virion can cause disease and this comes from space.

The virion is now clearly a field vortex which explains:

Why the flu is not contagious
Why they never found such a thing
How it is produced not in space but in the atmosphere
Association with weather events
The thing that causes the disease (virion-vortex) is not the same as the thing used for diagnosis (exosome-virus)

Grounding

Prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection by earthing – Haider Abdul-Lateef Mousa
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346734751_Prevention_and_treatment_of_COVID-19_infection_by_earthing

If influenza is something to do with an excess of field vortices and the mechanism of grounding is the expulsion of field vortices then it might just be the case that an acute state of influenza could be alleviated or even cured by the practice of grounding (earthing).

From the paper: “Earthing or grounding might have significant impact in the management of patients with COVID-19. The main complications of the illness are hypoxemia, coagulopathy, inflammation, and immune defect which endanger the patient’s life. All these complications could be relieved by earthing without the deleterious side effects of the drugs and without cost as well.

It is advised to perform sufficient and regular earthing for at least 40 minutes daily for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 infection. Earthing could be applied at any stage of the illness although earlier is better. It is more effective when conducted on wet muddy earth type. It might be effective for other respiratory viral infections such as influenza.”

Reiteration

Solar activity creates powerful electromagnetic activity which is transmitted to the Earth via helical filaments and impacts upon our ionosphere to somehow result in characteristic seasonal and latitudinal patterns in our atmosphere. The resulting vortices enter the human body where they cause all sorts of trouble but are eventually ejected or neutralised via exosome production or other methods.

The observations of the virologists are not ignored or invalidated but given a new interpretation in terms of scalar wave activity. Such activity being something they can never observe directly as they don’t have the instruments, and are unlikely to infer as it involves theories of electromagnetism which lie outside of most text books.

The original claims of the no-virus movement still hold and a putative mechanism has now been suggested to account for exosome production and its immediate connection to meteorological events.

Postscript: Construction via vortex

Exosomes are described above as arising within the cell from cellular processes whereupon they migrate outwards across the cell membrane.

Considerations of a biological system as being dominated by an electrical bio-field comprising a collection of vortices arranged in a cellular fashion, however, allows for a slightly different interpretation.

In this formulation, a cell is coincident with a vortex field with the nucleus at the centre. Energy accumulates both at the centre and the periphery of the cell leading to much activity at both these places.

Vortex movement at the edge of the cell encounters contra-rotating fields from the other cells and smaller vortices form. The energy from these vortices is used to create the main body of the exosome and further vortex ‘turbulence’ around the particle now forms even smaller vortices which form the familiar ‘corona’.

In this version of events, the formation of exosomes (viruses?) is very closely related to the laws of electromagnetism, with the familiar shapes arising from the natural organisation of electric fields as opposed to a teleological aim of the cell itself.

The cell isn’t packing up resources as it deteriorates and nor is it responding to instructions from a virus. All that is happening is that too much or mis-managed energy has resulted in the formation of out-of-place vortices which will tend naturally to construct biological artefacts from available material.

This should not be too surprising because this is the basic principle of Life itself!

Related pages:

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.