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

For a disease that only killed people who were vaccinared, funny how it was worst in countries without vaccination.

Thread: Did you know the Spanish flu started on an army base in Kansas!?

You hoax tards are something stupid.

Maybe the volunteers were asymptomatic carriers or had already had the flu, just mild cases and were immune. Were they tested for antibodies beforehand?

Thread: Did you know the Spanish flu started on an army base in Kansas!?

You hoax tards are something stupid.

I would gladly volunteer if they paid me. I know there is no communicable virus, the science proves it.

Thread: Did you know the Spanish flu started on an army base in Kansas!?

You hoax tards are something stupid.

This is a history lesson.

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

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

Schumann Resonance:



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

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





Listen here young man. Some of us here are old enough to remember talking to our parents about this. The flu was real regardless of how it started. Covid is real no matter how it started. What is wrong with people when they think everything is a conspiracy.


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

THE SPANISH FLU 'CONTAGION' EXPERIMENTS FAILED MISERABLY

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

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

A quote from a Study: :book:

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

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

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

None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza.



He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”69 (p. 313)

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

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


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

[link to jamanetwork.com (secure)]


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

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

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

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

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



PROBLEMS WITH CORONA STUDIES:

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

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

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



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

Therefore it is impossible to claim the virus is pathogenic.

A lesson on PCR testing:

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



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

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

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

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

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


Conclusion: Spanish Flu And Corona Bologna Hoaxes- BUSTED

the section of your statement i bolded is as dumb as your original post, but you're probably too dumb to realize that

Who were the 100 masochists who volunteered for these experiments?

I'm reading the book the invisible rainbow now as well, it's very detailed, written by a Doctor who himself had an electrical sensitivity. It proves that most of these modern diseases are the direct result of our modern world's electrification.

Many 'modern' diseases are caused by electrical poisoning and then blamed on some invisible virus. Here's the book if you're interested:

[link to www.amazon.com (secure)]

Maybe the volunteers were asymptomatic carriers or had already had the flu, just mild cases and were immune. Were they tested for antibodies beforehand?

I would gladly volunteer if they paid me. I know there is no communicable virus, the science proves it.

Impressive. People keep falling for it, why?

can someone explain the difference between a fake flu virus and a real virus like herpes?

ww1 flu epidemic. I read that the main cause of the death rate was of the widespread first use of aspirin at that period to reduce fever.
The fever is the bodies way to lower the reproduction of the virus so, the wide spread use of aspirin leads to wide spread severe cases and death.

There's no such thing as an 'asymptomatic' carrier. Either something causes an illness, or it doesn't.

How are you going to 'test for antibodies' when the virus has never been properly isolated in the first place to prove it manifests those antibodies at all?

This is nonsense circular reasoning the OP devoured in the first post.

Why do you believe herpes is a real virus?

Viruses fall under the "currently accepted theory of germs".
"Currently accepted" means that there were - and still are - other scientific theories about the cause of disease. They do not believe invisible floating entities named viruses exist, and therefore certainly are not contagious nor are the cause of disease. The main one says that herpes symptoms are your body expelling toxins. No virus causes them. Prior vaccinations, exposure to a chemical, etc toxified your body, and your bodies cell were collecting it and shedding it out of your body.
Think of a hayfever sufferer. They sneeze, cough, eyes stream and constantly clear their throats. Are they sick? No. Those sneezes and coughs are the body expelling the pollen.
So why would we conclude that a person, without hayfever. who is coughing, sneezing etc has "caught a cold virus"? Can he not simply be expelling a toxin? Taking the analagy further, ten people fall sick in your workplace with the same cold symptoms over a period of a week or two? Is this actually evidence of a contagious virus as the currently accepted theory of germs would lead you to conclude....or is that office overlooking the simple fact that the plant next door started up its chemical concoction week...or that the cleaning staff started using a substitute new cleaning product in the office...? And that ten people were highly susceptible to its toxicity?

Taking the analagy further, ten people fall sick in your workplace with the same cold symptoms over a period of a week or two? Is this actually evidence of a contagious virus as the currently accepted theory of germs would lead you to conclude....or is that office overlooking the simple fact that the plant next door started up its chemical concoction week...or that the cleaning staff started using a substitute new cleaning product in the office...? And that ten people were highly susceptible to its toxicity?