Still no proof for the measles virus

by - vineri, septembrie 21, 2018

~~~Warning: very long article, but worth reading~~~

A few months ago I was involved in a truly interesting dialogue on Facebook (on a public page) with a young man named Alexandru Ioan Voda, a student in Biomedical Sciences and a PhD student at Oxford. It was a real pleasure discussing with him. 

Since the conversation came to an end, I would like to post the essential part of it here for my English-speaking readers and for future reference.

It started after the young man had addressed an acquaintance of mine on the topic of the "measles virus".

Alexandru Ioan Voda

The reason why convincing others has much to do with science is because debate is how such knowledge is spread. Or debunked, in other cases. [...] I'll address the measles virus.

If you would have followed the Bardens versus Lanka case in depth, you would have read that there were 6 seminal papers that Dr. David Bardens listed as hard concrete evidence that measles virus is causal. They are:
1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.
2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85
3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
4. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measels virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.
5. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.
6. Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.

These were judged by the court-appended independent scientist, prof. Andreas Podbielski, to be sufficient material by themselves as evidence for the existence of the virus that Lanka didn't believe in. However, the justice court decided that "Lanka was free to judge whether any evidence [...], was good enough in *his* opinion". Which in my opinion leads to nothing good.

There's also enormous quantities of secondary evidence as well. This Polish study shows that the more immunocompromised a child is, the less he/she is protected by the antiviral vaccine against the effects of the disease (which is consistent with what you'd expect if the disease was caused by the virus): LINK-HERE

I have discussed these "measles virus doesn't exist"/ "vaccines cause autism"/ pseudoscientific claims so many times that I believe it is the biggest waste of my time in any typical day. It is a waste of time, because I could spend this time better on running experiments and actually helping with the development of biomedical knowledge.

And so, I will stop discussing such beginner topics on this thread (no offense intended, but they are beginner topics). A good introduction to them is the bibliography of the Campbell Biology textbook, or maybe an undergraduate degree in biomedical sciences/immunology/genetics/anything among the lines of that. Many of these easily debunkable claims are very well presented in the first years. Wish you the best.

Gadjo Matto

I didn't make any assertion about the virus/measles itself, and I didn't even think of Lanka. I just asked for a double-blind study, that's all. Which of the studies you linked to are double-blind? LINK-HERE

Feli Popescu

May I join the conversation, since I know all the papers presented by Bardens and I was present at the trial in Stuttgart?
The bacteriologist Podbielski explained in his expertise (which I have read) that NONE of those papers prove the existence of the
 virus "by itself", but (verbal acrobatics) that "in their togetherness and together with other papers which were not presented as proof at the trial, they prove the existence of the virus."
Really now?
Well, I wouldn't call this science, since even the judges in Stuttgart said when they gave the verdict in Lanka's favour:
"Dr Lanka explained from the start that none of the 6 papers proves the existence of the measles virus. The idea of a 'combination' of those papers appeared for the first time when the court-appointed expert claimed it. The expert claimed »In this paper the virus is not demonstrated, in that paper the virus is not demonstrated, in that paper neither etc., but in the sum and the totality of all the papers (including those which were not presented by the claimant) there is the proof.«.
Here we, the judges, have another problem. Even if we were to consider prof Podbielski's expertise, we do not know which aspects of which paper(s) he meant as a 'combination', to consider that the virus has been proven to exist. The expert's wording is vague, unclear, which is exactly what can be avoided when it is asked for one single paper.

I have written about this extensively on my blog, I also have the original audio recording of the verdict at the trial, which I transcribed on my blog.
We can go on analysing the 6 papers one by one, I am in possession of an expertise from a reputed German microbiologist and virologist who debunked each and every one of the 6 papers 
This expertise was used at the trial in Stuttgart and I'm guessing it was one of the reasons why the judges gave the final verdict in Lanka's favour.

So you see, the real woo comes from those who are trying to inject children with cell particles of uncertain origin, claiming that it is a measles "virus", while never having been able to prove the existence of such a virus. And by proving the existence of the virus I mean the classic scientific method, so easy to use: purification by sucrose density gradient centrifugation.
This should include the detailed description of the following steps: isolation, purification, photos before and after isolation and biochemistry of all the molecular components.
And please do not forget the obligatory negative control experiments, which are a must for every honest scientific endeavour.

If you have just ONE paper on the measles virus which meets these scientific criteria, bring it on. Thanks.
By the way, we can write in Romanian too 
Or if you prefer, we can write in German too 
Anywoo [sic], the "virus" still has never been demonstrated to exist.

My article in Romanian about the trial is here: LINK-HERE


Alexandru Ioan Voda

Pretty cool of you to have actually attended the case! I honestly appreciate that you've done some research for yourself in this area. But I believe you are misrepresenting both the case and the science and I'll explain why here.

I'll beg
in with your last point. You've stated that measles was never purified by sucrose density gradient centrifugation. That is false. Measles was purified by sucrose density gradient in experiments published in 1979 by C.A. Miller & Cedric S. Raine, specific figure is attached underneath. LINK-HERE

Additionally, you've implied that the virus wasn't isolated, purified, micrographed and biochemically characterized per each component. That is blatantly false. The virus has been isolated from patients by multiple labs all across the world (e.g. LINK-HERE & LINK-HEREand biochemically characterized per each component (also by multiple labs all across the world LINK-HERE)
Even more, you've implied that the studies focusing on measles did not have negative controls. Another falsehood. For example, you can see the non-hybridization of the probe (which is a reliable negative control) for this measles virus study showing the data is consistent -> LINK-HERE
Another good example: "transfected with a negative control siRNA (left column)" <- MD Mühlebach et al. Nature, 2011 LINK-HERE
And there are thousands of other examples.

Otherwise said, literally every piece of "scientifically-worded" argument that you brought is a lie or a serious misreading on your part.

It is important to mention that the first court (Landgericht Ravensburg) sentenced Lanka to pay. The decision was appealed in another court on formal grounds (that his offer said "send *one* scientific article that proves that the virus exists" and 6 papers were sent instead). The fact that the evidence accumulates in several papers, not just one, should show how rigurous and incremental the research was. This shows you that the scientific community has not jumped to sudden conclusions without enough data. That court made the wrong decision based on the bad semantics of a bet instead of the cold truth. I personally hope that a superior court will fix this mistake in the future.

As for your understanding of science in general, you should consider asking Adrian Mihai Stratulat about the basics. There is no such thing as proof in science, only in maths. Science only works with evidence.

Feli Popescu

One at a time.
"Measles was purified by sucrose density gradient in experiments published in 1979 by C.A. Miller & Cedric S. Raine"
I cannot open the link to read the paper.

Would you mind uploading it somewhere and post here the link?
Thank you.
Besides, IF the first purification had been in 1979 (still have to check the evidence), it would mean that what they claimed before, that the virus had been isolated in 1954 by Enders (this being still the reference paper today), was a fraud.
This is highly interesting.
P.S. My first thought, however, was: why, oh why, has Bardens not presented *this* paper as proof and preferred, for instance, a paper from a Japanese college? 
Can you make a guess? 
Can't wait to read it. Thanks again.

You claim: "The virus has been isolated from patients by multiple labs all across the world"
This claim is false.
It relies on the *original* isolation of the virus by Enders, which has not been done, just as Enders et al. admitted themselves in 1954.
 No matter how you turn it around, we mostly come back to the 1954 paper, in which no virus was ever isolated.

In the first paper that you present as proof (LINK-HERE) you can see a good example of how scientists delude themselves.
The title is "Isolation of Measles Virus from Cell Cultures of.............", however they admit that they worked with the so-called "Edmonston strain", which means that basically they have simply "isolated" what they themselves had put in the cell culture beforehand. This is no proof of the existence of the measles virus.

Besides, it is not described if *that* Edmonston strain had been frozen or further cultivated since Enders or how it was isolated before being patented.
They should have isolated a virus themselves from the brain cells, but instead they used the patended "Edmonston strain", another proof that they did not isolate anything themselves.
Besides, there is no negative control, so the paper is worthless.

By the way, the syncytial degeneration of the cells in the culture is always caused by the retraction of the nutrients and the antibiotics added to the culture.
Dr Lanka together with the microbiologist who wrote the expertise debunking the 6 trial papers finished the replication of the Enders paper, only they worked with negative controls and guess what: you get syncytial degeneration in the control culture too, which means that it is not the "virus" which is causing it, but the lab conditions. Think about it.
The experiments will be published soon.
I'll find time to read and analyse the other papers as well.
Last but not least, thank you for the opportunity of having a civilized discussion on this topic, I really appreciate it.

In the second paper (LINK-HERE), they also worked with someone else's material:
"Commercial measles HA antigen was purchased from Microbiological Associates, Inc".
Also, they are talking about "virus-lik
e particles", which are NOT the virus.
Also, they are saying:
"Baublies and Payne and Chen et al. reported cocultivation experiments [...] in which cytopathic effects appeared although free infectious virus was never detected."
Great conclusion: it was because the cell treatment was killing the cells and NOT an imaginary virus.
Also, I see no negative control, which makes this paper worthless as well.

You claim that the virus has been "biochemically characterized per each component" and give this link as proof: LINK-HERE
This happens to be one of the papers given by Bardens at the trial, so since he lost the trial we can safely say that there is no measles virus in this paper either; otherwise he would have won the trial, obviously.

Here are some points made in the expertise of the microbiologist at the Stuttgart trial with respect to this specific paper:

"This review describes the beginning of many researchers' efforts to reconstruct the presumed entire genome of the measles virus from small molecules of nucleic acids obtained from different cells and with various methods. 
The whole genome / genetic material of the measles virus is not described in the article.
The authors presuppose that the various particles of nucleic acids being studied originated from the measles virus. But this has not been proven anywhere. Nothing is said about the method that is supposed to have led to the isolation of the virus / infectious agent.
The paper describes the beginning of the construction of an artificial measles virus in order to provide a research basis for the study of the multiplication of the measles virus, as natural measles viruses that could be investigated for this purpose are not available.
• The article in no way proves the existence of a virus, nor its causality nor its size.
• The article *refutes* the claim that it contains the detection or description of a complete genome of the measles virus.
• The article *clearly disproves* the statement that in it the existence of a measles virus has been demonstrated.
• The article *clearly proves* that the authors simply assume the existence of the measles virus and have not proven its existence."

Alexandru Ioan Voda

Here was a long reply that he deleted (why, oh why??), so we will have to guess from my reply what he wrote :-)

Feli Popescu

So you admit that the 6 papers presented by Bardens had no negative controls and are worthless.
This way you debunked even Podbielski 
Thank you.

By the way, have you read Podbielski's expertise or are you just believing what someone else wrote about it? You should read it for yourself.

Now to the first paper where you claim that negative controls were done in connection with the "isolation" of the measles virus: LINK-HERE
A Wakefield paper, oh, the irony 
Well, you see, Wakefield et al. speaks of "Paramyxovirus-LIKE particles", but I see no steps of isolation of the whole virus.
Virus-like particles are not the virus.
Second, the hybridisation for "measles virus N-protein genomic RNA" is worthless as long as we do not have the original entire biochemistry of ALL viral proteins of the entire virus. 
You simply cannot presuppose that a protein belongs to a virus unless you have isolated and purified the entire virus and then did the biochemical molecular analysis of the entire virus.
Wakefield also writes:
"This paper describes the identification... of Paramyxovirus-like inclusions".
Virus-like inclusions are not the virus.
They have also used the patented "Edmonston strain", which makes the experiments worthless, since we have already established that Enders in 1954 didn't isolate and demonstrate any virus.
The paper describes experiments with various tissues and particles, assuming right from the start that they are virus-like particles, but there is no isolation of any virus in this paper either.
Otherwise said, literally every paper that you brought is worthless in terms of proving the existence of a measles virus.

You claim: "his offer said "send *one* scientific article that proves that the virus exists" and 6 papers were sent instead)."

Please show me where exactly in those papers the proof is.

You also claim: "The fact that the evidence accumulates in several papers, not just one, should show how rigurous and incremental the research was"
Please show me exactly where the evidence is (point me to the exact quotes) and also how it could "accumulate" in several papers having absolutely no connection with each other.
Thank you.

Alexandru Ioan Voda

 I'll begin with your last point:
That one of the papers was cited by Bardens, and somehow that makes the paper not credible because one out of two (not both) judges (who are not scientifically prepared anyway) decided to dismiss the Lanka case. This argument is very weak, it really doesn't say anything about the actual data inside the paper and its significance.

As for the link to the figure on sucrose density gradient centrifugation (which you've falsely said that was never performed on measles virus), I have created an alternative shortcut to it here, for you: LINK-HERE
If that is still unaccessible (unlikely, as I've asked a friend and he says the link works just fine), you can go to a local library and borrow the entire study (and look at figures 2 & 3) with the following reference: "Heterogeneity of Virus Particles in Measles Virus", December 1979, by C.A. Miller & Cedric S. Raine, Journal of General Virology 45(2):441-53, DOI: 10.1099/0022-1317-45-2-441.

Furthermore, I'm disappointed to see that you don't distance yourself from the truly flawed argument that you've previously made: to imply that Bardens & the virology research community are supposedly wrong about the existence of the virus just because the evidence is gathered in several incremental papers instead of just one article. Think again about how fallacious that implication is.

As for the negative controls, you've said my second citation doesn't have any, "making it worthless". You haven't read it, because the authors specifically wrote "the acute sera were included in the tests as negative controls" in the fluorescent antibody staining experiment, you should search properly.

Saying that the only measles virus isolated samples have been made by Enders et al. is another lie. There are many different strains isolated (e.g. classical ones not just Edmonston but also Halle) from many different patients (e.g. new isolations from labs such as these, which are isolated in the recent years as well LINK-HERE and LINK-HERE). Additionally, for future discussions, when you say something among the lines of "Enders wrote something wasn't done", it is good practice to include a reference or a link to your source, otherwise it cannot be easily verifiable by skeptics.

As for your last quote from Stuttgart, which laments the reconstruction process of the measles virus genome (which ironically took place in an era when sequencing was extremely difficult and expensive, not like this last decade), I would like to point out that viral genome sequencing wasn't necessary to confirm the existence or causality of a viral agent. Because reliable genome sequencing wasn't available in the 60s and 70s (only short-read Sanger seq. and basically not many bioinformatic tools for alignments), scientists created intelligent alternative ways to show causal connections between specific viruses and their disease.

Finally, that doesn't matter, as the measles virus genome has already been fully sequenced several times (e.g. 2000 & 2009). The reference genome and its gene annotation is freely available here: LINK-HERE
All the best! 

Gadjo Matto

you say "I'll begin with your [Feli Popescu's] last point: That one of the papers was cited by Bardens, and somehow that makes the paper not credible because one out of two (not both) judges (who are not scientifically prepared anyway) decided to dismiss the Lanka case." ... the last point (please read Feli's comment again), was that you should backup your claim that THOSE SIX STUDIES prove the existence of the measles virus, by giving the exact quotes in the right order so that we and other judges can understand how incremental and rigorous the evidence was. You claim that the evidence is very rigorous and incremental, then give us the quotes in the right sequence     (or link us to a review that presents the rigorous sequence of quotes from those 6 studies.
There is such a review, right??😂😄

What you're doing instead, is to throw around more and more links and to pile up a "mountain of evidence!".
After I repeated the 2nd time that I want a blind controlled study that shows direct evidence that measles is caused by a virus, you linked me to this:
"About double-blind research in virology (specifically measles in this case), there's lots of studies using that standard, you just have to search thoroughly LINK-HERE"
It has nothing to do with what I asked you. That study is about a vaccine and about antibodies... AND IT IS NOT PLACEBO CONTROLLED since it compares ONE vaccine to ANOTHER vaccine. 
["to receive either one of three escalating doses of the measles-virus-based candidate vaccine [.....] or the active comparator—Priorix"] 
Have you even read it? 

(I know that some Pharma guys have great explanations. I personally find them very peculiar: LINK-HERE  

"It would, therefore, be unethical to give some of these subjects no treatment at all." Basically, the FDA dictates that it's unethical to make placebo studies in cases when their dogma is threatened. So much for science! LINK-HERE until 21:49
Isn't it a bit deceitful to call a study "double-blind" if it used comparator products and not real placebos ? This trick certainly fools many people into believing that it was a placebo controlled study  

I just requested a controlled study that aims to test in a direct way whether a specific particle(virus or whatsoever) is the actual cause for measles or not! 

There is such a study, right? Ooops .... 😶

"From now on, I truly can't help you." Well, in the first place you could have helped if you supplied what I actually asked for. What you came up with instead are SIX studies which are not controlled, and then you kept on throwing at me more and more links that DON'T show any direct evidence for the hypothesis that measles is caused by a virus.

Feli Popescu

1. Sorry, there were three judges at the trial, not two, and the decision was unanimous. Forgot I was there?

3. Since the Horikami paper was among the 6 papers which did NOT prove the measles virus, we can ignore it. I wonder though why did you link to
 it, didn't you read it?

4. "Heterogeneity of Virus Particles in Measles Virus", December 1979, by C.A. Miller & Cedric S. Raine, Journal of General Virology 45(2):441-53, DOI: 10.1099/0022-1317-45-2-441" - I read it and they also use the "Edmonston strain", so there is no original isolation there as well, they simply re-"isolated" what they themselves have put there.

5. You cannot have a measles virus genome without first having isolated the entire virus. Which brings us back to square one.

We have to go back to the ORIGINAL isolation.
Please show us the original isolation.
The Enders paper is THE reference paper for the measles virus.
Please show us the exact steps of the isolation, the purification, the photographs before and after as well as the biochemical analysis of all the viral components.
Thank you and all the best to you too!

For the other readers of this topic, I also recommend this very good article by the German biologist Dr Stefan Lanka: LINK-HERE

Alexandru Ioan Voda

In here, I see one major mistake on my side and several blatant faults on yours.

Looking retrospectively, I will admit one big mistake on my side: blindly citing the Wakefield paper as a good example of a study with negative controls. My 
mistake is even bigger than one would normally think (apart of virus-like particles not being useful) since the paper by Wakefield was shown to be unreplicable (LINK-HERE), much like most of his "work" on vaccine research.

Unfortunately, everything else that you've argued is very unconvincing at best:
1. I was refering to judge panels: One case court decided against Lanka (Judgement of the District Court Ravensburg - official decision here: LINK-HERE), and another judge panel decided not to oblige him to pay (Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, the complete anonymized ruling can be read here for others: LINK-HERE).

So basically, not even both courts legally agreed on the Bardens vs Lanka evidence and/or payment. It is important to stress yet again that you seem to be wrongfuly influenced by judges on scientific matters. The court-appointments testified in favour of Bardens.

2. Nothing to say here? You've conceded this point? (That more papers instead of a singular one isn't a proof of worthlessness, but a proof of rigour and iteration)

3. No, that is a ridiculous logic with which to ignore data, and I've repeatedly told you why. Essentially, a judge panel (not scientists or any constructive critics) decided against the expertise of their invoked scientist (who HAS agreed with Bardens). That fact cannot be invoked as a reason to ignore an entire set of strong evidence, more to the contrary.
Additionally, you are talking scientific non-sense (when you said "did not prove the measles virus"), there is no such thing as scientific proof, just evidence.

4. Another lie. There are multiple strains of the virus (e.g. the HNT strain) that are NOT originating from the "Edmonston" in the Miller & Raine paper (but again, you didn't bother to read it fully). Also, you've never shown any convincing evidence that there is something wrong with the "Edmonston" strain.
As I can see in the article you've linked by Lanka, he says sucrose density gradient centrifugation was not performed on pathogenic viruses. That is FALSE, as this technique has been used before in HIV-1, rubella (LINK-HERE) and countless more pathogenic viruses that Lanka denies.
Therefore, you've gullibly accepted his fiction. Instead of making excuses, you could just plainly admit that you've fallen for a non-peer-reviewed blog post (because that's all it is) ridden with falsehoods.

5. They did isolate new strains for the sequencing purposes, which aren't your hated "Edmonston" strain. It wasn't even hard to isolate it post-2000s, in terms of technology and protocol. You can read about how isolation can be done in my detailed reply to Gadjo Matto. Also, here's a comprehensive list of newly isolated wild strains (not obtained in any way from :
MVi/NewYork.USA/94 (wild strain of the B3 genotype), Johannesburg.SOA/88/1 (D2 genotype), Manchester.UNK/30.94 (D8) and Hunan.CHN/93/7 (H1).

In fact, this study shows more than a dozen new wildtype measles virus isolates: LINK-HERE
"The present study describes the genetic characterization of wild type measles viruses from Uttar Pradesh," [n.b. a state, not a person] "India isolated between January 2008 and January 2011."
Also, like most scientific studies, it uses various control groups and other types of tools against confounding factors 

So far, you have:
- gullibly accepted Lanka's lie about whether sucrose density gradient centrifugation was ever used for the measles virus
- insisted on the "Edmonston" strain being the only isolation ever done (or the only important one), when there are many more strains isolated by different researchers from completely different samples, all which have been under intense research themselves (see upper-mentioned examples)
- claimed no negative controls are used in order to dismiss evidence, even though various controls (positive and/or negative) have been demonstrably used in most of the measles experiments I've read

That to me seems not just extremely biased, but dishonest.

The things that I appreciate in your replies:
- not many if any ad hominem fallacies (makes debate easier and more constructive)
- passion for the subject (although in my opinion misguided passion)

In conclusion, the virus was isolated several times AND characterized per each component by multiple separate studies summarized and cited inside this review (that you've carelessly dismissed in my opinion): LINK-HERE
The measles virus genome has been sequenced several times and all assemblies are publicly available. The virus was discovered, re-confirmed several times, thoroughly-described and shown to be causal of measles.

All the best, Mrs. Feli! 

Feli Popescu

1. I know ALL the trial documents, because – unlike you – I can read German.
Basically, the Superior Court *corrected* the wrong decision made by the first court which had not even read the papers but trusted a *bacteriologist* with an exp
ertise about viruses (!).
I also read Podbielski’s expertise in German, which you didn’t.
He made a complete mess.
Of course he saw right away (and mentioned in his expertise) that “no paper per se” can be seen as evidence of the existence of the virus, that is why he came with the lame excuse that the evidence is “in the combination of the 6 papers and other papers not presented by Bardens” (how many? 4.579 others?).
He didn’t justify this claim with any scientific arguments or quotes from the papers, he just wrote the sentence with the combination and then relied on the local court that they will *evidently* decide in favor of the “scientific consensus” 
Btw, did you know that the Robert Koch Institute confirmed in writing that the “measles virus” contains ribosomes?
Well, the official definition of a virus is that it contains no ribosomes at all.
When confronted with this “surprise”, Podbielski said in court: “Then we will have to change the virus model” (ROFL).
I wonder if they will also invent 58 “strains” for the new model as well 
The virologist who gave his expertise for the Superior Court trial finished his report by criticizing Podbielski as follows:
Prof Podbielski is a highly respected colleague of mine, however, he has never participated in fundamental research in infectious immunology or cell biology. His interpretations of the 6 papers are untenable or at least questionable or have been already proven to be erroneous.
2. So yes, we can discard Horikami’s paper, just like we can discard ALL the 6 papers since you are unable to point us to the “evidence” in those papers.
Bardens couldn’t do it, Podbielski couldn’t do it (remember the judge’s words: “The expert’s claim [that the proof is in the combination of the 6 papers and other papers] was too imprecise, to vague”), so of course, you can’t do it either.
Or can you?
3. See 1. and 2.
4a. The problem with the “Edmonston strain” is that this is no whole virus, no isolated unique structure, i.e. no gold standard. There is no publication documenting the isolation and the evidence of the entire measles virus. That is why they kept “discovering” other and other “strains”, because the cell particles other scientists were mistaking for the “virus” were obviously *different* and so they had to introduce this hypothesis that a “virus” has different strains (or that it mutates 36 times etc.). No, it doesn’t. A virus is a unique structure which simply HAS to be the same every time and everywhere you find it, no matter from where you isolate it, e.g. snot or a patented culture (btw, how come they all need these patented cell cultures to “grow” the viral particles, why have they not even once isolated a "virus" in bodily fluids?). Conclusion: there is no gold standard for the “virus”.
If you have it, please post it here.

4b. HIV was never isolated either, the virus emperor is completely naked (see here: LINK-HERE)
But please let's not digress.
The rubella paper says this:
"As can be seen, greater than 100% of the total virus in the crude tissue culture fluids was recovered after pelleting. This high recovery was consistently observed and may reflect the removal of some inhibitor or unmasking of infectious virus."
[or maybe you just "isolated" cellular debris that you have mistaken for the "virus", my friends!]
"The amount of rubella virus recovered after gradient centrifugation was also high, 93% in the experiment cited."
[This evidently is NOT a "virus", since 93% is not a whole structure - besides, if you didn't manage to isolate the whole "virus", how do you even know that you recovered 93% of it? makes no sense]
So in this paper we have different sizes, different densities... it is obvious that the paper does not prove any isolation of a real virus, but only some unscientific experiments with cell particles.
Also, no negative control experiments.
Also, no biochemistry of the "viral" proteins.
The paper is worthless.
By now I shall very politely ask you to not waste my time anymore with such unscientific garbage.
5. I told you they keep “discovering” new and new “strains”, because the cell particles other scientists were mistaking for the “virus” were obviously *different* and so they had to introduce this hypothesis that a “virus” has different strains (ala-bala-portocala) - there are soooo many cities around the world, could we have a strain for every one of them, pretty please?
So you see, you can post here links to an entire family tree of the measles "virus", you still have NOT provided evidence of the *original* isolation. 
6. I am dismissing the Horikami paper AGAIN, since it does NOT show any isolation of the "virus" or its biochemistry - otherwise please provide the exact quote(s)! 
No article in this review includes a distinct biochemical analysis of a measles "virus" in the context of correctly performed control experiments- otherwise please provide the exact quote(s)!
All the articles in this review are based on the research done by Enders & Peebles and we now know that Enders & Peebles did NOT isolate any measles virus - otherwise please provide the exact quote(s)!
I left you the link to the original Enders & Peebles paper from 1954, THE reference paper for the measles "virus" and now I am expecting you to show us exactly WHERE in that paper the "virus" has been isolated.
It's getting pretty clear now that what you are desperately trying to avoid is going back to the ORIGINAL publication 

7. So the "virus" exists because you post yet another of the worthless 6 trial papers? I mean this one here: LINK-HERE
Oh boy…
OK, let me debunk this real fast for you, ‘cause you haven’t even read it!
They worked (again) with the "Edmonston strain", which means they did NOT isolate anything themselves.
Also, they did not even say if the "Edmonston strain" was the same used by Enders & Peebles after having been further grown on cell cultures (15 years) or after having been frozen the whole time. This is completely unscientific.

Also, the authors admit that what they were doing was SPECULATING:
(A) „It is speculated that the cytoplasmic inclusion bodies are associated with the formation of the nucleocapsid. Further proof of this would require examination of similar preparations with the use of specific antiserum labeled with ferritin
Well, this PROOF never took place.
Oh, and don’t forget to tell them too that they are “talking scientific nonsense”, because see, they are also speaking of “proof”.
The authors admit one more time that they pretty much found nothing:
(B) „The relationship between the nuclear inclusion body and the replication of measles virus is not clear.

So no, this is no evidence of a virus either.

So far, you have nothing but hot air. 
Empty claims.
Still no evidence of a "virus".
The more you elaborate and the more links you provide (proving that the earlier ones are completely worthless ), the more desperate you look and the deeper the hole you are digging for your theory. 

Please provide the crucial evidence:
1. The ORIGINAL ISOLATION of the measles virus and the BIOCHEMISTRY of all its molecular components as well as the diameter of the virus.
2. The evidence of a measles virus in the reference paper by Enders. I am expressly asking you to stay with THIS paper only because according to the scientific consensus, THIS paper is supposedly the "evidence" for the measles "virus".
So let's talk about it.

All the best, Alexandru!

Alexandru Ioan Voda

Dear Feli Popescu, I've read the Enders and Peebles paper more carefully, and I still can't seem to find the evidence that you want to point out.

You've said they've admitted no isolation of measles virus was carried from Edmonston. Where exactly? Eve
n the clear-cut summary on page 286 says "Eight agents exhibiting the properties of viruses have been isolated in cultures of human or simian renal cells from the blood or throat washings of five cases of typical measles."

I would honestly like to see the evidence that the Edmonston strain is somehow bad.

On the other hand side, saying that what I've linked has no worth, negative controls, or strong evidence, is discrediting of you.
I'm not the one who said "no sucrose density gradient centrifugation is ever performed on pathogenic viruses including measles virus" only to be shown otherwise. Lanka is. And I'm sorry that you still stick with him, because no amount of virus denialism will make his supplements work effectively, just as no amount of bacteria denialism will make antibiotics ineffective.

Let us look at your newer points too:

Saying that some viruses don't exist because they've seen ribosomes inside them is like saying that Mars (which was originally thought to be an arid planet) must not exist since newer research saw that there might be frozen water on it.

You are right that mainstream biology education says viruses don't have ribosomes. And they are right that most viruses do not have ribosomes when tightly packed. Where you are wrong is: viruses *can* have ribosomes. For example, Arenavirus electron micrographs consistently show dense points which have been elucidated as ribosomes (see this article and its bibliography
It presumably isn't made by the virus but stolen from the host cell while the virion is being assembled, although more studies are necessary. Having it inside the virus may have various roles, such as early kickstarting of translation after entering the next cells.

I look forward to your Edmonston clarification (which seems to be the argument that underlies most of what you've written to me). On all the other points, the evidence is contrary to your point as far as I've re-read.

Feli Popescu

Dear Alexandru Ioan Voda,
The burden of proof is on you.
Please provide the exact quote (on which page of the Enders paper), where the isolation has been performed.

Since the paper has only 10 pages, it should be no problem to point us to where the isolation is being described.

On the other hand, I have been NOT been shown otherwise.
The rubella paper which you provided (LINK-HERE) says in fact this:
"As can be seen, greater than 100% of the total virus in the crude tissue culture fluids was recovered after pelleting. This high recovery was consistently observed and may reflect the removal of some inhibitor or unmasking of infectious virus."
[or maybe you just "isolated" cellular debris that you have mistaken for the "virus", my friends!]
"The amount of rubella virus recovered after gradient centrifugation was also high, 93% in the experiment cited."
[This evidently is NOT a "virus", since 93% is not a whole structure - besides, if you didn't manage to isolate the whole "virus", how do you even know that you recovered 93% of it? makes no sense]
So in this paper we have different sizes, different densities...
It is thus obvious that the paper does NOT prove any isolation of a real virus, but only some unscientific experiments with cell particles that they centrifuged.
Also, no negative control experiments.
Also, no biochemistry of the "viral" proteins.
The paper is worthless.
So NO, I have not been shown otherwise.
It would be dishonest of any researcher to claim that this paper can be considered evidence for a "pathogenic virus".
You cannot just put "virus" in the title, then go and centrifuge some cell particles and then claim that you have a virus.

The hypothesis of "viruses" (which have not been demonstrated to exist!) having "presumably" stolen ribosomes is unscientific, completely untenable and not worth mentioning anymore.

You have NOT proven any of your claims about the existence of the measles virus.
I am looking forward to you showing us the exact section and wording of the Enders paper where we can read about how the isolation of the virus was performed.
Thank you.

* * * * *

Here the conversation ended and we have been left (once more) without any proof for the existence of the "measles virus".

To all my dear readers: stay healthy and make informed decisions!

You May Also Like


  1. O bijuterie, o perla pentru oamenii care stiu bine engleza si care nu merg zilnic la coaforul de spalari pe creier al propagandei :-)
    Felicitari, sunt viitoare farmacista, deja iubesc homeopatia si am sa tin cont. Bun blogul!
    Iustina M.

  2. „Oamenii de știință” emit mii și mii de „studii științifice” anual și, la adăpostul ignoranței maselor prostite de Sistemul de Învățământ, pretind și repetă minciunile criminale ordonate de Concernele Chimic-Farmaceutice care, la rândul lor, fac jocurile oamenilor demonici care conduc această Lume. Ideologia manipulativă care se află la baza activității pretinșilor oameni de știință a fost descrisă perfect de către Paul Joseph Goebbels, fost Ministru al Propagandei Publice în timpul regimului nazist: O minciună repetată la nesfârșit, devine adevăr! Și, cum oamenii în general sunt ființe extrem de ușor impresionabile, minciunile „oamenilor de știință” sunt acceptate, automat, ca adevăruri.
    Așadar, care om obișnuit are curajul să se expună ridiculizării... îndoindu-se de milioanele de „studii științifice” emise de „savanții și cercetătorii” finanțați de Sistem? Și, care om obișnuit are puterea interioară de a ieși din frică și din comoditate pentru a face cercetări legate de veridicitatea dogmelor medicale ale „oamenilor în halate albe”?
    - ”Lasă bă, că știu medicii ce zic... căci nu degeaba ei au halate albe iar tu ești fierar-betonist! Ești tu mai deștept ca ei? Atunci de ce tu nu ești acolo?” Asta este mentalitatea maselor! Escrocheriile de orice fel NU sunt posibile decât dacă victimele au o anumită factură psihologică: oameni vanitoși, fricoși, comozi, frivoli, dezinteresați, creduli...

  3. Hi Feli, I have read through this discussion and would like to post it on my website about human health with the idea that if I cut and paste the intact contents into a blog post of mine, Facebook will allow me to then post a link to it on my private groups (I have 2 that are focused on health). As of right now FB is not allowing us to post a link to the discussion itself.

    Thank you so much for your objective and critical treatment of the flawed ideas that underlie our current thinking about health! I am extremely grateful to have found this discussion and I'm hoping the original blog posts you mentioned about the trial are in English so I can read them. Thank you!!

    1. Please feel free to post it and mention somehow my name, so that people can find my article by using other search engines.
      This article by Dr Lanka is particularly valuable: