Ozone, Influenza and the Causes of Disease


David Pratt

May 2020, last updated 1/6/20




Contents

1. Causes of death and disease
2. Blavatsky: ozone and influenza
3. Richter: weather, ozone and epidemics
4. Modern science: ozone and health
5. Flu epidemics and vaccination
6. Panspermia and cosmic invaders
7. Disease and microbes: cause and effect
8. Virus mania: epidemics of fear




1. Causes of death and disease


According to the World Health Organization, of the 56.9 million deaths worldwide in 2016, heart disease killed 9.4 million people, stroke 5.8 million, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 3.0 million, lower respiratory infections 3.0 million, dementia 2.0 million, lung cancer 1.7 million, diabetes 1.6 million, road injury 1.4 million, diarrhoea 1.4 million, and tuberculosis 1.3 million.

Another leading cause of death is iatrogenic disorders, i.e. deaths induced inadvertently by medical treatments, including medical errors. According to a 2006 report, the estimated number of iatrogenic deaths in the United States is around 784,000 per year, making it the leading cause of death, ahead of heart disease and cancer (Null et al., 2006). The situation is unlikely to be much different in other countries where Western medicine holds sway. This epidemic of patient harm is a massive scandal, but one largely ignored by government health authorities.

It seems unlikely that coronavirus disease (COVID-19) will make it onto 2020’s list of top-10 killers, and it may not even reach the number of deaths seen during a bad annual flu epidemic (up to 650,000) (latest death toll: worldometers.info). Numerous medical professionals around the world have spoken out against the draconian response, and have called for protection to be targeted at the main risk groups rather than the population as a whole (swprs.org). The economic recession triggered by the measures imposed is likely to push half a billion more people into poverty (oxfam.org), and cause millions of premature deaths in the years ahead. Some ‘COVID-19 deaths’ are iatrogenic deaths: it has been found that sticking tubes down people’s throats into their lungs to help them breathe (intubation) can cause additional damage to the lungs (see section 8).

In 2018, 1.5 million people died of tuberculosis (who.int). The pathogen believed to be responsible for this disease was first discovered by Robert Koch in 1882; he called it the ‘tubercle bacillus’, and it is now known as Mycobacterium tuberculosis. His work gave a major boost to the germ theory of disease, which stood in opposition to the prevailing miasma theory – the idea that diseases are caused by the presence in the air of a miasma, a poisonous vapour containing particles of decaying matter, characterized by a foul smell. The fact that poor, filthy and foul-smelling city neighbourhoods created by rapid industrialization and urbanization tended to be the focal points of disease and epidemics seemed to support this theory, which dates from the Middle Ages. The claim that the tuberculosis mycobacterium causes tuberculosis is disproven by the fact that this bacteria has never been found in the early stages of the disease and is absent in 50% of cases, and 85 to 95% of people ‘infected’ with this bacteria do not develop tuberculosis; nor has anybody ever explained how it causes the various symptoms of tuberculosis (Lester & Parker, 2019, ch. 4).

We now know that nearly everyone has countless microbes on and in their bodies, including fungi associated with a deadly pneumonia (PCP). The human body consists of some 37.2 trillion cells, and it contains at least 38 trillion bacteria and over 380 trillion viruses; many of the viruses ‘infect’ the bacteria and are known as bacteriophages (or phages), whose function is uncertain (theconversation.com). We are said to breathe in over 100 million viruses every day (mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk), and there are over a trillion bacteria and a trillion viral particles in each gram of human faeces (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Good health means living in symbiosis with the vast microbial ecosystem within our bodies. The human microbiome is a cutting-edge area of research and its symbiotic interactions contradict the ‘monotheistic view of viruses as pathogens’ (Virgin, 2014).

H.P. Blavatsky presents a theosophical perspective:

Science teaches us that the living as well as the dead organism of both man and animal are swarming with bacteria of a hundred various kinds; that from without we are threatened with the invasion of microbes with every breath we draw, and from within by leucomaines [toxic metabolic products], aerobes [microorganisms requiring oxygen], anaerobes [microorganisms not requiring oxygen], and what not. But Science never yet went so far as to assert with the occult doctrine that our bodies, as well as those of animals, plants, and stones, are themselves altogether built up of such beings; which, except larger species, no microscope can detect. ... Each particle – whether you call it organic or inorganic – is a life. Every atom and molecule in the Universe is both life-giving and death-giving to that form, inasmuch as it builds by aggregation universes and the ephemeral vehicles ready to receive the transmigrating soul, and as eternally destroys and changes the forms and expells those souls from their temporary abodes. It creates and kills; it is self-generating and self-destroying; it brings into being, and annihilates, that mystery of mysteries – the living body of man, animal, or plant, every second in time and space; and it generates equally life and death ... (Secret Doctrine, 1:260-1)

She adds that these ‘unseen creators and destroyers’, loosely called ‘microbes’, are involved in all physiological changes, including pathological phenomena and disease. She distinguishes the microbes of science from what she calls the ‘fiery lives’.

The ‘fiery lives’ are the seventh and highest subdivision of the plane of matter, and correspond in the individual with the One Life of the Universe, though only on that plane. The microbes of science are the first and lowest sub-division on the second plane – that of material prana (or life). The physical body of man undergoes a complete change of structure every seven years, and its destruction and preservation are due to the alternate function of the fiery lives as ‘destroyers’ and ‘builders.’ They are ‘builders’ by sacrificing themselves in the form of vitality to restrain the destructive influence of the microbes, and, by supplying the microbes with what is necessary, they compel them under that restraint to build up the material body and its cells. They are ‘destroyers’ also when that restraint is removed and the microbes, unsupplied with vital constructive energy, are left to run riot as destructive agents. (Secret Doctrine, 1:262-3fn)

Physical health requires balance and harmony between the processes that build up and maintain the body, and those that break down and expel bodily elements. If that balance is disturbed, ill health and disease result. The stronger the immune system, the more able it is to protect the body against potentially harmful toxins.


References

Dawn Lester and David Parker, What Really Makes You Ill? Why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong, 2019, Kindle ed.

Gary Null et al., Death by Medicine, 2006, lifeextension.com.

Herbert W. Virgin, ‘The virome in mammalian physiology and disease’, Cell, v. 157, no. 1, 2014, pp. 142-50, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.


2. Blavatsky: ozone and influenza


In her article ‘The last song of the swan’ (Feb. 1890, Blavatsky Collected Writings 12:104-16), H.P. Blavatsky comments on the 1889-1890 flu pandemic – also known as the ‘Asiatic flu’ or ‘Russian flu’ – which was then raging; it ended up killing about 1 million people worldwide. She points out that epidemics of influenza (also called grippe or grip) occurred in Europe centuries before cholera first appeared there; between 1510 and 1850 there were over 300 flu epidemics, both general and local, severe and weak. Referring to the current epidemic, she writes:

The extraordinary rapidity with which it acts, secured for it in Vienna the name of Blitz Catarrh. It has nothing in common with the ordinary grippe, so easily caught in cold and damp weather; and it seems to produce no special disease that could be localized, but only to act most fatally on the nervous system and especially on the lungs. Most of the deaths from influenza occur in consequence of lung-paralysis. ...

A disease which is epidemic, yet not contagious; which acts everywhere, in clean as in unclean places, in sanitary as well as in unsanitary localities, hence needing very evidently no centres of contagion to start from; an epidemic which spreads at once like an air current, embracing whole countries and parts of the world ... – such a disease can bear no comparison with epidemics of the ordinary common type, e.g., such as the cholera. Nor can it be regarded as caused by parasites or microscopical microbes of one or the other kind. ... Does it not seem therefore, as if the causes that produced influenza were rather cosmical than bacterial; and that they ought to be searched for rather in those abnormal changes in our atmosphere that have well-nigh thrown into confusion and shuffled seasons all over the globe for the last few years – than in anything else?

[A]ll such mysterious epidemics as the present influenza are due to an abnormal exuberance of ozone in the air. (pp. 108-9)

An oxygen molecule consists of two oxygen atoms (O2), but oxygen can also exist in a heavier, unstable but highly toxic form, ozone, consisting of three oxygen atoms (O3).


Ozone is a powerful oxidant that can irritate the airways.

Blavatsky continues:

That would account probably for the preliminary symptoms of influenza. Descending and spreading on earth with an extraordinary rapidity, oxygen would of course produce a still greater combustion; hence the terrible heat in the patient’s body, and the paralysis of rather weak lungs. What says Science with respect to ozone: ‘It is the exuberance of the latter under the powerful stimulus of electricity in the air, that produces on nervous people that unaccountable feeling of fear and depression which they so often experience before a storm.’ Again: ‘the quantity of ozone in the atmosphere varies with the meteorological condition under laws so far unknown to science.’ A certain amount of ozone is necessary, they wisely say, for breathing purposes, and the circulation of the blood. On the other hand, ‘too much of ozone irritates the respiratory organs, and an excess of more than 1% of it in the air kills him who breathes it.’ (p. 110)

She then says that ‘real ozone’ is the ‘elixir of life’ and refers to The Secret Doctrine for more information. Finally, she writes: ‘once more an Asiatic country – China, this time – was sacrificed as a scapegoat to the sin of FOHAT and his too active progeny’.

Blavatsky says that it is possible by alchemical means (including by means of sound) to transform oxygen into ozone, and reduce it to its ‘pure essence’, thereby creating a practical ‘elixir of life’ (SD 1:144). This type of ‘ozone’ can resurrect a human or animal whose astral body has not been irreparably separated from the physical body by the severance of the magnetic cord between them. She adds: ‘As one saved thrice from death by that power, the writer ought to be credited with knowing personally something about it’ (SD 1:555; see Cranston, 1994, pp. 229-31).

Esoterically, hydrogen corresponds to the kama-rupa (‘desire body’, lower mind), nitrogen to the astral model-body, oxygen (‘the life-giving gas’) to prana or life energy, and carbon to the gross physical body (SD 2:593). In the ‘pre-geological ages’ (when the earth was more ethereal), hydrogen and oxygen – ‘which instils the fire of life into the “mother” [dormant matter] by incubation’ – are called spirit, i.e. ‘the noumenon of that which becomes in its grossest form oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen on earth’. Nitrogen is ‘an earth-born cement to unite other gases and fluids, and serve as a sponge to carry in itself the breath of life – pure air’ – which ‘if separated alchemically would yield the Spirit of Life and its Elixir’ (SD 1:626+fn). Blavatsky stresses that ‘The ozone of the modern chemists is poison compared with the real universal solvent’ (SD 1:260). When discussing the connection between ozone and influenza, her reference to fohat (nature’s inner forces) and ‘his too active progeny’ points to the fact that the body can be overwhelmed and weakened by an overabundance of vital force.

The ‘Russian flu’ epidemic proved fatal to Blavatsky. A recurrence of the epidemic hit England in early 1891. Blavatsky, then living in London, contracted flu on 25 April and died on 8 May. (More information on the 1889 epidemic is provided in section 5.)


Death rate from influenza in Sheffield (northern England), spring-summer 1891. (academic.oup.com)


Reference

Sylvia Cranston, The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, Founder of the Modern Theosophical Movement, Santa Barbara, CA: Path Publishing House, 3rd ed., 1994.


3. Richter: weather, ozone and epidemics


In 1912 Henry T. Edge published an article entitled ‘Influenza and ozone; science following H.P. Blavatsky’s lead’ (Theosophical Path, v. 2, no. 3, March 1912, pp. 153-8), in which he highlighted Blavatsky’s views on ozone and influenza, and also cited similar views put forward by C.M. Richter MD in a scientific journal. The article by Richter that Edge refers to is: ‘The simultaneous and cyclic appearance of epidemics of pneumonia, grip and enteritis on the northern hemisphere and their synchronism with solar activity cycles’, Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 57, no. 25, Dec. 1911, pp. 1964-7.

Edge summarizes Richter’s position as follows:

Epidemics of pneumonia and grip are not merely concomitants of cold weather. They depend, in the northern hemisphere, on anticyclonic weather [fair weather associated with high atmospheric pressure], summer and winter, and not on cold weather. Similarly the epidemics of enteritic [gastro-intestinal] disease do not depend on hot weather but on cyclonic conditions [bad weather associated with low atmospheric pressure].

Pneumonia and grip are due to excess of oxygen, especially ozone. Anticyclonic conditions may increase the amount of oxygen present in the air, or, by increased pressure or wind-force, cause more oxygen to enter the system.

It is not only anticyclonic conditions that cause an increase of ozone, but also solar activity; the epidemics of grip and pneumonia follow the cycles of the sunspots, and so do the epidemics of enteritic disease.

In support of these conclusions the writer [i.e Richter] brings forward a number of charts giving the conditions as regards pressure, solar activity, and epidemics, in places as far apart as San Francisco and Berlin. These show that anticyclonic conditions are coincident with the grip complaints, and cyclonic conditions with the enteritic; but that sometimes the solar influence prevails over the pressure influence. In seeking an explanation of the fact that both anticyclonic conditions and periods of sunspot minima accompanied the grip, the writer was led to consider the effect of too much oxygen or ozone on the system. He quotes authority to the effect that excess of oxygen inhaled may cause pneumonia. A maximum of air-pressure brings increased oxygen into the lungs.

Richter argues that, since ozone is produced by the action of ultraviolet light on cold dry oxygen, the amount of ozone in the outer atmosphere varies with the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun. He quotes the following:

When this ultra-violet solar radiation is at a minimum, presumably during a sunspot maximum, the amount of ozone in the upper layers of the atmosphere will be a minimum, unless maintained by some other process (auroral discharges). On the other hand, with a maximum of ultra-violet radiation, presumably during a sunspot minimum, there will be a maximum amount of ozone.

It is assumed here that low sunspot activity coincides with high ultraviolet radiation levels and therefore high ozone levels. But this is wrong: higher ultraviolet radiation levels occur during high sunspot activity (see section 4). In any event, Richter’s proposed correlation between low sunspot numbers, high air pressure and a high death rate from influenza is not very convincing, as the following figures from his article show.

Above: Sunspot activity and respiratory deaths (click image to enlarge).
Below:
Sunspot activity and air pressure (left) and deaths in seven cities and Italy (right).

Edge continues:

San Francisco, it appears, is practically immune against enteritis epidemics, even during periods of great heat. In Berlin these epidemics, appear during the heat of summer, but not in proportion to the heat. But the cyclonic conditions explain these effects. In other cases, particularly the grip epidemics of 1831-5 and 1889, the pressure was abnormally high, and the solar activity was low.

Thus he shows on good authority that these two kinds of epidemic follow each other, and follow the conditions as regards ozone, whether these conditions are determined by pressure or by sunspots or both. ...

It would seem that grip is a purificatory influence, due to the sudden arrival of a wave of pure and vitalizing air, which burns up accumulated rubbish in the system. If the health is much impaired, the wave may leave the system permanently weakened; otherwise its first weakening effects are followed by a gain. The blame for grip, therefore, should be on the bad conditions allowed to prevail beforehand, and not on the wave that brings their results to the surface.

10 years later Richter published a long article entitled ‘Influenza pandemics depend on certain anticyclonic weather conditions for their development’ (Archives of Internal Medicine, v. 27, no. 3, 1921, pp. 361-86). He again argues that influenza pandemics (e.g. in 1890, 1891, 1918, 1919 and 1920) and pneumonia epidemics develop only during high pressure periods, and that changes in solar activity harmonize with and apparently cause such periods. In addition, all these epidemics come to a more or less sudden end following the arrival of distinctly low air pressure. He cites data from North America, Europe and Asia to support this. He disputes the widespread belief that respiratory diseases, often misnamed ‘cold weather diseases’, are mainly a function of temperature and humidity. He adds:

It seems reasonable to consider the possibility that during the development of such unusual high pressure conditions, the physicochemical nature of the atmosphere that reaches our lungs has been altered in such a way that it may affect us more or less disastrously. Or, we may be induced to suppose that such air has become the carrier of a virus. The air of an anticyclone has been descending from a 10 to 20 kilometers height and naturally has been differently qualified during different solar activity. As soon as low pressure sets in, which carries the anticyclonic air away from us, influenza and pneumonia decline. It is difficult to harmonize this behavior with a bacteriologic origin of those diseases. (p. 380)

He again proposes the possibility of ozonization: the varying quantity of ultraviolet radiation emitted from the sun acts on oxygen to produce ozone, and ozone is also produced by auroral electric discharges in higher latitudes; and high concentrations of ozone cause particular harm to the respiratory passages.

Richter was writing at a time when no bacterium or virus had been identified as the cause of influenza. The term ‘virus’ was first used in 1892, and by the early 20th century many viruses had been ‘discovered’, or rather their existence had been inferred: since nothing as large as a bacteria had been observed, it was assumed that some kind of smaller microbe must be involved (see section 7). An influenza virus was first reportedly isolated in the 1930s, after the discovery of the electron microscope. Ozone was discovered in 1839; it is a blue to colourless gas with a pungent, chlorine-like odour (‘ozone’ is derived from the Greek ozein, ‘to smell’). Richter writes in the above article (p. 385): ‘We have reason to assume that air of some anticyclones contains ozone in unusual quantity as a product of unusual solar output. If we hesitate to deduce that ozone is causative of influenza because its odor and the gas itself has not been detected in the air we breathe during a pandemic, we must admit that no attempt has been made to find it.’ What is required, he says, is ‘a critical analysis of the air during the different air pressure conditions and especially during the epidemics of the respiratory organs’. In other words, there was no ozone data available at that time to either support or refute his hypothesis.

In 1939, Frederick Sargent published an article entitled ‘Studies in the meteorology of upper respiratory infections (II)’ (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 20, 1939, pp. 141-7), with the subtitle: ‘Interdiurnal changes of barometric pressure and the incidence of colds at the Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, New Hampshire’. He writes: ‘A correlation between the weekly mean barometric pressure and weekly mean incidence [of colds] also indicates in a general way that periods of high pressure are generally associated with periods of more sickness.’ He refers in a footnote to Richter’s 1921 article, and says: ‘his day to day plots show higher incidence [of flu epidemics] with generally higher pressure, but Richter’s conclusions and theories are partly incorrect since he implies the level of pressure rather than its variability is most significant and refers to now discredited influences such as ozone, etc.’

Sargent’s position is more in line with modern thinking:

Such data make it possible to advance the hypothesis that the weather precipitates the manifestations of clinical symptoms with some regularity. Or, to look at this problem from a different point of view, the meteorological change probably lowers the resistance of the individual so that the latent virus either invades or develops definite symptoms, or both. The responsible pathogens are probably always common or latent in a non-isolated community such as Exeter, hence some meteorological or other stimulus (fatigue, drugs, alcohol, overheating, other disease, weakness from other temporary infections, etc., or previous weather strain) at times lowers the defense mechanism in certain individuals so that invasion by the germs already present takes place. An analogy to this idea is the well-known lack of colds in the polar regions until the first spring ship arrives with a ‘fresh load’ of pathogens.

Breathing air or oxygen at pressures greater than normal atmospheric pressure, or prolonged exposure to higher oxygen levels at atmospheric pressure, can lead to hyperoxia and oxygen toxicity, with harmful effects on the central nervous system, lungs and eyes. Oxygen toxicity produces symptoms such as disorientation, respiratory problems and myopia, and can also damage cell membranes. Long-term use of supplemental oxygen (oxygen masks) can lead to lung injury.

Several modern studies support a correlation between high air pressure and flu. For instance, Guo et al. (2019) studied the effects of meteorological factors on influenza among children in Guangzhou, a subtropical city in China, and found that the risk of influenza increased with rising atmospheric pressure. Xiao et al. (2013) studied the link between climate variables and influenza in the Chinese city of Changsha in 2009, and found that more patients appear during periods of lower temperature, higher barometric pressure and lower absolute humidity (see figure below).




The modern view is that weather conditions affect the ease with which viruses can spread. The germ theory of disease underlying this assumption will be examined in section 7.

Oxidative stress is increasingly being recognized as the underlying mechanism of a wide range of diseases, especially chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s (Lester & Parker, 2019, chs. 7; medicalnewstoday.com). Oxidative stress is an imbalance of free radicals and antioxidants in the body and can lead to cell and tissue damage. Free radicals are molecules with one or more unpaired electrons, and include highly reactive chemical species containing oxygen. The body’s cells produce free radicals during normal metabolic processes, but excess free radical production can be caused by factors such as diet, lifestyle, environmental pollutants (e.g. ozone), pesticides and radiation. Antioxidants are produced by our cells, but fruits and vegetables also provide many essential antioxidants in the form of vitamins and minerals.


References

Q. Guo et al., ‘The effects of meteorological factors on influenza among children in Guangzhou, China’, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, v. 13, no. 2, 2019, pp. 166-75, onlinelibrary.wiley.com.

Dawn Lester and David Parker, What Really Makes You Ill? Why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong, 2019, Kindle ed.

H. Xiao et al., ‘Influence of extreme weather and meteorological anomalies on outbreaks of influenza A (H1N1)’, Chinese Science Bulletin, v. 58, no. 7, 2013, pp. 741-9, researchgate.net.


4. Modern science: ozone and health


Overview

Ground-level ozone is a pollutant that contributes to bad health, especially respiratory diseases. It can also stifle photosynthesis in vegetation, causing lower agricultural yields. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides the following information:

Ozone occurs both in the Earth’s upper atmosphere and at ground level. Ozone can be good or bad, depending on where it is found. Called stratospheric ozone, good ozone occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, where it forms a protective layer that shields us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. ...

Ozone at ground level is a harmful air pollutant, because of its effects on people and the environment, and it is the main ingredient in ‘smog.’ ...

Tropospheric, or ground level ozone, is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). This happens when pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, industrial boilers, refineries, chemical plants, and other sources chemically react in the presence of sunlight.

Ozone is most likely to reach unhealthy levels on hot sunny days in urban environments, but can still reach high levels during colder months. Ozone can also be transported long distances by wind, so even rural areas can experience high ozone levels.

(cdc.gov)

Ozone in the air we breathe can harm our health. People most at risk from breathing air containing ozone include people with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. In addition, people with certain genetic characteristics, and people with reduced intake of certain nutrients, such as vitamins C and E, are at greater risk from ozone exposure.

Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and airway inflammation. It also can reduce lung function and harm lung tissue. Ozone can worsen bronchitis, emphysema [enlarged lungs], and asthma, leading to increased medical care. (epa.gov)


Ozone can cause the muscles in the airways to constrict, trapping air in the alveoli.
This leads to wheezing and shortness of breath.

A world map showing current (and historical) air quality is available here: https://waqi.info.


Troposphere and stratosphere

Just three gases account for 99.9% of the earth’s atmosphere: nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%) and argon (0.9%). All the other atmospheric gases are therefore trace gases.

The annual average background ozone concentrations over the midlatitudes of the northern hemisphere range from about 20 to 45 parts per billion (ppb) (20 ppb = 0.000002%), depending on geographic location, elevation and extent of human influence (Vingarzan, 2004). The annual ozone cycle in the northern hemisphere is characterized by a spring maximum, peaking during the month of May, largely due to increased solar radiation acting on a pool of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons built up during the winter.


Stratospheric ozone is formed from oxygen by the action of ultraviolet light and by electrical discharges. It is an unstable gas and rapidly decomposes to O2. The troposphere contains only 10% of atmospheric ozone, and its concentration increases with height above sea level. Even in the stratospheric ozone layer the ozone concentration is only 2 to 8 parts per million (ppm), compared to 210,000 ppm for oxygen. During a minimum in the sunspot cycle, the decrease in ultraviolet light received from the sun leads to a slight decrease (up to 3-4%) in ozone concentration.

Current ozone levels are about twice as high as they were a century or more ago, and have continued to rise slowly over the past few decades. Ground-level ozone does not result solely from anthropogenic sources of pollution. Stratospheric ozone can be transported downward into the troposphere to near ground level, and ozone can be produced by natural nitrogen oxides reacting with methane emitted from swamps and wetlands or with volatile organic compounds emitted by plants. However, human influence can raise local ozone concentrations to 100 ppb or more, particularly in urban areas of low- and middle-income countries. Mexico City once had ozone levels in the 500 ppb range, but these have been reduced to the still dangerous level of 120 to 150 ppb.

The WHO recommends an (8-hour average) ozone limit of 50 ppb, the European Union 55 ppb, and the EPA 70 ppb. According to the EPA, susceptible people can be adversely affected by ozone levels as low as 40 ppb.


Average summer daytime concentrations of ground-level ozone vary dramatically around the world.
Dots represent data from 4794 sites in 2010-14. (ensia.com)


Research findings

Many studies have shown that both acute and chronic ozone exposure, especially in urban areas, can adversely affect the respiratory, cardiovascular and central nervous systems and contribute to early death. Most of these studies span exposure levels well below the current EPA standard of 70 ppb (EDF, 2018).

Washam (2009) writes:

Environmental health scientists have long speculated that the influenza virus could intensify the pulmonary effects of air pollution or vice versa. Like air pollution, influenza affects primarily the respiratory system, and ambient air pollutants may either lower resistance to viral infection or provide a vehicle that facilitates the spread of the virus, or both.

Wong et al. (2009) confirmed this in an epidemiological study of interactions between air pollution and influenza activity in Hong Kong. They found that when ozone levels rose during the flu season, there were more hospitalizations for respiratory diseases and higher mortality. According to Anenberg et al. (2010), anthropogenic ozone is responsible for an estimated 700,000 (± 300,000) respiratory mortalities per year worldwide.


Influenza appears to worsen the health effects of ozone pollution in Hong Kong. (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

While ozone is known to be a potent inducer of oxidative stress, causing airway inflammation and increased respiratory morbidities and susceptibility to infections, the precise mechanisms are unclear. Kesic et al. (2012) found that exposure to ozone disrupts the protease/antiprotease balance found in the human airway, leading to increased influenza susceptibility. (A protease is an enzyme that catalyzes the breakdown of proteins, while antiproteases inhibit the function of proteases.) Disruption in the protease/antiprotease balance is associated with several respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema and asthma.

Dissenting voices can also be heard: Young et al. (2017) analyzed the connection between air quality (ozone and fine particulates (PM2.5)) and daily deaths in California for the period 2000-2012. They found that the variability in daily deaths was mostly correlated with time of year or weather variables, and that there was no significant association with ozone or PM2.5. They conclude: ‘These results call into question the widespread belief that association between air quality and acute deaths is causal/near-universal.’


Therapeutic and other uses

Due to its bactericidal effects, ozone can be used to disinfect water. Its strong oxidative effects make it suitable for treating drinking water, wastewater and industrial effluent. Oxidation directly destroys pollutants, coloured substances, odours and microorganisms, without creating harmful chlorinated by-products. Due to its strong antimicrobial effects, some hospitals use ozone for disinfecting rooms and sterilizing medical instruments.

Ozone therapy has been practised for many years in Europe, Egypt and Cuba, but is not widely used in the United States due to current regulations and concerns about misapplication. Ozone is widely used in dentistry to treat diseases of the jaw. The most common medical use is ozonated autohaemotherapy, which involves taking blood from a patient, exposing it to ozone and returning it intravenously. Medical ozone can also be delivered rectally, vaginally or through the ear, but never via the airways. Ozonized water, particularly used in dental medicine, is applied as a spray or compress. Ozone inactivates bacteria, viruses, fungi, yeast and protozoa, and stimulates oxygen metabolism and the immune system. Low-dose medical ozone application is a proven complementary method for treating chronic inflammations. Ozone therapy is said to work well for infectious diseases, immune depression, vascular disorders, degenerative diseases, orthopaedics, hyperuricaemia (excess uric acid in the blood) and rheumatism/arthritis (Derco et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2017; Elvis & Ekta, 2011).


References

S.C. Anenberg, L.W. Horowitz, D.Q. Tong and J.J. West, ‘An estimate of the global burden of anthropogenic ozone and fine particulate matter on premature human mortality using atmospheric modeling’, Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 118, no. 9, 2010, pp. 1189-95, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

J. Derco, B. Urminská and M. Vrabeľ , Introductory Chapter: Ozone in Nature and Practice, July 2018, intechopen.com.

A.M. Elvis and J.S. Ekta, ‘Ozone therapy: a clinical review’, Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine, v. 2, no. 1, 2011, pp. 66-70, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Human Health Effects of Ozone: The state of evidence since EPA’s last integrated science assessment, 2018, edf.org.

M.J. Kesic, M. Meyer, R. Bauer and I. Jaspers, ‘Exposure to ozone modulates human airway protease/antiprotease balance contributing to increased influenza A infection’, PLoS ONE, v. 7, no. 4, 2012, e35108, journals.plos.org.

N.L. Smith et al., ‘Ozone therapy: an overview of pharmacodynamics, current research, and clinical utility’, Medical Gas Research, v. 7, no. 3, 2017, pp. 212-19, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Roxanne Vingarzan, ‘A review of surface ozone background levels and trends’, Atmospheric Environment, v. 38, no. 21, 2004, pp. 3431-42, researchgate.net.

Cynthia Washam, ‘Double trouble: flu intensifies effects of ozone’, Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 117, no. 2, 2009, A74, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

C.M. Wong et al., ‘Modification by influenza on health effects of air pollution in Hong Kong’, Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 117, no. 2, 2009, A74, pp. 248-53, ehp.niehs.nih.gov.

S.S. Young et al., ‘Air quality and acute deaths in California, 2000–2012’, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, v. 88, 2017, pp. 173-84, sciencedirect.com.


5. Flu epidemics and vaccination


The 1889-90 ‘Russian flu’ was the first pandemic to occur in a highly connected world: the 19 largest European countries, including Russia, then had even more kilometres of railroads than they do today, and transatlantic travel by boat took less than six days. As Blavatsky points out (see section 2), the epidemic affected rich and poor alike. Many famous people died. In fact, Wikipedia lists Blavatsky herself as one of the disease’s ‘notable’ victims. She says that the epidemic spread ‘like an air current’, and that it was not contagious and needed ‘no centres of contagion to start from’.

There is some uncertainty about where the disease originated. The first cases are said to have occurred in May 1889, in three widely separated places: Bukhara in Central Asia (Turkestan), Athabasca in northwestern Canada, and Greenland. Around mid-October the disease was noted in Tomsk in Siberia, and in late October it appeared in St. Petersburg, in the European part of Russia (Kempińska-Mirosławska & Woźniak-Kosek, 2013). Whatever its origins, the first major outbreak is usually said to have been in St. Petersburg, after which it spread around the world – in a manner that is generally believed to be consistent with a contagious pathogen. Valleron et al. (2010) write: ‘The pandemic spread rapidly, taking only 4 months to circumnavigate the planet, peaking in the United States 70 days after the original peak in St. Petersburg. ... The mortality peaks occurred during the weeks ending 1 December in St. Petersburg, 22 December in Germany, 5 January in Paris, and 12 January in the United States.’ (There appears to be a discrepancy here: the period from 1 December to 12 January is 42 days, not 70, and 70 days is not equal to 4 months.)


Spread of the 1889 pandemic throughout continental Europe during six successive periods. Each panel refers to a period of one or several weeks shown on the calendar. Red dots indicate the places of the mortality peaks during this period. Green dots indicate cities after the mortality peak has passed. (Valleron et al., 2010, fig. 1)

The official view is that human carriers are the only possible explanation for epidemics, with transport through the air only taking place over very limited distances. This means that odd features of a disease’s spread will nowadays simply be ignored, dismissed or explained away. In earlier centuries, it was by no means obvious that influenza was spread by contagion. In 1813, Robert Thomas wrote in his book The Modern Practice of Physic: ‘By some physicians influenza was supposed to be contagious; by others not so; indeed, its wide and rapid spread made many suspect some more generally prevailing cause in the atmosphere’ (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, 1993, p. 103). Even into the 1850s the idea that diseases are contagious found hardly any support in medical and scientific circles. The following time lapse shows that the worldwide spread of the Russian flu from May 1889 to October 1890 was extremely uneven.




It is hard to say exactly what role ozone or excess oxygen played in the epidemic, but there are undoubtedly various environmental and atmospheric factors that affect when and where such an epidemic strikes. Valleron et al. note that, as in later epidemics, mortality was higher in southern European cities than in northern Europe and suggest that this may be due to ‘intrinsic geographic, weather, and/or sociological characteristics’, such as the number of inhabitants per dwelling. (It’s interesting to view the ozone concentration map (section 4) with this in mind.)

The ‘Russian flu’ pandemic is nowadays attributed to an H3N8 influenza virus. There have been four flu pandemics since then. The most serious was the 1918 pandemic, sometimes called the ‘Spanish flu’, which killed 20 to 50 million people of all ages worldwide (given the global population at the time, this is equivalent to up to 217 million people today). Although most of the victims died from bacterial lung inflammations (e.g. tuberculosis), the pandemic is nowadays attributed to an H1N1 influenza virus, based on genetic material extracted from a couple of corpses, computer simulations, and a lot of imagination.

There are numerous reasons why the winter 1918 pandemic was deadlier than anything that has happened since (Gunn, 2014, ch. 15). It began towards the end of the First World War (July 1914 to November 1918), when there were tens of millions of bereaved or separated families, appalling living conditions, widespread malnutrition and very high levels of stress and fear. Many doctors had to be brought out of retirement, and used very old and ineffective treatment methods. Numerous patients had symptoms of aspirin overdose and side effects from experimental vaccines and anti-sera. In addition, people displayed many different kinds of symptoms, but the various illnesses were lumped together as ‘Spanish flu’.


Seattle, 29 October 1918: a streetcar conductor turns a man away
because he isn’t wearing a face mask. (cbsnews.com)

An infectious disease is supposed to spread from a single centre but that didn’t happen with the Spanish flu. The first, mild wave began in February 1918 in Spain and at the same time in New York City on the other side of the Atlantic. The next month cases were reported in two army camps in Kansas, hundreds of kilometres from New York. The epidemic appeared in Paris in April and in Madrid in May. In June cases began mounting in war-torn Germany, but also in China, Japan, England and Norway. In the autumn there was a second, more serious wave, which began almost simultaneously in Boston Harbour (USA), India, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean and Central America. Brazil was hit in October and Alaska in November. Engelbrecht & Köhnlein (2007, p. 226) comment: ‘[E]ven if we factor in the fastest ships of the time, railway routes and migrating birds, there’s no sound epidemiological basis to construct a virus-caused influenza.’

In late 1918 and early 1919 experiments were conducted by the Public Health Service and the US Navy on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco, to determine whether influenza was contagious (Rosenau, 1919; Eyler, 2010). All the volunteers were healthy young men with no history of influenza. Some of them had a large quantity of 13 different strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus (the bacteria thought to cause influenza) sprayed and swabbed into their noses, throats and eyes. Next, mucus from the throats, noses and lungs of influenza patients was administered to the volunteers. Some volunteers then received injections of blood from influenza patients, while others were injected subcutaneously with mucous secretions that had been filtered to remove bacteria of ordinary size. Finally, 13 volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and each of them shook hands with a gravely ill patient, talked with him at close range, and allowed him to cough five times into his face; each volunteer did this with 10 different patients. In all these experiment, not a single volunteer developed influenza.

A major factor in the pandemic was massive use of medications and vaccines (up to 24 vaccinations per person) containing highly toxic substances like heavy metals, arsenic, formaldehyde and chloroform, all of which could trigger severe flu symptoms. A frequently observed symptom was internal bleeding in the lungs – a phenomenon associated with smallpox vaccinations. American author Eleanora McBean blames the massive death count on ‘crude and deadly treatments and drugs’:

That pandemic dragged on for two years, kept alive with the addition of more poison drugs administered by the doctors who tried to suppress the symptoms. As far as I could find out, the flu hit only the vaccinated. ... My family had refused all the vaccinations so we remained well all the time. ... [M]y parents went from house to house doing what they could to look after the sick ...

While the medical men and medical hospitals were losing 33% of their flu cases, the non-medical hospitals ... were getting almost 100% healings with their water cure, baths, enemas, etc., fasting and certain other simple healing methods, followed by carefully worked out diets of natural foods. ...

There was seven times more disease among the vaccinated soldiers than among the unvaccinated civilians, and the diseases were those they had been vaccinated against. (Engelbrecht & Köhnlein, pp. 230-1)

She also says:

When I see people cringe when someone near them sneezes or coughs, I wonder how long it will take them to find out that they can’t catch it – whatever it is. The only way they can get a disease is to develop it themselves by wrong eating, drinking, smoking or doing some other things which cause internal poisoning and lowered vitality. (p. 230)

Further flu pandemics broke out in 1957 and 1968, each resulting in an estimated 1 million global deaths, while the 2009 pandemic resulted in fewer than 300,000 deaths in its first year (cdc.gov). In 2009 the Franco-German TV network ARTE produced a documentary, Profiteers of Fear, showing how the mainly privately financed WHO ‘upgraded’ a mild wave of influenza (‘swine flu’) to a global pandemic so that vaccines worth several billion dollars could be sold to governments around the world.


Flu vaccination

Worldwide, annual flu epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 290,000 to 650,000 respiratory deaths (who.int). The flu season in the northern hemisphere tends to peak in the colder months. This is said to be because the influenza virus survives longer in cold, dry air, and lower ultraviolet light levels enable the virus to remain active in the environment for longer. More importantly perhaps, lack of sunlight leads to lower levels of vitamin D and melatonin in our bodies, thereby compromising our immune systems (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; sitn.hms.harvard.edu).

Government health authorities around the world advocate vaccination against flu. Vaccination is an attempt to protect people against specific diseases by injecting toxic material (including the presumed pathogen responsible for them) into the body, often directly into the bloodstream, thereby bypassing the body’s outer defences – i.e. the skin and mucous membranes (cellular immune system). The aim is to trick the inner defence system (humoral immune system) into producing antibodies (a type of protein), but without causing the full illness – yet it’s precisely the symptoms of disease that help expel toxins from the body. However, the presence of antibodies to a particular virus or bacterium is no guarantee against illness. Antibodies attach themselves to toxic foreign elements, and immune cells known as leukocytes then eliminate these flagged elements from the body, but this process can take place even without the formation of antibodies.

People suffering from allergies, asthma, autoimmune diseases and increased vulnerability to viral and fungal infections show very active antibody production. It’s therefore no surprise that many studies have shown that vaccinated children (whose antibody production has been artificially stimulated) are more prone to autoimmune diseases and allergies such as asthma and eczema than children with limited or no vaccines (Quenten, 2004).

In addition, vaccine immunity is usually short-lived, whereas catching a disease naturally tends to provide lifelong immunity. What’s more, vaccines can be debilitating or deadly for individuals particularly susceptible to any particular ingredient (see Vaccination and homeopathy). To trigger a stronger immune response, vaccines often contain neurotoxins, especially aluminium (an adjuvant) and mercury (a preservative), though the latter is now being phased out, as least in the West. They also contain antibiotics, foreign gene fragments, animal proteins and other toxic chemicals. Although vaccination is often credited with the massive reduction in infectious diseases since the 19th century, historical data clearly shows that the overriding factor was improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition (see Disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history). In the UK, the death rate due to measles fell by 99.5% before the measles vaccine was introduced.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): ‘Flu vaccination is not a perfect product, but it is the best way to protect against flu infection.’ But even the CDC’s own pro-vaccine information makes some interesting admissions (cdc.gov):
- ‘Flu vaccine varies in how well it works, and unfortunately, some people can become infected with a flu virus that a flu vaccine is designed to protect against, despite getting vaccinated.’ According to the CDC, the vaccine was 29% effective in 2018-19, and 45% effective (interim figure) in 2019-20 (cdc.gov).
- ‘Protection provided by flu vaccination can vary widely, based in part on health and age factors of the person getting vaccinated. It also can vary based on the match between the vaccine viruses used to produce vaccine and circulating viruses that season. Even mainstream studies have shown that during peak flu season, only 10% of upper airway illnesses can be linked to influenza viruses (Engelbrecht & Köhnlein, 2007, p. 247).
- ‘In general, a flu vaccine works best among healthy younger adults and older children. In other words, healthier people tend to stay healthier!
- ‘Some older people and people with certain chronic illnesses may develop less immunity after vaccination.

The US uses a ‘live’ vaccine (i.e. one containing an unattenuated virus) and an inactivated vaccine. Possible side effects of the inactivated vaccine include: fever, muscle aches, headache, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (a severe paralytic disease), and seizures (cdc.gov). Possible side effects of the live vaccine include: runny nose or nasal congestion, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches, fever, sore throat, and cough (cdc.gov). In other words, both vaccines can cause flu symptoms.

In the US, just 15% of elderly persons received the influenza vaccine before 1980. By 2001, 65% were vaccinated, yet mortality rates remained constant. In 2004 only 45 million people, instead of the usual 90 million, were vaccinated because several influenza vaccine batches were contaminated and had to be destroyed. Yet in 2004 the number of people dying of the flu was 30% lower than during the previous year. Studies show that annual vaccination against seasonal influenza reduces immunity against more virulent strains. US doctors started vaccinating as many young children as possible against flu in 2002. The next year, flu deaths in children under the age of five increased sevenfold to 90 cases. Vaccinated children are three times more likely to be hospitalized for influenza-related complications than non-vaccinated children, while vaccinated pregnant women are four times more likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated women. Although doctors encourage others to get an annual flu shot, surveys show that about 70% of US doctors and nurses do not get annual flu shots themselves (Miller, 2008, pp. 81-98; 2016, ch. 4).

Although children who have been vaccinated are supposedly ‘protected’, parents who don’t get their children vaccinated are criticized and vilified, because their inaction supposedly threatens the welfare of children as a whole. Apparently, the vaccine in one child might not work unless it somehow knows that most other children have also been vaccinated! This is just a sorry excuse for the ineffectiveness of the vaccine.

For every vaccine, the CDC issues the following warning: ‘As with any medicine, there is a very remote chance of a vaccine causing a severe allergic reaction, other serious injury, or death.’ From 1989 to January 2020, 21,636 claims were filed with the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 94% of them for vaccine-related injury and 6% for vaccine-related death; 28% concerned the influenza vaccine. Of the 18,586 claims adjudicated, 38% were upheld, resulting in a total of $4.3 billion being awarded in compensation (hrsa.gov). This money is paid by the government (i.e. taxpayers); it is impossible to sue vaccine manufacturers directly, because they are protected by law! It is estimated that less than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported (digital.ahrq.gov). There is no system in place for monitoring adverse events that occur months or years after vaccination, and not a single study has ever been conducted into long-term effects.

Needless to say, personal accounts of serious adverse effects from the flu and other vaccines are nowhere to be found in the propaganda put out by government authorities, the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies. The ThinkTwice website states:

If half a dozen people throughout the nation were to experience severe gastrointestinal distress following the ingestion of aspirin or tylenol, the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration] would consider recalling those products immediately. Yet, every year an average of 12,000 to 14,000 adverse events following the administration of vaccines – including hospitalizations, brain damage, and death – are reported to the FDA. The FDA refuses to investigate a single case. (thinktwice.com)

Vaccination is, after all, a multibillion-dollar industry.


References

Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein, Virus Mania: Avian flu (H5N1), cervical cancer (HPV), SARS, BSE, hepatitis C, AIDS, polio. How the medical industry continually invents epidemics, making billion-dollar profits at our expense, Trafford, 2007.

John M. Eyler, ‘The state of science, microbiology, and vaccines circa 1918’, Public Health Reports, v. 125, Supplement 3, 2010, pp. 27-36, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Trevor Gunn, The Science of Health and Healing, Holistic Promotions, 2014, Kindle ed.

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos: The unfinished revolution, London: J.M. Dent, 1993.

B. Kempińska-Mirosławska and A. Woźniak-Kosek, ‘The influenza epidemic of 1889-90 in selected European cities – a picture based on the reports of two Poznan daily newspapers from the second half of the nineteenth century’, Medical Science Monitor, v. 19, 2013, pp. 1131-41, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Patrick Quenten, ‘Vaccinations and immunity’, 2004, activehealthcare.co.uk.

Neil Z. Miller, Vaccine Safety Manual: For concerned families and health practitioners, Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 2008.

Neil Z. Miller, Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 important scientific papers summarized for parents and researchers, Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 2016, Kindle ed.

M.J. Rosenau, ‘Experiments to determine mode of spread of influenza’, Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 73, no. 5, 1919, pp. 311-3, jamanetwork.com.

A.-J. Valleron et al., ‘Transmissibility and geographic spread of the 1889 influenza pandemic’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 107, no. 19, 2010, pp. 8778-81, pnas.org.


6. Panspermia and cosmic invaders


Panspermia is the theory that, after arising by random chance somewhere in the universe, life was spread throughout space by comets, asteroids and meteoroids. Astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) and astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) have played a prominent role in promoting this theory. They contend that organic material continues to enter the earth’s atmosphere, and may be responsible for new diseases, epidemics and new genetic material necessary for the evolution of higher forms of life (see The rhythms of life).

Blavatsky rejected the idea that the first germs of life were brought to earth on a meteor, a theory put forward in her own day by scientists Hermann von Helmholtz and Sir William Thomson (SD 2:158, 719, 730); theosophy teaches that life is universal and there is no such thing as dead matter, merely different degrees of manifestation of life (see Life on other worlds). However, the possibility of microbes being carried to earth from outer space is certainly plausible. It has been known since the early 1970s that many organic molecules exist in clouds of dust and gas in outer space. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe present evidence that comets and interstellar clouds might contain not only organic molecules but also viruses and freeze-dried bacteria. Some bacteria do possess remarkable properties which would enable them to survive in space and withstand entry into the earth’s atmosphere. For example, they can survive near-zero pressures and temperatures, as well as pressures as high as 10 tons per square centimetre, and flash heating to temperatures of up to 700°C.

A typical litre of surface seawater contains at least 10 billion bacteria as well as some 100 billion viruses, most of them still unidentified and uncharacterized. Measurements near the peaks of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Spain found that some 800 million viruses per square metre per day are falling through the air, together with a smaller number of bacteria. It is usually assumed that all such viruses and bacteria originate on the earth’s surface and are swept upwards in air currents, but critics say that this ignores many difficulties associated with the upward transport process (Wickramasinghe & Steele, 2020). Wickramasinghe and his coworkers argue that a significant proportion of these airborne microbes originate outside the terrestrial biosphere and are expelled from comets. Organic structures reminiscent of bacteria and viruses have been reported in carbonaceous meteorites for several decades, though nothing more complex than proteins has ever actually been found (earthsky.org).


A woodcut from 1668. Comets have traditionally been regarded as harbingers of disease, death and destruction.

The orthodox view is that pandemics start by a random mutation or genetic recombination of a virus which then spreads by person-to-person contact. Major pandemics tend to be self-limiting; they usually last about a year, and do not affect the entire human population. Wickramasinghe et al. (2020a) argue that ‘a primary cometary dust infection is potentially the most lethal, and that secondary person-to-person transmissions can progressively reduce virulence thus resulting in a diminishing incidence of the disease over a limited period’. Viruses and bacteria that are caught up in the jet streams of the upper atmosphere can be dispersed over wide areas of land and sea, triggering pockets of contagion separated by hundreds or even thousands of miles.

Hoyle & Wickramasinghe (1993, chs. 10 & 11; 2000) present evidence suggesting that catching influenza has far more to do with where we are than with the people we have recently been in contact with. For instance, spouses of sufferers are no more at risk than members of the population at large. Also, attack rates for influenza, measles, infective jaundice and whooping cough are not significantly higher in densely populated areas than in rural areas. Nor do military barracks and boarding schools show higher attack rates, despite popular belief. The common cold tends to appear across a whole nation essentially simultaneously.

The influenza pandemic in 1918-19 was first detected on the same day in Boston in the United States and Bombay in India, but then took three weeks to go from Boston to New York. The epidemic spread rapidly across Alaska, an area the size of Europe, even though it only had a small thinly spread population of about 50,000, and the cold, harsh weather meant that people could only travel by dog sleigh, at a rate of 20 to 30 miles a day. Australia remained remarkably free of the disease until February 1919, despite all the ships calling there from infected ports, and despite the well-attested outbreaks that occurred in mid-ocean (Joseph & Wickramasinghe, 2010). During the 1948 influenza epidemic, shepherds living in remote, isolated areas on the island of Sardinia contracted flu at the same time as it appeared in the nearest inhabited centres.

Hoyle & Wickramasinghe (2000) argue that the reason influenza peaks in January and February is that, in temperate latitudes, it is in the winter months that air carrying either the virus itself or a trigger for it descends from the stratosphere to ground level. Moreover, this is likely to happen in a patchy and uneven manner. They also say that peaks of solar activity are believed to assist in the descent of charged molecular aggregates (including viruses) from the stratosphere to ground level, which is why pandemics or major epidemics coincide with sunspot peaks.


Mean sunspot numbers compared with timings of major worldwide flu pandemics (P),
including 1918 Spanish flu, 1957-58 Asian flu,1968-69 Hong Kong flu, 1977 Red flu.

Bear in mind that C.M. Richter (section 3) argued the exact opposite: that influenza epidemics occur during solar minima. That was certainly the case with the 1889-90 Russian flu epidemic, while the preceding 1848-49 pandemic occurred during a solar maximum. The 2020 COVID-19 epidemic coincides with a solar minimum.


Solar cycles 12 to 24. (spaceweatherlive.com)

On 11 October 2019 a meteoritic bolide (possibly a fragment of a comet) exploded in a brief flash some 2000 kilometres north of the city of Wuhan in the Chinese province of Hubei. Two months later, the first recorded cases of coronavirus disease were reported in Hubei. Wickramasinghe and his coworkers suggest that a pure culture of COVID-19 virus particles survived in the interior of the incandescent meteor and were deposited in the stratosphere. They first came down in Hubei, and the subsequent worldwide spread of the virus involved ‘the deposition of further large quantities of virus at several locations – Iran, North Italy, South Korea – combined with much slower spread through person-to-person infection’ (Wickramasinghe et al., 2020a,b; Wickramasinghe & Steele, 2020). They also believe that the 2003 SARS outbreak (also allegedly caused by a coronavirus), which also started in China, may have been triggered by a space event.


A meteor lights up the midnight sky over northeastern China, 11 October 2019. (space.com)

This theory takes for granted that the conventional germ theory of disease is correct. Whether this is the case is assessed in the next section.


References

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos: The unfinished revolution, London: J.M. Dent, 1993.

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, ‘The dilemma of influenza’, part 1, part 2, 21 Jan. 2000, spacedaily.com.

Rhawn Joseph and Chandra Wickramasinghe, ‘Comets and contagion: evolution and diseases from space’, Journal of Cosmology, v. 7, 2010, pp. 1750-70, journalofcosmology.com.

N.C. Wickramasinghe and E.J. Steele, ‘The coronavirus may have come from space’, 6 Feb. 2020, vixra.org.

N.C. Wickramasinghe et al. (2020a), ‘Comments on the origin and spread of the 2019 coronavirus’, Virology: Current Research, v. 4, no. 1, 2020, hilarispublisher.com.

N.C. Wickramasinghe et al. (2020b), ‘Predicting the future trajectory of COVID-19’, Virology: Current Research, v. 4, no. 1, 2020, hilarispublisher.com.


7. Disease and microbes: cause and effect


Until the rise of the germ theory in the late 19th century, a far more holistic view of disease prevailed. The Ayurvedic and traditional Chinese systems of medicine, which date back many thousands of years, recognize that health is a state of balance embracing both mind and body. In the 6th century BCE, Pythagoras stated: ‘The gods are innocent of man’s suffering. Our diseases and physical pains are the products of excess!’ Greek physician Hippocrates (c. 460-370 BCE) and Roman physician Galen (130-210 CE), too, held that each individual bears primary responsibility for maintaining health through sensible behaviour and lifestyle choices. In medieval Europe, disease was believed to arise when the ‘humours’, or vital essences, in the human body fell out of equilibrium. This echoed the teaching of the ancient Hindus and Chinese that health depends on keeping in balance the subtle energies (prana or chi/qi) circulating through the body (see Health and disease).

Modern germ theory is usually attributed to French biologist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who believed that disease arises when a healthy body is invaded from outside, by bacteria or other microbes. In his view, this was confirmed by the fact that these germs were found in diseased tissues but not in healthy ones, and he believed that vaccination was a good way of destroying them.

Germ theory really originated with Pasteur’s contemporary, Antoine Béchamp, who demonstrated that microorganisms – which he called microzymas (‘tiny ferments’) – were involved in processes such as fermentation. He considered them to be responsible for the activity of cells, tissues, organs and entire living organisms. He concluded that the primary cause of disease was toxic imbalances within the body, and that this led the microzymas already present to multiply and clean up the internal environment. He also held that one microbe could change into another microbe, i.e. they were pleomorphic, rather than monomorphic, as Pasteur believed. Modern microbiology has confirmed that pleomorphic bacteria exist in healthy human blood – something once considered impossible (Gunn, 2014, ch. 3).

Claude Bernard, another contemporary opponent of Pasteur, stated: ‘The microbe is nothing, the terrain [i.e. body] is everything.’ Germany physician Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) believed that disease arose from abnormal activity inside cells, rather than from outside pathogens, and that social factors such as poverty played a major role. He held that germs seek out diseased tissue because this is their natural habitat, rather than being the cause of diseased tissue.

Although Pasteur is nowadays regarded as a hero, in his own time he was widely seen as a plagiarist and fraudster who drew dubious conclusions from sloppy experiments. He was, however, a skilled self-publicist and won the backing of investors, with the result that his theory came to dominate medical thinking. The idea that disease is not our own responsibility but can be blamed on outside agents that need to be attacked and killed was in tune with the dominant mechanistic worldview at that time.

Another key figure in the development of germ theory was German doctor Robert Koch (1843-1910), who has been labelled ‘an enterprising swindler’ (Engelbrecht & Köhnlein, 2007, p. 53). In 1890 he announced that he had developed a miracle drug against tuberculosis, known as Tuberkulin. People flocked for treatment, but the cure proved a catastrophic failure, causing chills, high fever or death. As death rates soared, the drug was carefully inspected and found to be nothing more than a bacillus culture killed off by heat.

Koch formulated four postulates for proving that a particular microbe causes a particular disease: 1. the microbe must be present in all organisms suffering from the disease, but not in healthy organisms; 2. the microbe must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in a lab culture; 3. the disease must be produced when a pure culture of the microbe is introduced into a healthy organism; 4. the same microbe must be reisolated from the experimentally infected host. Postulates 1 and 4 were quickly abandoned, since no microbe makes every person sick and in many sick people the relevant microbe cannot be found; the other two postulates have never been properly met.

In the 1920s, American scientist Royal Raymond Rife developed his ‘universal microscope’, which could magnify specimens by 31,000x without killing them, compared with 2000x for conventional microscopes. (The electron microscope, by contrast, kills living tissue.) This enabled him to observe previously unseen microorganisms in blood and tissue. He, too, concluded that germs were pleomorphic and were the result of disease, not its cause. His work was ignored by the medical establishment, and after his death his microscope disappeared without trace (Bird, 1991, app. A).

In the 1950s French-born biologist Gaston Naessens (1924-2018) developed his ‘somatoscope’, which achieved magnifications of 30,000x. In animal and human blood and plant sap, he observed an ultramicroscopic, living and reproducing form that he called a ‘somatid’, which he considered to be a negatively charged energy condenser and a precursor of DNA. He observed how the somatid life cycle involved several changes of form. The first three stages – somatid, spore and double spore – occur in healthy organisms, but if the immune system is disrupted, the somatids go through 13 additional stages, connected with disease. Naessens, too, concluded that germs are the result of disease. Disease originates within the body if the immune system has been weakened by factors such as radiation, pollution, electric fields, poor nutrition, accidents, shock, and depression.


(cerbe.com)

Naessens discovered that the various forms in the 16-stage cycle were associated with degenerative diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, cancer, and AIDS, and this enabled him to predict the onset of such diseases long before any clinical signs of them appeared. He also developed a product, derived from camphor, which – when injected into the lymph system – strengthens the immune system, and he achieved a 75% success rate in treating cancer. He was persecuted by the medical establishment and in 1989 he was prosecuted in Canada for medical malpractice, but was acquitted (Bird, 1991; Belderis, 1992).


Bacteria and viruses

The prevailing ideology today is still that microbes (bacteria, viruses, fungus) cause disease, and we need to kill or inactivate them by means of aggressive medications and invasive treatments, even if this leads to side effects that are worse than the disease itself. However, even orthodox medicine recognizes that there is no bacteria or virus that causes a disease in every person who has that microbe in their body. All individuals carry microbes associated with specific diseases within them, yet normally show no symptoms of those diseases.

The microbe hunters originally thought that each disease was caused by a single microbe. Nowadays, however, a particular microbe can be associated with many different illnesses, and many different microbes can be associated with the same illness. For example influenza-like symptoms have been associated with flu viruses, respiratory synctial viruses, and bacteria, and most disease symptoms are not associated with any microbes at all. But as Dawn Lester and David Parker point out, ‘[T]here is no original scientific evidence that definitively proves that any “germ” causes any specific infectious disease’ (2019, ch. 3).

Bacteria are known to decompose diseased or dead tissue but they do not as a rule attack healthy tissue, despite what is commonly assumed. Bacteria are made by the body and appear within diseased tissue to feed on and clean up the debris that damaged or dying cells leave behind; once this has been done, they disappear again (Quanten, 2003; youtu.be). Fungi, too, help to decompose and dispose of dead cells and other bodily waste. It should be borne in mind that millions of our cells die every day as part of the body’s natural self-renewal process. Ingesting putrefying food contaminated with bacteria and fungus will poison a person, but this would also be true if the food was first irradiated to kill any microbes. Given that E. coli bacteria reside in the intestines of healthy people, it makes no sense to regard them as a major cause of food poisoning. The widespread use of toxic antibiotics to destroy bacteria in the name of promoting health is a huge error.

As for viruses, although they can be photographed with an electron microscope, a virus has never been properly isolated from the body, purified of all contaminants and cell debris, and then shown – in properly controlled experiments – to cause disease in a cell (Lanka, 2015; Roberts 2009, 2010; Engelbrecht & Köhnlein, 2007; theinfectiousmyth.com). Consider the CDC-approved procedure for ‘isolating’ the measles virus for use in vaccines. A culture of cells from marmoset monkeys is prepared by making them cancerous and adding a toxin. Next, a urine, nasal or throat sample from a measles patient is added. If half of the cells then become sick and distorted, this is blamed on the virus and the culture is labelled ‘isolated measles-virus stock’. No effort is made to observe the virus under an electron microscope or isolate it from the rest of the poisoned cell culture, and no control experiment is conducted in which the cell culture is treated in exactly same way, but without the ‘virus’ (Roberts, 2009, pp. 84, 252; 2010, pp. 211-240).

Viruses were invented in the late 19th century to explain certain diseases that were not associated with bacteria; it was assumed that these viral microbes too small to be observed under a light microscope. In practice, ‘viral’ infections are mostly diagnosed on the basis of clinical symptoms, not by directly detecting, isolating and identifying the virus. Indirect detection methods are also used. Sometimes people are tested to see whether they have antibodies to the virus in question, and if they do, it is assumed that they are ‘infected’ by it – even though the antibodies could have been produced in response to other things, and high antibody levels are also often cited as evidence that a person has been infected with a virus in the past and is now protected against it. Sometimes fragments of DNA or RNA that are thought to be associated with a virus are looked for in diseased cells or fluids, and a technique known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used to replicate them a millionfold and make them easier to find. But again it is impossible to know for certain whether such fragments actually come from the virus, since the genome of a purified virus has never been sequenced.

Bacteria and viruses are very different. A bacteria is regarded as a living, self-replicating organism. Viruses are far smaller and simpler than bacteria, and consist of a tiny bits of genetic material (RNA or DNA) – less than one billionth the size of the cell’s genetic code – contained within a protein capsule. They are inert particles with no metabolic activity and cannot move, grow or reproduce themselves; they are therefore not alive as defined by science. The official view is that they reproduce by ‘hijacking’ a host cell, and are then able to mutate very fast in a ‘cunning’ effort to defend themselves and survive. They are said to lose the ability to take over other cells within a few hours of being outside the host body. However, the idea of a cell being taken over and killed by an inert particle a million times smaller than itself seems absurd. In addition, no one has explained how the death of a cell is able to induce a fever or skin rash, or any of the other symptoms of a ‘viral’ disease. It is also unclear how a virus, which is not motile, manages to escape from the host cell and ‘hitch’ itself to a particle of saliva or mucus that is then ejected during a sneeze or cough.

Scientists have never demonstrated that a virus can enter the body from outside, penetrate a cell and cause it to become diseased (Gunn, 2014, ch. 4). There is no evidence that the viruses associated with a particular disease can actually cause that illness through skin contact, when breathed in or when ingested. A virology textbook mentions that experiments on the transmission of rhinovirus (cold virus) from a person on one side to a table to a person sitting opposite proved ‘singularly unsuccessful’. The transmission of influenza from a naturally infected husband/wife to his/her spouse was equally unsuccessful (Dimmock & Primrose, 1987, p. 230).

All viruses are made by cells, and they are mostly species- and organ-specific. Cells make viruses by producing short lengths of genetic code and wrapping part of their own outer membrane around them as they bud them out. In contrast to viruses, cells are immensely complex: they respond intelligently to their surroundings and constantly communicate with one another. Cells are able to absorb and digest viruses and sometimes splice the genetic codes they receive into their own DNA.

Cells are known to produce particles called exosomes when under threat from poisons, possibly as a way of warning other cells of the danger, or of instructing them how to respond to the trauma, or in some cases to devour and clean up toxins. Exosomes are indistinguishable from viruses, and it is questionable whether any such particle is a virus in the literal sense of the word (i.e. ‘poison’) (Roberts, 2009). Cells that are sick and start to malfunction sometimes produce so many ‘viruses’ that they eventually burst apart, following which immune cells clean up the debris. Cells may produce a multitude of ‘viruses’ with slightly different codes, making it look like the viruses are ‘deliberately’ mutating (Quanten, 2004).


Epidemics

Are epidemics only possible if contagious agents exist? Dr Patrick Quenten believes not:

The influences that can lead to an increased pressure on the system are many and are varied. They range from the weather, to living and working environment, to life style and diet, to the balance of activity and rest, to mental balance, stress and worries. ...

Epidemics occur because people in similar circumstances, living environments and conditions, have similar imbalances within their systems, leading directly to similar disease patterns. This causes fear and apprehension all around them, making others more vulnerable to start showing a breakdown of health themselves. The disease is spreading. More accurately, the fear of the disease is spreading first, resulting in a lowered resistance, which allows each individual’s imbalances to show up through the inability to cope with the problems the system has already been faced with for a long time. (2004)

In every epidemic, no matter how bad or widespread they are, there have always been and there always will be survivors. This is due to the fact that these people do not ‘engage’ with the particular vibrations of their environment. ... The ‘stronger’ a person is the less likely it is he/she is going to get ill. Strength here is not measured in terms of blood pressure, fitness, breathing capacity or any other medical test; it is simply measured by the ease with which the person can distance him/herself from potentially strong and disturbing environmental influences. (2012)

If a number of children attending the same nursery get sick at the same time, we’re programmed to assume that this happens because an infectious ‘bug’ is going round. But it is readily conceivable that children of a similar age, in the same developmental stage, learning similar things, experiencing similar frustrations, in a similar environment could have similar reactions. Moreover, there are always children who do not ‘catch the bug’ because they do not have that particular susceptibility, while other children who have been isolated for a long period may well get sick (Gunn, 2014, ch. 15).

None of this rules out the possibility of physical entities playing a role in transmitting disease. People influence one another on many different levels all the time, both consciously and unconsciously. From a theosophical viewpoint, humans are constantly exchanging various forms of energy-substance, not only on a physical level, but also on an astral and mental level. They are often influenced by collective thought-forms – fads, fashions, crazes, panics, mass psychoses, etc. – which affect their physical, emotional and mental health. Karma – cause and effect – does not just operate at an individual level. We are social beings and are drawn together, even before birth, into families, communities, cities, nations, races, etc. So there is nothing surprising about waves of disease sometimes affecting large masses of people.

Disease is an attempt by the body to restore balance and harmony. Factors that can disturb our inner equilibrium range from external influences such as the weather, food, environmental pollutants, the people we mix with, and the information we receive, to internal influences such as our thoughts, beliefs and emotions, and stress arising from our inability to cope with our experiences. Disease often strikes at key stages in our development, particularly in childhood. Even a person in apparently perfect health may harbour karmic weaknesses or susceptibilities which lead them to become ill.

Orthodox medicine sees disease symptoms as malfunctions that need to be suppressed with aggressive medications, and is obsessed with trying to prevent disease by injecting toxic vaccines into the body. This approach tends to throw the immune system out of balance and has a very detrimental impact on public health. Holistic therapeutic approaches, such as homeopathy, on the other hand, view symptoms as intelligent healing responses, and seek to enhance the body’s innate healing power by means of safe, natural, nontoxic therapies, in order to restore balance to the body, mind and spirit (see Modern medicine).

If an acute disease process is successful, it acts as a purifying experience that restores equilibrium and good health. But if the cleanup process is left unfinished, either because the symptoms are suppressed or because the body is too weak to withstand the disease process, waste products accumulate and tissue renewal is not completed, possibly leading to a recurrence of the disease, chronic ailments, disability or even death.

Ultimately, we are what we make ourselves, and reap what we sow. We inherit strengths and weaknesses – physical, emotional and mental – from our own past (partly via our parents). It is up to us to use the capacities we are born with or acquire in our present incarnation to rectify weaknesses and further develop our positive characteristics. In addition to a sensible diet and regular exercise, cultivating kindness, compassion, altruism, and a calm and positive frame of mind will contribute to the health and wellbeing not only of ourselves but also of society as a whole.


References

Ina Belderis, ‘There is no medicine higher than truth’, Sunrise, Oct./Nov. 1992, theosophy-nw.org.

Christopher Bird, The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens: The true story of the efforts to suppress an alternative treatment for cancer, AIDS, and other immunologically based diseases, Tiburon, CA: H.J. Kramer, 1991, customers.hbci.com.

N.J. Dimmock and S.J. Primrose, Introduction to Modern Virology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 3rd ed., 1987.

Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein, Virus Mania: Avian flu (H5N1), cervical cancer (HPV), SARS, BSE, hepatitis C, AIDS, polio. How the medical industry continually invents epidemics, making billion-dollar profits at our expense, Trafford, 2007.

Trevor Gunn, The Science of Health and Healing, Holistic Promotions, 2014, Kindle ed.

Stefan Lanka, ‘Dismantling the virus theory’, 2015, wissenschafftplus.de.

Dawn Lester and David Parker, What Really Makes You Ill? Why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong, 2019, Kindle ed.

Patrick Quanten, ‘The origin of “germs”’, 2003, activehealthcare.co.uk.

Patrick Quanten, ‘Viruses’, 2004, activehealthcare.co.uk.

Patrick Quanten, ‘Catching a disease’, 2012, activehealthcare.co.uk.

Janine Roberts, Fear of the Invisible: An investigation of viruses and vaccines, HIV and AIDS, Bristol: Impact Investigative Media Productions, 2nd ed., 2009.

Janine Roberts, The Vaccine Papers, Wigan: Impact Investigative Media Productions, 2010.


8. Virus mania: epidemics of fear


The medical establishment, through the mainstream media, treats us to endless scares about viral epidemics: polio, AIDS, avian flu, SARS, hepatitis C, Ebola, and most recently COVID-19. But as Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr Claus Köhnlein explain in their hard-hitting and exhaustively documented book Virus Mania (2007), this fearmongering, which proves very profitable to the pharmaceutical industry, ignores the fact that the existence, pathogenicity and deadly effects of contagious viruses have never been proven, even though the technology required to do so has existed for nearly 100 years. As Dr Etienne de Harven puts it: ‘We are not witnessing viral epidemics; we are witnessing epidemics of fear’ (p. 11).

To prove the pathogenicity of the ‘polio virus’, a sample of spinal tissue or faeces from a person or animal affected by polio (which could have contained all sorts of contaminants) was injected into the brains of animals. If the animals became ill, this was blamed on a virus, yet no attempt was made to isolate and purify it, image it with an electron microscope and characterize its genome. The viruses used in the two vaccines produced in the late 1950s and early 60s were grown from monkey cells treated with a human excrement suspension; the first one was withdrawn as unsafe in 1961. The CDC estimates that 87% of polio cases in the US between 1973 and 1983 were caused by vaccination. To make it look like the vaccines were working, many cases of polio were reclassified as acute flaccid paralysis or Guillain-Barré syndrome (Vaccination and homeopathy). The paralytic symptoms of polio can also be caused by toxins contained in insecticides and pesticides.

The AIDS scare broke out in the early 1980s and was said to pose a threat to the whole of humanity. The retrovirus supposedly responsible – HIV – has never been isolated in purified form. Its existence was originally inferred by observing reverse transcriptase activity in cells, but all cells are capable of displaying this property. To decide whether someone is ‘HIV positive’ the virus hunters do not look for the virus but use indirect methods, such as HIV antibody tests, PCR viral load tests, and helper cell (T-cell) counts – which Engelbrecht and Köhnlein call ‘as uninformative as a toss of a coin’. None of the proteins detected in HIV antibody tests are specific to HIV, and nearly 70 medical conditions (including tuberculosis, influenza and malaria), together with certain vaccinations and even pregnancy, can give a positive result.

In wealthy countries nearly all AIDS patients are men who lead a promiscuous lifestyle and consume toxic drugs and medications. In poor countries a much larger proportion of the population has AIDS, men and women are equally affected and most of those suffering from AIDS are malnourished. In rich countries people are diagnosed with AIDS if they test positive in an antibody test and suffer from a least one of 26 well-known diseases, including Kaposi’s sarcoma, Hodgkin’s disease, shingles and tuberculosis. In most of Africa, patients can be diagnosed with AIDS simply because they have a combination of three or four symptoms such as chronic diarrhoea, prolonged fever, persistent cough, weight loss of at least 10%, and generalized itching. According to computer models, millions of Africans are dying of AIDS, but population figures contradict this. The ‘answer’ to AIDS has been to administer large quantities of highly toxic drugs, which often cause further immunosuppression, but also have the advantage of boosting the coffers of big pharmaceutical companies. The drug doses used today are smaller than in the 1980s, so patients live longer. (See HIV=AIDS=Death.)

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) supposedly causes liver damage. It was invented in 1987, after researchers found fragments of genes that were presumed to belong to a new virus. But nobody has ever detected such a virus in the blood of hepatitis C patients, and gene particles classified as the hepatitis C virus have been found in people with negative antibody tests. Most HCV-positive patients have no disease symptoms at all (not even in the liver), yet are treated with toxic medications that are known to destroy liver cells. Liver damage appears to be primarily caused by alcohol and drug abuse; almost 80% of drug addicts are HCV-positive. Once again, millions of dollars are being made by selling drugs and treating people for an often nonexistent problem, and we are still waiting for the predicted liver cirrhosis epidemic.

A wave of hysteria about SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) erupted in November 2002. It was sparked by a few cases of pneumonia in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, yet people are constantly contracting pulmonary infections and dying. The existence of the SARS coronavirus has not been proved, and 30% of patients with SARS symptoms failed to test positive for it. Material assumed to contain the virus was injected into some macaque monkeys through their throats, noses and under their eyelids, but they only developed mild symptoms, including lethargy, rash and breathing difficulties. The monkeys had been anaesthetized with ketamine, which can cause precisely these symptoms. As usual, there was no control group of animals receiving the same injections but without the alleged virus.

A virus should attack all age groups, but SARS largely spared children, and no epidemic occurred among healthcare workers. SARS patients were given all sorts of harmful antiviral and antibiotic medications that can trigger the symptoms they’re supposed to fight. When the panic was over, doctors and researchers realized that the aggressive treatments had probably killed a lot of patients (Crowe, 2020d). According to the WHO, there were only 800 probable SARS fatalities in the first nine months after the outbreak began. But the hysteria caused more damage to the Asian economy than the New Year 2004-2005 tsunami, which claimed 230,000 lives.

SARS disease symptoms are the same as those produced by pesticide and air pollution. Cui et al. (2003) found that Chinese patients from regions with high air pollution indexes (APIs) were twice as likely to die from SARS as those from regions with low APIs. Biochemist Howard Urnovitz believes that the SARS ‘virus’ is no more than a rearrangement of human genes caused by pollution stress (West, 2003).

The first patient to trigger the SARS panic came from Guangdong province in China, one of the most highly polluted regions on earth, due to the presence of oil refineries, metal smelters and other chemical industries. Since the mid-1990s it has also become a booming centre of e-waste processing. For $1.5 a day, locals disassemble computers, monitors and printers with their bare hands, endangering their health and the environment. Although the import of high-tech junk was officially banned, the waste still makes it to China because the regulatory authorities are overwhelmed or due to corruption. A lot of garbage is burned or dumped onto rice fields, irrigation facilities or into waterways.

In 2005 the media announced that an avian flu virus named H5N1 was likely to mutate in the near future and trigger a global epidemic, in which up to 150 million people, or even everybody on earth, might die. Needless to say, no electron micrograph of a pure and fully characterized H5N1 virus exists. Large amounts of a sample supposedly containing the virus, along with all sorts of cellular components and other potentially damaging material, was injected into ducks’ windpipes, nasal cavities, eyes and throats for several days, and all the resulting damage was then blamed on H5N1. No virus is required to make animals sick. Industrial poultry farming is quite capable of doing that, due to extremely close crowding in artificially lit cages, denatured industrial feed, distortion of animal bodies due to overbreeding for certain desired physical characteristics, and administration of antibiotics and vaccines. Fattened chickens can barely support their own weight, and 10% suffer cardiac arrest. Cannibalism and self-mutilation are common.


Chicken factory farm.

H5N1 is said to have caused the deaths of 153 people from the end of 2003 until November 2006, mostly in Asia. Some of the victims were merely suffering from cold symptoms, but died after intensive treatment with antiviral drugs. H5N1 could not be detected in various diseased organs at all, but this was shrugged off as an ‘enigma’.

In early 2003 health problems with a very high death rate were reported on six poultry farms in the Netherlands, triggering an epidemic of hysteria. The next day it was announced that a highly pathogenic H7N7 virus had been found. In the months that followed, 26 million chickens in the Netherlands, around 2.5 million in Belgium and approximately 100,000 in North Rhine-Westphalia were gassed, poisoned by lethal injection, electrocuted or manually slaughtered. As Engelbrecht and Köhnlein (2007, p. 204) comment: ‘In the end, 30 million birds died from another all-too-human strain of virus mania.’

In November 2005 a single mildly sick duck was found in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Using modern indirect molecular biological proof procedures, this was attributed to the avian flu virus H7N3. In addition to killing the single duck, the authorities immediately slaughtered a further 56,000 healthy ducks and geese.


COVID-19: an orgy of stupidity

A new coronavirus, named SARS-CoV-2, allegedly arose in December 2019 in the city of Wuhan in the Chinese province of Hubei. It is said to cause a disease that has been called COVID-19. However, this is not really a new disease since it has no unique symptoms of its own. It is diagnosed on the basis of the following criteria: fever, dry cough and/or shortness of breath; pneumonia; or abnormal lung images, even in the absence of any illness. According to initial forecasts, the resulting pandemic would kill millions. The reality is very different.

Worldwide, total deaths stand at 374,157 (as of 1/6/20; latest figure; latest graph), whereas up to 650,000 people die in a bad flu season, though without sensationalist publicity; higher-than-average mortality is only being observed in certain countries and cities. Moreover, the death total is grossly inflated because anybody who dies with the symptoms in question is often labelled a COVID-19 victim even if they are suffering from one or more other serious illnesses and even if they have not tested ‘positive’; in other words, most countries do not distinguish between deaths from COVID-19 and deaths with COVID-19. In the US, doctors are under pressure to list deaths as COVID-19 because this entitles hospitals a 20% federal bonus (hospitals also receive around $13,000 for a regular COVID-19 patient and $39,000 for an intubated patient). In Italy only 12% of reported deaths were considered to be directly caused by COVID-19. Also, the aggressive treatments patients are receiving – including invasive ventilation, high-dose corticosteroids and antiviral drugs – are contributing to the number of deaths.


Graph showing three model-based predictions, announced by Governor Newsom, of how many intensive
care unit beds would be needed for COVID-19 patients in California, compared with reality.

The aim of lockdown and social distancing measures – implemented with widely different degrees of severity in different countries – is to ‘flatten the curve’, i.e. reduce the infection rate and therefore the number of people dying in the short term, in order to prevent medical services from being overwhelmed. However, the original predictions of fatalities and hospital beds needed were terribly exaggerated; in the United Kingom, for example, the initial model-based projection was that over 500,000 people might die, whereas the actual death toll at the end of May was about 38,000. At the same time, the measures imposed ‘lengthen the curve’ because they delay the development of immunity among the general population. In many countries the outbreak had already peaked before the lockdown was imposed. Meunier (2020) examined the data for several European countries and concluded that lockdowns ‘might not have saved any life in western Europe’. In fact, in countries where mortality rose far above historical averages, this always occurred after the lockdowns were imposed, as the following chart shows (Pospichal, 2020).




In Western countries, 30 to 70% of COVID-19-related deaths have occurred in nursing homes, which don’t benefit from a lockdown, and in many cases it’s unclear whether these people died from COVID-19, inadequate care, or stress, fear and loneliness. In Italy the crisis began with a panic-induced collapse of nursing care for the elderly. In addition, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes has decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dare to go to hospital or the care is no longer available (swprs.org). The British Medical Journal reported that in the five weeks prior to 12 May there was a ‘staggering burden’ of 30,000 more deaths than would normally be expected in care homes and other community settings in England and Wales: 10,000 were officially attributed to COVID-19, while 20,000 were due to patients being moved out of hospitals that were anticipating high demand for beds (bmj.com).

The measures imposed are certainly taking a heavy toll, as social isolation and loss of jobs and income trigger a sharp rise in drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, mental health issues, suicides, etc. In the long term, crippling the economy is bound to plunge more people into poverty and shorten millions of lives. For thousands of years it has been common practice to quarantine the sick. We had to wait until the 21st century for a society dumb enough to quarantine the healthy.


The COVID-19 epidemic is mainly a function of two things: how the disease is defined, and testing. The definition of SARS was self-limiting and the ‘epidemic’ burned out very quickly. That is because to become a SARS patient you had to have had contact with another SARS carrier, and you then had to test positive for the ‘virus’ (i.e. for the biomarker of the presumed virus). As David Crowe (2020a) says: ‘Once everyone was quarantined, contact with an existing case was highly unlikely, testing stopped, and doctors could declare victory.’ In China, the number of new COVID-19 cases only began to fall after a link to another patient was included as a condition for testing. Other countries did not follow suit, and the number of cases began to skyrocket from mid-February onwards. If random testing were to continue indefinitely, the fake epidemic might never end – which would be great news for Big Medicine and Big Pharma, and also Big Government.

The ‘COVID-19 tests’ do not detect the COVID-19 virus. A particle has been seen in an electron micrograph that has been labelled the new coronavirus; it resembles other particles that are regarded as harmless exosomes (see figure below). There has been no attempt to isolate and purify the ‘virus’, sequence its entire genome, and demonstrate that it is pathogenic (Corbett, 2020; Crowe, 2020e; youtube.com; questioningcovid.com). This means there is no ‘gold standard’ for any test. Instead, microbiologists have searched lung samples from patients for RNA segments similar to those associated with other coronaviruses (which also haven’t been isolated). Such segments are assumed to make up the virus’s genome. But no one has verified that the ‘virus’ seen in electron micrographs actually contains these RNA segments. It is quite possible that this RNA is produced by our cells in response to certain types of stress.




Left: exosomes (top: outside the cell; bottom: inside the cell). Right: the COVID-19 ‘killer virus’ (top: outside the
cell; bottom: inside the cell). The particles have similar sizes and were all found in bronchial fluid. (youtube.com)

COVID-19 tests use the RT-PCR technique to try and find one of these RNA segments (each is thought to make up less than 1% of the entire genome). A segment is first converted to DNA by using the reverse transcriptase (RT) enzyme. The amount of DNA obtained can easily vary by a factor of 10. This DNA is then multiplied millions of times using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In each PCR cycle, the number of DNA strands is doubled. If we start with one strand, then after 40 cycles there will be a trillion strands (240). PCR is a very sensitive technique invented by Kary Mullis (who received a Nobel Prize for it in 1993); he stressed that it is a qualitative procedure and should not be used for diagnostic purposes – but that is exactly what the virus hunters are doing.

The test does not give a positive/negative result. It merely tells you how many cycles are needed to detect sufficient material to beat the arbitrary cutoff between ‘positive’ (infected) and ‘negative’ (not infected). Different tests (there are dozens of them) use between 31 and 45 cycles before a person can be declared ‘negative’ if insufficient RNA is found. Different tests look for different RNA segments; some look for two or three segments, but don’t always require all of them to be found. Furthermore, the quantity of RNA found does not correlate with how sick a person is (Crowe, 2020b).

There are countless cases of patients going from positive to negative and back to positive on successive days. In such cases it is up to doctors to ‘interpret’ the result, in accordance with their preconceptions. A woman from Shenzhen tested negative 18 times, but because other members of her family had tested positive, the doctor declared that she too was infected. Often only 3 to 5% of people test ‘positive’, even when testing is restricted to people suspected of carrying the virus. A paper by Chinese scientists found that the rate of false positives could be as high as 80% among people with no symptoms (Crowe, 2020a). In Tanzania, samples from a goat and a papaya fruit were labelled as human samples and sent for testing; they both tested positive (21stcenturywire.com)!

If a person is declared ‘positive’, they can be quarantined and given aggressive medications even if they have no serious symptoms; side effects of these drugs include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and liver damage. Sicker patients are often prescribed untested drugs, and if they suffer declining health or die, this is blamed on the virus. Hospitalized patients who are denied visitors and confronted every day by staff hidden behind layers of protective gear are almost certain to suffer declining health. As John Hardie (2020) puts it: ‘The friendly reassuring smile and warm handshake so beneficial to those in emotional distress is replaced by a human robot encased in latex and plastic.’

Invasive ventilation can be very traumatic, and lead to lung damage and cardiac arrest. Doctors are intubating many patients unnecessarily because they’re afraid of being infected via leaky oxygen masks; this amounts to medical malpractice, and in the case of SARS the fear of infection proved unfounded. During the SARS panic, a Hong Kong hospital which did not immediately resort to invasive ventilation was found to have a death rate four times lower than 13 hospitals which used immediate intubation. Among intubated COVID-19 patients over the age 65, a 97% death rate was found in both China and New York (Crowe, 2020a).

There are numerous different antibody tests that are claimed to indicate whether a person is or has been infected with the COVID-19 virus. Each manufacturer is allowed to ‘validate’ its own test, i.e. declare how good it is. Often people test negative when they ought to be positive, or vice versa. David Crowe (2020c) writes:

Positive antibody tests have only been found in a minority of people in the general population even where the virus is believed to have been circulating for months. ... The faith in this data is hard to understand since there is no evidence for the vast majority of people in surveys that they ever were ‘infected’ (RNA positive), no evidence that the presence of antibodies is new, and no evidence that the majority who test negative were never ‘infected’ (i.e. never tested RNA positive).

The virus is said to be transmitted from person to person. Yet there are countless documented cases of people of various nationalities testing positive even though they have had no contact with other carriers and have not travelled to an affected region (Crowe, 2020a). For instance, of the first 425 cases in Wuhan, 72% had not been exposed to the seafood market where the virus supposedly originated or to a person with respiratory symptoms. None of the first 37 cases found in Lombardy in Italy had any links to each other or to previous coronavirus cases (e.g. from people arriving from China). The virus fanatics simply ignore anything that doesn’t fit their beliefs and agenda.

It has been calculated that the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the COVID-19 ‘virus’ is between 1.4 and 4; this is known as the reproductive number or Ro (‘R-nought’ or ‘R-zero’). However, to preserve the contagion theory, some people have to be labelled ‘superspreaders’. For instance, the first person diagnosed with the disease in a highly populated region of South Korea was a 61-year-old woman who had no known contacts or travel to explain her case, and she was blamed for infecting 37 other people (Crowe, 2020a).

The average death rate from COVID-19 is currently put at 0.2%, about the same as for a severe influenza, and about 20 times lower than originally assumed by the WHO (swprs.org). However, given the unreliability of the death figures, the unreliability of the ‘virus’ test, and the uncertainty regarding the total number of people who would test ‘positive’ (even if they have no symptoms), it could be as low as 0.02% (Crowe, 2020a). Other key facts include the following:

- Even in the global ‘hotspots’, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work.
- Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons show mild symptoms at most.
- The average age of the deceased in Italy and other countries is about 80 years and only about 1% had no serious pre-existing health conditions (swprs.org).

An important factor in the epidemic is air pollution. COVID-19 symptoms are the same as air pollution symptoms: fever, tiredness, dry cough. The worst-hit areas all have a big air pollution problem. This link has been pointed out by Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, a renowned German microbiologist. He argues that coronaviruses have been circulating for a long time and cannot cause a severe epidemic. He calls the extreme response ‘grotesque’, ‘self-destructive’ and ‘collective suicide’ (youtube.com; swprs.org).

Wuhan (China), the initial epicentre of the pandemic, is one of the world’s most polluted cities. Wuhan experienced severe influenza outbreaks in the spring of 2018 and 2019, when air pollution indices were very high. Street protests about poor air quality took place there in the summer of 2019. Severe smog is also linked to the sharp rise in pneumonia cases in January 2020 (eurasiareview.com).

In Europe, northern Italy is one of regions worst hit by COVID-19; it is one of the most polluted areas and has one of the oldest populations in Europe. Conticini et al. (2020) investigated the correlation between COVID-19 and atmospheric pollution and concluded that ‘the high level of pollution in Northern Italy should be considered an additional co-factor of the high level of lethality recorded in that area’.


Dense smog in Milan (Lombardy, Italy).

Yaron Ogen (2020) studied data from 66 administrative regions in Italy, Spain, France and Germany, and found that 78% of COVID-19 fatalities occurred in five regions located in northern Italy and central Spain, and that these regions had the highest NO2 concentrations combined with downwards airflow, which prevents efficient dispersal of air pollution. Like ozone, NO2 can irritate the lungs and contribute to respiratory problems. He concludes: ‘These results indicate that the long-term exposure to this pollutant may be one of the most important contributors to fatality caused by the COVID-19 virus.’


Tropospheric NO2 distribution. (Ogen, 2020)

In a study of air pollution and COVID-19 in England, Travaglio et al. (2020) found that nitrogen oxides and ozone showed a significant correlation with the cumulative number of deaths, and nitrogen oxides showed a significant correlation with the cumulative number of cases. Wu et al. (2020) studied the correlation between long-term exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 deaths in the United States and found that an increase of 1 microgram of fine particulates (PM2.5) per cubic metre was correlated with an 8% increase in deaths. Jim West (2020, 2019) points out that in the US the most intense epicentres began in New York State in the same locations as the measles epicentres in 2019, and he links this to environmental pollution.


(stateofglobalair.org)

There are undoubtedly numerous other factors that potentially contribute to ‘COVID-19’ mortality. For example, two massive vaccination campaigns against influenza and meningococcus were carried out in Lombardy in the months leading up to the outbreak, notably in the later hotspots of Bergamo and Brescia (bergamonews.it).

The germphobia now infecting much of the world like a mental virus is an irrational fear based on ignorance. Anxiety and stress lower resistance and make people more susceptible to illness, including the ‘infection’ they fear. There is plenty of evidence that our beliefs, expectations and state of mind have a major impact on our health – for better (placebo effect) or for worse (nocebo effect) (see Mind, health and healing). Environmentalist John Perkins relates that when he was growing up in New Hampshire (USA), his parents convinced him that if his feet got wet, he had to change his socks and shoes immediately otherwise he would catch a cold. He found that when he failed to follow their advice, he did indeed get sick, though he noticed that some of his schoolmates did not. Years later he became acquainted with the Shuar, who assured him that no harm would come of having wet feet. He then discovered that he no longer contracted a cold, even after spending days in the rainforest with wet feet, and even in New Hampshire.

In the current climate of media-fuelled hysteria, disease is being blamed on evil pathogens, or on infected people who don’t keep their distance or wear masks. Yet we are already crawling with hundreds of trillions of microbes and draw them in with every breath. Bacteria and fungi are also found in many foods, including cheese, yoghurt, olives and tempeh. Even the conventional germ theory teaches that we build immunity by coming into contact with microbes, not by hiding in our homes (which are also full of them), or beneath masks, etc. A young child develops immunity by grabbing everything within reach and putting its hands or other objects in its mouth, not by being isolated or placed in a sterilized environment. Ironically, germphobes tend to long for vaccination, which introduces ‘pathogens’ and toxins directly into our bodies, but in an artificial way that disrupts the immune system.

One litre of seawater contains over 20,000 species of bacteria and 10 billion ‘viruses’ – known as bacteriophages – that exist in symbiosis with simple organisms like one-celled algae. Engelbrecht & Köhnlein comment:

Luckily, the phages’ omnipresence has flown below the radar of prevailing medical viral research – otherwise there would probably be regulations against bathing in the sea without full-body condoms or epidemic-protection suits, and only under the condition that we first take prophylactic antiviral medications. (2007, p. 48)


References

E. Conticini et al., ‘Can atmospheric pollution be considered a co-factor in extremely high level of SARS-CoV-2 lethality in Northern Italy?’, Environmental Pollution, 4 April 2020, 114465, sciencedirect.com.

Kevin Corbett, Where is the evidence for the existence of the ‘novel coronavirus’, SARS-CoV-2?, London: KPC Research and Consultancy Limited, April 2020, theinfectiousmyth.com.

David Crowe (2020a), Flaws in coronavirus pandemic theory, 26 May 2020, theinfectiousmyth.com.

David Crowe (2020b), The incredible and scary truth about COVID-19 tests, 26 April 2020, theinfectiousmyth.com.

David Crowe (2020c), Antibody testing for COVID-19, 11 May 2020, theinfectiousmyth.com.

David Crowe (2020d), SARS – steroid and ribavirin scandal, 31 Jan. 2020, theinfectiousmyth.com.

David Crowe (2020e), Isolation versus purification, 21 May 2020, theinfectiousmyth.com.

Y. Cui et al., ‘Air pollution and case fatality of SARS in the People’s Republic of China: an ecologic study’, Environmental Health, v. 2, no. 1, 2003, 15, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein, Virus Mania: Avian flu (H5N1), cervical cancer (HPV), SARS, BSE, hepatitis C, AIDS, polio. How the medical industry continually invents epidemics, making billion-dollar profits at our expense, Trafford, 2007.

John Hardie, Thoughts and concerns regarding the new corona virus, 14 April 2020, theinfectiousmyth.com.

Thomas Meunier, ‘Full lockdown policies in western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic’, medRxiv, 1 May 2020, medrxiv.org.

Yaron Ogen, ‘Assessing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels as a contributing factor to coronavirus (COVID-19) fatality’, Science of the Total Environment, 11 April 2020, 726:138605, sciencedirect.com.

J. Pospichal, ‘Questions for the lockdown apologists’, Medium, 24 May 2020, medium.com.

M. Travaglio et al., ‘Links between air pollution and COVID-19 in England’, medRxiv, 16 April 2020, medrxiv.org.

Jim West, The SARS epidemic: Are viruses taking the rap for industrial poisons?, 7 Dec. 2003, westonaprice.org.

Jim West, New York measles 2019: environment omitted, 10 April 2019, harvoa-med.blogspot.com.

Jim West, COVID pandemic 2020: environment omitted, 9 April 2020, harvoa-med.blogspot.com.

X. Wu et al., ‘Exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States’, medRxiv, 5 April 2020, medrxiv.org.



Homepage

Vaccination and homeopathy

Health and disease: theosophical quotations

Fear of the invisible

HIV=AIDS=Death: a killer myth

Disease, vaccines and the forgotten history

Modern medicine – people versus profits