Much more on non-existent viruses:

The Pharma money machine, why the virus hypothesis was invented

You can read my prior article on imaginary viruses and absurd tests for their presence here.

Ask yourself this question: How can pharma companies sell drugs and vaccines to treat and prevent diseases, if the companies have NO CAUSES for these diseases?

The drugs and vaccines target a cause.

A big-time curative drug isn’t developed to go after a fever or muscle weakness or lung congestion. It’s developed to kill the cause.

If no cause has been established, there can be no curative drug, and thus there can be no money.

No money is intolerable.

A company can’t exist on no money.

So, historically, researchers had to find causes for diseases or supposed diseases. The more causes, the more drugs and vaccines, the more money.

These researchers were and are in the business of causes.

Thus, bacteria weren’t enough. They needed more. And so they said: “There must be a smaller particle. We’ll say THERE IS a smaller particle. We’ll call it a virus. We’ll say a whole host of illnesses are the result of these viruses.”

Dozens and hundreds of discussions “in the literature” then ensued. Was the virus just a smaller bacterium? Was it fundamentally different?

No one knew. No one knew because the virus hypothesis was just a guess in the first place. A speculation. A money-making speculation.

Is the man in the moon wearing a purple hat? Or is he hat-less? Let’s try to sound like erudite scientists as we debate this question.

The discussion and debate went on and on. The one missing factor? No one was actually producing a physical virus.

Researchers were “inferring from evidence.” Except, when you boiled it down, there was no evidence. That was a problem. It had to be overcome.

Hence, “the tests” for the existence of new viruses.

Somewhat clever. Not brilliant, but clever.

“We can claim to have tests that confirm or deny the existence of new viruses. We can define these tests. We can conduct the tests. People respond positively when you tell them you have tests. They understand tests for, say, broken bones. X-rays. So they’ll believe our tests for viruses are definitive and conclusive. They won’t understand the details of the tests, which are complex, and that’s good. Only WE will understand the details. Only WE will know the details are actually rigmarole and mumbo-jumbo…”

—Yes, we have a test which will decide whether the man in the moon is wearing a purple hat or is wearing no hat.

Flash forward to the present day: