The Existence of Viruses Has Indeed Been Rigorously Scientifically Proven

- But, Viruses Are Good for Us, Not Bad

by Anette Stahel, MSc

Introduction

Since the subject of whether or not viruses exist has been increasingly discussed on the internet lately, I decided to write an article on the issue. If you're unfamiliar with the biomedical paradigm to which I adhere, German New Medicine (GNM), I can tell you that it’s a largely scientifically verified and very comprehensive biomedical system, and while I’ll give a simplified description of it below, it’s optimal if you get familiar with the details of it before you read on. Therefore, I want to point you to another article of mine already here. It's titled My Interpretation of New Medicine: A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm and I think it gives you a detailed, yet accessible account of the concept. So, here’s my view on the entities called viruses, which is the view of the wing of GNM that I personally follow.

The conventional, skeptical, microzymal and GNM views on viruses

The basic view of the entities called viruses held by conventional medicine (CM), is that they’re microscopic, parasitic enemies to us, which give rise to various infectious diseases. Among many adherents of different alternative medical systems out there though - including a virus skeptical wing of GNM - a completely different view of them is held, which is that the minute particles virologists have found and show images of aren’t microbes at all, but most likely some type of cell organelles or possibly degradation products after cell death. There’s a third view of viruses out there as well, held by adherents of the theory about body-inhabiting, tiny organisms termed microzymas, which, depending on the internal condition of the host, can assume various forms, such as fungi, bacteria and viruses.

The CM stance, the skeptical stance and the microzymal stance on these entities are the ones most heard of, and many people aren’t even aware that a fourth view of viruses exists, namely that of the virus affirming wing of GNM, my wing. And in fact, we look at them from a perspective which is the polar opposite of how both CM and the skeptics look at them. We actually view them the same way as most virus skeptics view bacteria, that is, as microscopic "soaps", some residing within us and some traveling between us, which dissolve and flush out diseased cell accumulations from our body - including tumors and cancers. As for the microzyma adherents, they seem to view bacteria from this perspective also, and while a proper definition of viruses is absent from their texts, at least they don’t deny their existence, which makes their view the one most similar to GNM’s. However, there’s still a problem with their concept, but I’ll come back to that later.

GNM views neither bacteria nor viruses as parasites, instead we consider them our friends, our allies, our symbionts. And while bacteria of course are living beings, we totally reject the notion of viruses as beings; they’re by no means alive, but just as non-living as other non-cellular particles in our body. Therefore, the definition of the term "microbes" in this and my other articles is the following: "Microscopic entities called fungi, bacteria and viruses, of which the virus-affirming wing of GNM considers the former two alive whereas the third as non-living, and moreover, considers all three of them to be designed for our bodily benefit".

Why microbes, including viruses, are good for us and why vaccines are bad

Now, GNM states that our body elicits increased cell multiplication in certain tissues when it’s exposed to certain types of stress, including the physical and chemical forms of stress triggered by injuries, irritants, toxins and poisons. To begin with, these cell accumulations are good for us, because they help us deal with the stress (read more about why and in which different ways these proliferations help our body in my GNM article). However, when the stressful feeling ends, our body needs to get rid of this cell growth, because it has no use for it anymore. And Nature has arranged it so cleverly, that little cleaners have been appointed for us, called microbes, who then move in (e g via infection) and symbiotically and efficiently dissolve these accumulations, after which our body can very easily flush them out via the circulatory and excretory systems. Moreover, not only do these microbes dissove the cells themselves, but they also recruit help with this task from certain cells and substances of our body's own immune system. This biological process was discovered ages ago and has been given a name, it's called "microbial oncolysis", of which the latter word is greek and means "tumor dissolution".

Interestingly, since certain types of stress cause ulcers or cell necroses instead of proliferation, there are microbes which work in tandem as well, where one type moves in first and restores the tissue via cell regeneration, a process called microbial "oncogenesis" ("tumor construction"), followed by another type which, via oncolysis, cleanses it from redundant filling by the former. And even in some tissues with cell multiplication as the primary stress response, certain types of microbes are meant to work in pairs with the task of breaking the proliferation down and dissolve it. In fact, these tandem microbes even work in symbiosis with each other, and need each other's presence in order for the the work to be properly carried out. In a cooperative manner, Nature has designated some microbes as heavy workers and others as fine cleaners, meant to work in symphony together on our tissues. It's nothing short of amazing, but it's only when you take a few steps back and look at our bodily creation in this holistic way that you see this most beautiful and moving design of Nature. The fine cleaning part of this tandem work type of tissue restoration is primarily carried out by viruses, and in another GNM article of mine, A Treasure Chest of Scientific Evidence for German New Medicine Has Been Opened, I give several examples of this.

The vast majority of all bacteria and viruses are tissue restorers, and with this in mind, you can probably figure out for yourself what happens when we prevent these little friends, above all via vaccinations, from giving us their thorough cleansing rounds from time to time - and remember, vaccine manipulation of circulatory viruses affect unvaccinated people too. Yes, that’s right, the cell accumulations then grow, and eventually become mountains of degenerated cells inside, which burden our body and make it sick. And then, when some type of microbes slip through despite the vaccine ”net”, well then they get such an enormous cleaning job on their neck that their byproducts, which are toxic, can become too much for our body to handle. Especially if we’re malnourished on top of that, which is common. And then we can get really, really sick, we may even die, particularly if we go to the hospital and get subjected to the poisonous ”protocols” which CM employs, instead of applying a GNM (or GNM-like) therapy. Our own immune cells do scavange these growths to some degree, but Nature has intended for our immune system and the microbes to work in concert.

The above is my personal main reason for being a dedicated vaccine critic; the practice of quenching bacteria and viruses with vaccinations is no less than an outright tumor accumulator. Yes, vaccines with so-called "live", i e intact, microbes can to a certain extent carry out this cleansing too, but wild-type microbes are enormously more effective, and they don’t bathe in highly toxic additives either, which vaccine microbes do. It's important to remember that the cells and other substances of our immune system are regulators of the microbe locations and levels, not ”warriors” that ”fight” them. Microbial scavenging is a symbiotic process which aids both parties. Our body warmly welcomes it because it heals and refreshes our tissues.

Microzyma dismissal and the virus skeptics’ primary claim

As for the virus skeptics and microzyma adherents, I appreciate the attention they put on the importance of the bacterial cleansing of our body, and that we therefore should welcome bacterial infections instead of counteracting them. But when it comes to viruses, these groups have very unfortunately not read up on the subject at all. Or if they have, they must’ve misunderstood what they read, or perhaps missed or skipped crucial text passages when reading.

Before I go on though, I actually have to disqualify the microzyma adherents from further inclusion in this discussion. And the reason for that is simply that I’m unable to find any scientific study whatsoever that confirms the existence of ”microzymas”, i e microbes which change forms into bacteria or viruses (or fungi) depending on the internal condition of its host. I’ve searched and searched, but not a shred of scientific evidence for these entities seems to exist, so... In the continued discussion, I’ll focus on the skeptics and bid the microzymas farewell.

So, the skeptics primarily base their opinion on a firm claim, and that is that no human virus ever has been purified according to strict scientific standards. But that claim is simply incorrect. Countless of virus types have been purified, and I’ll go into one of these studies in length further down in this article. But, I want to emphasize that even if it had been the case that no virus had ever been completely purified, we’d know that they exist anyway - because, their existence has been proven in several other ways. And if the skeptics had done their homework, they would’ve understood this a long time ago.

The virus purification proof is almost redundant, because their existence has been proven in other ways

Now as a matter of fact, I want to ”come out” here and admit that I myself was a firm virus skeptic once, believe it or not! After studying the texts of various prominent skeptics, I was convinced that what virologists claimed to be viruses in fact were exosomes or endosomes, or possibly degradation products after cell death. I’ve even had long email discussions with these virus questioning front figures, and thought that what they said sounded both logical and reasonable.

However I have, partly thanks to the videos of the highly arrogant and disrespectful, but very well-read, neuroscientist Kevin McCairn, PhD realized that the paradigm which says that viruses equal organelles or cell breakdown products is completely incorrect. Here's the only McCairn video I can bring myself to link to, a very cleaned-up one :) Though since I'm also a GNM follower, my position on viruses differs from McCairn's as well. To repeat, according to my wing of GNM, viruses aren’t living beings, hence they’re no parasites, because parasites are by definition alive since they’re driven by some sort of desire or intent. And microscopic, protein-covered genomes are totally void of such qualities. The truth is that viruses are transmissible, exosome-like particles with tissue-restoring functions in our body, which, again, is the polar opposite to how CM views them.

Let’s return to the skeptics. So they say that the existence of these entities never has been scientifically proven by purification. But that’s simply untrue, because it has, many times and repeatedly. It’s possible that not exactly all types of viruses have been exemplary purified though, because the viral purification process is apparently extremely cumbersome and difficult. The skeptics’ objection brings to my mind the planet Saturn, which in fact is difficult to "purify" in pictures as well due to its obstructing rings, but nevertheless, it’s been accepted to exist! You know, that something in the foreground partly obstructs something behind it doesn’t mean that the thing in the background is non-existent. I’ll get into the purification details in a moment. In any case, like I said above, the existence of viruses has been proven in other ways also, beyond purification. Namely via:

1) In vitro studies of petri dishes containing tumor cells to which solutions containing exosome-like particles, originally extracted from people with infections, were added, whereupon these particles dissolved the tumor cells.

2) In vivo and ex vivo studies of cancer-inoculated animals, where tumors of various sizes were dissolved and disappeared after injections of solutions containing exosome-like particles very similar to the above-mentioned ones.

3) The existence of so-called oncolytic virotherapy, which is an effective form of CM cancer treatment. In virotherapy, cancer patients are injected with solutions containing exosome-like particles very similar to those mentioned above. The patients then develop symptoms of infection of varying degrees, after which they’re examined medically, whereupon the tumors are found to be either partially dissolved or having completely disappeared.

Scientific references for 1), 2) and 3), especially regarding the measles virus, are found in my second GNM article. Also, the internet is full of case studies of virally induced tumor remissions, including X-ray images of patients before they developed an infection followed by X-ray images after recovery from it, showing how the tumors were dissolved and washed out by the infection. See, for example, this Google image result. And as for oncolytic virotherapy, here's a schematic picture of how it works:

There's a CM misconception that oncolytic microbial infections sometimes elicit various afflictions instead of resolving them. That is, however, a mere "fata morgana", which has to do with two biological phenomena. The first one is the fact that microbes occationally dissolve cell accumulations in two steps, where the first step involves a "flare effect", followed by the eradication of the accumulation, and thus, a previously undetected growth may not be discovered until a doctor's visit for the infection, giving the impression that the infection caused the growth. The second regards a situation where a person develops an infection and happens to be subjected to a stressful experience during it - something which not seldom consists of their doctor's diagnosis, prognosis and/or treatment of that very infection. Their body will then, in accordance with GNM's biological laws, elicit a cell multiplication or ulcerous/necrotic formation in the tissue corresponding to the type of stress in question. In both these instances though, CM incorrectly and unfortunately interprets the microbe as the villain of the drama.

The fact that most microbes cleanse the body of degenerated cell accumulations also explains why only some people develop symptoms after being infected, while others don’t get sick at all. You see the amount of such cells we harbor varies considerably from person to person. And if you carry a large amount of them, you’ll get very sick, while a negligible amount results in an asymptomatic infection.

However, it should be said that there’s an additonal reason for the absence of symptoms after infection, and that’s a situation where the recipient of the microbes is highly stressed. During strong, short-term stress, our body tranfers its most potent immune cells to its outermost parts, such as the skin and mucous membranes, which means that the microbes are neutralized immediately at first contact with them. In such cases, a person can be resistant to infections even if they harbor quite a lot of degenerated cells in their body.

The flaws of the cell organelle theory and the virus skeptics’ cell culture studies

Anyway, back on track. The skeptics don’t deny that some type of microscopic particles have been extracted in the various virus purification studies published in scientific journals, but as touched upon, their theory is that these are either breakdown products after cell death or some kind of organelles, such as exosomes or endosomes. But what they’ve missed, is that these particles within CM are collected and used in situations like 1), 2) and 3) above, where they elicit cell dissolution, which means they cannot possibly be breakdown products, nor organelles. This is because cell organelles and breakdown products are very well-studied things, and what we know about them contradicts this skeptic suggestion.

Take e g exosomes and endosomes. Exosomes function as freighters between cells, transporting proteins, lipids and RNA plus soaking up small, toxic substances in order to protect our body. And endosomes function as freighters for various materials within the cell, they sort and transport proteins and lipids to the places in the cell where they’re needed. They’re not in any way cell-dissolving. The closest to that is an organelle called lysosome, which contains digestive enzymes that break down excess or worn-out cell parts, but their size is all wrong in the context; the particles virologists have extracted are a mere tenth the size of a lysosome. And viruses cannot be non-organelle types of cell degradation products either, because such are inert and by no means capable of dissolving cells.

Furthermore, the DNA and RNA which cell organelles and breakdown products contain are of human origin, they’re found in a gene database called the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST), registered in the human genome section. However, that’s not what the extracted particles called viruses contain; their DNA/RNA has instead been found to be of a completely different kind, very unlike the human genome and registered in a totally different section of BLAST. This DNA/RNA difference has enormous importance in this issue, and I find it strange that the skeptics more or less ignore that part.

Apparently, a group of skeptic researchers have tested some form of 1) with cell cultures without the addition of infectious fluids, and in spite of this, cell dissolution occurred in the cultures. They believe that this indicates that it's the antibiotic which always is added to the cultures in order to reduce potential bacteria in these that damages them, in combination with a possible starvation due to a sub-nutritious culture medium. But antibiotics don’t kill cells, they kill bacteria, and also, there are no antibiotics in situation 2) or 3) above. And there’s nothing wrong with the culture medium, trust me, I know, because I cultured cells myself all the time in my research and saw how they thrived in it. Moreover, uninfected cell cultures can sometimes show some cell damage as well, over time, but there’s a big difference in both quality and quantity from the cell damage in infected cultures. Hence, these researchers should’ve used controls for their experiments, even if it was positive controls that were needed in that case, that is, cultures containing infectious fluids. If they’d used that, they would’ve discovered that the infected cultures generated much more, and qualitatively different, cell dissolution.

The scientific virus purification and re-purification studies

I'd like to begin this part of my article by firmly stating that I find the use of animals for painful experimental studies both disgusting and unnecessary, and that I'd wish all animal testing everywhere was forbidden. However, now that such already have been performed, I might as well use them to prove my point, and besides, citing these experiments enables me to spread the understanding of how cruel they are, so, here we go.

There are likely a number of studies which claim to have purified viruses but at a closer look haven’t fully done that, since as said, viral purification is a very difficult process to carry out and also, far from all peer reviews are top-notch. But, many studies out there actually have purified viruses scientifically, correctly and fully, including with use of controls, and I think it's obvious that the skeptics haven’t read these carefully enough.

For example, one of the skeptical front figures states in one of his videos that the New England Journal of Medicine study A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 by Zhu et al doesn’t demonstrate a complete SARS-CoV-2 purification, and that the Nature study The Pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 Transgenic Mice by Bao et al doesn’t demonstrate Koch's 3rd and 4th postulates, i e that the microbes didn't cause disease when introduced into the test subjects, and that they thereafter weren't re-purified from them and identified as identical to the original microbes. While the video was still on YouTube, I wrote a longer response to one of the praising comments below it. Here's what I wrote, and I want to underline that the meticulous procedures which I cite in the following are the methods routinely used in scientific virus purification and re-purification studies:

”Unfortunately, the virus skeptic has misunderstood a few things here. His main misunderstanding regarding the purification study is that centrifugation to obtain a band of viruses is skipped. It isn't, it's just done earlier in the process than he understands. From the study:

"Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples were collected in sterile cups to which virus transport medium was added. Samples were then centrifuged to remove cellular debris."

So, there's no cellular debris left after this first stage. And no bacteria, nor fungi (which are cells themselves) are left either, any such are removed in a cellular debris elimination also. Merely very small particles are left.

"The supernatant was inoculated on human airway epithelial cells, which had been obtained from airway specimens resected from patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer and were confirmed to be special-pathogen-free by NGS [Next Generation Sequencing]. -- Prior to infection, apical surfaces of the human airway epithelial cells were washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline."

So the supernatant particles are then grown on human lung cells which are completely free from bacteria, fungi and other microbes. These cells are also carefully washed three times first.

"Supernatant from human airway epithelial cell cultures that showed cytopathic effects was collected, inactivated with 2% paraformaldehyde for at least 2 hours,"

So the cells cultured with these particles showed cytopathic effects. Could that be from exosomes? No, because exosomes don't lyse cells, instead they act as sponges and "suck up" minute toxic substances from their surrounding. But, there are certain minute particles which are actually well-known to lyse many types of cells in the body. And guess what, many of them are even used in a cancer dissolving treatment called oncolytic virotherapy! Might these particles perhaps be such... "viruses"? Hmm, certainly something worth consideration, don't you think?

"and ultracentrifuged to sediment virus particles. The enriched supernatant was negatively stained on film-coated grids for examination. Human airway epithelial cells showing cytopathic effects were collected and fixed -- Sections (80 nm) were cut from resin block and stained -- The negative stained grids and ultrathin sections were observed under transmission electron microscopy."

So, there are only particles of virus size left in the sediment now. Ok, but could there be some amount of exosomes there then, among the presumed viruses? No, because viruses and exosomes have different densities and therefore sediment in different bands. Also, no matter which chunk of RNA from an exosome-like particle in this band you analyze, you'll find that it'sn't of human origin. The human genome has been sequenced long ago, you see, and has been put into a database called BLAST. The YouTuber Another Perspective describes this in depth in his video on the claims of the above skeptic. After having watched it, one perfectly understands that the analyzed RNA from this band by no means stems from exosomes nor any other particle of human origin.

Add to this the fact that these particles have the exact physical appearance of so-called coronaviruses, which are a family of ball round RNA viruses discovered a long time ago. Their outer envelope is made from a layer of lipids, a waxy barrier containing fat molecules. Envelope proteins are embedded in this layer, as are tall, bulbous projections called spike proteins. As for exosomes, which've been studied for 40 years, they're of somewhat the same size as coronaviruses but have a different composition of the envelope and they completely lack spikes. Are you beginning to see the rationale of these researchers' strong suspicion that these particles are no less than new members of the coronavirus family?

"Two nearly full-length coronavirus sequences were obtained from bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid -- and one full-length sequence was obtained from a virus isolated from a patient. -- Complete genome sequences of the three novel coronaviruses were submitted to GISAID -- and have a 86.9% nucleotide sequence identity to a previously published bat SARS-like CoV -- genome. The three 2019-nCoV genomes clustered together within the sarbecovirus subgenus, which shows the typical betacoronavirus organization: a 5′ untranslated region (UTR), replicase complex (orf1ab), S gene, E gene, M gene, N gene, 3′ UTR, and several unidentified nonstructural open reading frames."

Is it becoming more and more clear to you that these particles in no possible way can be exosomes but instead are extremely likely to be new members of the coronavirus family?”

When then addressing the skeptic’s denial of Koch’s 3rd and 4th in relation to viruses, I chose to cite a primate study rather than the mice study as I was more familiar with the former and since the skeptic in essence questioned an overall SARS-CoV-2 fulfillment of these postulates. There was also the plus side that primates are closer related to humans than mice are. However, I’d first checked if the two studies were performed in the same way, and they were. So, my reply continued:

”Over to Koch's 3rd and 4th. Now, they've inoculated murines and primates with these particles, whereupon the animals developed pathological changes akin to COVID-19 and simultaneously multiplied the virus in their bodies. This is discussed in e g the scientific paper Comparative Pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a Nonhuman Primate Model. From the paper:

"On autopsy of four macaques on day 4 p.i., two had foci of pulmonary consolidation in the lungs. -- One animal (aged: 17 years) showed consolidation in the right middle lobe, representing less than 5% of the lung tissue. A second animal (young: 5 years) had two foci in the left lower lobe, representing about 10% of the lung tissue. -- The consolidated lung tissue was well circumscribed, red-purple, level, and less buoyant than normal. -- The main histological lesion in the consolidated pulmonary tissues of both the young and aged animals involved the alveoli and bronchioles and consisted of areas with acute or more advanced DAD [diffuse alveolar damage]. -- In these areas, the lumina of alveoli and bronchioles were variably filled with protein-rich edema fluid, fibrin, and cellular debris; alveolar macrophages; and fewer neutrophils and lymphocytes. -- There was epithelial necrosis with extensive loss of epithelium from alveolar and bronchiolar walls. Hyaline membranes were present in a few damaged alveoli. In areas with more advanced lesions, the alveolar walls were moderately thickened and lined by cuboidal epithelial cells (type II pneumocyte hyperplasia), and the alveolar lumina were empty. Alveolar and bronchiolar walls were thickened by edema fluid, mononuclear cells, and neutrophils. There were aggregates of lymphocytes around small pulmonary vessels. Moderate numbers of lymphocytes and macrophages were present in the lamina propria and submucosa of the bronchial walls, and a few neutrophils were detected in the bronchial epithelium. Regeneration of epithelium was seen in some bronchioles, visible as an irregular layer of squamous to high cuboidal epithelial cells with hyperchromatic nuclei. There were occasional multinucleated giant cells (syncytia) free in the lumina of bronchioles and alveoli -- and, based on positive pan-keratin staining and negative CD68 staining, these appeared to originate from epithelial cells."

The study here fulfills Koch's 3rd as completely as is possible without using human subjects to test on. I'd like to add that multinucleated giant cells, syncytia, are typical creations of lytic viruses, a group to which coronaviruses belong. Ok, to wrap it up:

"As a measure of virus shedding, nasal, throat, and rectal swabs were assayed for virus by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and virus culture. In nasal swabs, SARS-CoV-2 RNA peaked by day 2 p.i. in young animals and by day 4 p.i. in aged animals and was detected up to at least day 8 p.i. in two out of four animals and up to day 21 p.i. in one out of four animals. -- Overall, higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA were detected in nasal swabs of aged animals compared with young animals. SARS-CoV-2 RNA in throat swabs peaked at day 1 p.i. in young and day 4 p.i. in aged animals and decreased more rapidly over time by comparison with the nasal swabs but could still be detected intermittently up to day 10 p.i. -- Low levels of infectious virus were cultured from throat and nasal swabs up to day 2 and 4, respectively. -- In support of virus shedding by these animals, environmental sampling was performed to determine potential contamination of surfaces. Environmental sampling indicated the presence of low levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on surfaces through both direct contact (hands) and indirect contamination within the isolator."

And that fulfills Koch's 4th, in my book. The transgenic mice study discussed in the skeptic’s video shows this as well. That is, if you read the study all the way through, from start to finish.”

My conclusion

I never received any sensical reply to my above virus purification and re-isolation study citations from the commenter in question. In fact, I’ve cited these texts many times in my discussions with skeptics, but I’ve never received any valid responses to it. And, I've noted that the skeptics have continued holding their virus denying stance in their afterward discussions with others, which I can't interpret in any other way but that they don’t have enough knowledge regarding biomedical research to be able to understand the cited texts in question. That’s my conclusion anyway.

I trust that those of you who’ve read this article of mine attentively by now have understood that the skeptics are wrong, and that indeed, the existence of viruses has been rigorously scientifically proven. But remember, CM is wrong as well, because viruses are good for us, not bad. Just surround yourself with a stress-free environment; get a lot of sleep, make sure to eat a natural, organic, well-balanced diet, drink clean water and breathe clean air and stay as far away from shots, potions, preparations and pills as possible, and you’ll be living a long life in harmony with those microscopic allies of ours.

I'd like to finish off with a quote from nephrologist and vaccine critic Suzanne Humphries, MD, because I think it illustrates so well the essence of the message that I want to convey. It's also an excellent example of the microbial tandem work with breakdown and dissolution of cell accumulations that I discuss above - in this particular case showing how mycobacteria need to work in concert with certain viruses in order to properly heal kidney tubule growths. The quote is from a recent interview with dr Humphries by Children's Health Defense, the US Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr's website, and more specifically, it regards a part where she was asked if there are any benefits of catching measles. In her reply, she said:

"What we also know is that they actually use measles virus to treat cancer. Like, it's called viral therapy because yes, because of how it acts upon the immune system, activating all that cell mediated immunity, those interferons and things like that. Measles actually is known to be a good cancer fighter. There's a case that we describe in Dissolving Illusions where there was a child, he had this protein losing nephropathy. So, he had a kidney disease that I'm very well familiar with. Sometimes it would be heard called "dropsy" in the old days. But it's basically losing protein through the urine and actually depletes you of immune globulins that are necessary, and it depletes you of nutrients that are necessary. You can end up getting blood clots. -- So this child had nephrotic syndrome, and the family was basically going, well it talks about how the family was going out to buy their costumes for the funeral. And all of a sudden the child catches measles. So now they're all grieving. They're like, oh my gosh, he's totally going to die now, we really, really have to get the funeral plans in place... And all of a sudden, guess what happened? The kid started to recover his protein, losing nephropathy, resolve! It never came back in his entire life. And he recovered from the measles as well, because even though he was losing all that immune globulin through his kidneys, his cell mediated immune system was still intact. So the measles in that child did a world of good."

References

Stahel, A (2003) My Interpretation of New Medicine: A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm Anette Stahel's Natural Thoughts https://anettestahel.wixsite.com/home/post/myinterpretation

Stahel, A (2020) A Treasure Chest of Scientific Evidence for German New Medicine Has Been Opened - Which to Conventional Medicine May Well Turn Into a Pandora's Box Anette Stahel's Natural Thoughts https://anettestahel.wixsite.com/home/post/atreasure

CHD.TV (2025) Reviewing The Medical Records in Texas ‘Measles Death’ Children's Health Defense https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/reviewing-the-medical-records-in-texas-measles-death/

Official Channel of Dr Suzanne Humphries (2025) From Smallpox to Covid: 226 Years of Deception Odysee https://odysee.com/@drsuzanneh:f/smallpoxtocovid:d

McCairn, K W (2025) Kevin W McCairn, Research ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin-Mccairn/research

Alistair Steer-Kemp (2021) Kaufman Koch’s Postulate Debunk by Kevin McCairn YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9ZLEx7AfP8

Wikimedia Commons (2021) Virotherapy https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virotherapy.png

Sollini, M et al (2021) Complete Remission of Follicular Lymphoma After SARS-CoV-2 Infection: From the "Flare Phenomenon” to the “Abscopal Effect” Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48(8): 2652–2654 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00259-021-05275-6

Dhabhar, F S et al (2012) Stress-induced Redistribution of Immune Cells - From Barracks to Boulevards to Battlefields: A Tale of Three Hormones - Curt Richter Award Winner Psychoneuroendocrinology 37(9): 1345-1368 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3412918/

National Center for Biotechnology Information (2025) Local Alignment Search Tool https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi

Another Perspective (2020) Dr Andrew Kaufman is WRONG About COVID19! Scientific Evidence, Molecular Biology Perspective YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4tNu88nJk

Visser, F (2021) Stefan Lanka's Counterfeit ‘Control Experiments’ Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything https://www.integralworld.net/visser203.html

Wikimedia Commons (2019) Caesium Chloride (CsCl) Solution and Two Morphological Types of Rotavirus https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CsCl_density_gradient_centrifugation.jpg

Quasar (2024) ZERO Evidence that Covid Fulfills Kochs 4 Germ Theory Postulates - Dr Andrew Kaufman, Sayer Ji Rumble https://rumble.com/v4o12vr-zero-evidence-that-covid-fulfills-kochs-4-germ-theory-postulates-dr-andrew-.html

Zhu, N et al (2020) A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 N Engl J Med 382(8): 727-733 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

Bao, L et al (2020) The Pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 Transgenic Mice Nature 583(7818): 830-833 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2312-y

Rockx, B et al (2020). Comparative Pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a Nonhuman Primate Model Science 368(6494): 1012-1015 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb7314

Markolin, C (2025) Kidneys and Bladder LearningGNM https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/kidneys.html#KCT_PCL

CHD.TV (2025) Measles, Tylenol, and More With Dr Suzanne Humphries Children's Health Defense https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/measles-tylenol-and-more-with-dr-suzanne-humphries/

Humphries, S (2025) Dissolving Illusions, Free Preview Suzanne Humphries, MD https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?linkCode=kpd&ref_=k4w_oembed_gI5SI8uAetfrWI&asin=1480216895&tag=kpembed-20&amazonDeviceType=A2CLFWBIMVSE9N&from=Bookcard&preview=inline

This article was written in May 2025.