Continues at link below in case anyone is interested:
World Health Organization: Hantavirus on cruise ship may show human-to-human transmission as 3 passengers are evacuated
1 Like
Thanks for posting. Hoping to see an update from Meryl Nass on this
Sasha Latypova has done her usual exquisite hatchet job on Hants BS virus.
Worth reading if anyone believes these psy ops anymore
2 Likes
Come come, PatB, surely the levels of personal threat need reinforcing with more hard-hitting emotional messaging. You are clearly not pulling your weight.
OK, OK. Here goes.
1 Who has ever heard of hanta (perhaps that should read Santa) virus?
2 Are they really trying to use the PCR test to identify Santa? That test that the Nobel prize winning developer said should not be used as a test and with the right parameters can “Find anything in anyone”
3 Putting 2 aside, how many identified cases of Santa are their? Three or four? That’s enough to make Bill Gates have an orgasim and the Coroni believers to be afraid, very afraid.
4 Right at the time TACO Trump chickens out again, stopping his 9th or is it the 10th war? How convenient.
As Ray McGovern says, “Male bovine excrement”. Just a pity that some of my friends and family either watch BBC or Sky News and read the Guardian.
As hinted, the antidote (to the bullshit, I mean…Meryl Nass):
Now it’s Hantavirus!
Here are the relevant facts.
It’s been studied a bit over the last decade or two (not for any plandemic potential I mean) , due to its association with mice and rats.
The booklet that came with my plastic non-lethal moustetrap mentions it.
Thanks for the nod
Our favourite current and comprehensive antidote is from Amandha Vollmer:
Apparently Ms. Nass reckons ‘Covid’ wasn’t a ‘walk in the park’. She is obviously unaware of the dangers. An acquaintance of ours was told by her GP that she probably caught ‘it’ by walking in the park in Chapel-en-le-Frith.
It occurred to me today that of all the biological processes that take place in the human body the only one that can be fully described and replicated by a digital device is the appearance, behaviour, constituent parts and function of a ‘virus’.
Damn’ clever these boffins.
(Replying to @AlanG )
“It occurred to me today that of all the biological processes that take place in the human body the only one that can be fully described and replicated by a digital device is the appearance, behaviour, constituent parts and function of a ‘virus’.”
Bacteria? Or do they not exist either
ED
Int J Biol Macromol. 2025 Dec;334(Pt 2):149133.doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.149133. Epub 2025 Nov 21.
Genomic characterisation and gene editing of Marinibacterium sp. CCB-SX1 as a new marine chassis for polyhydroxyalkanoate production
Abstract
The development of robust microbial platform with customised genetic traits is crucial for advancing polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) production as a biodegradable plastic alternative. This study genomically characterised a new marine isolate, Marinibacterium sp. CCB-SX1, for its potential as a PHA-producing chassis. The complete genome comprises a 6.14 Mb chromosome and nine plasmids. Phylogenomic analysis placed CCB-SX1 within Marinibacterium, with genomic metrics (average nucleotide identity and digital DNA-DNA hybridisation) suggesting it represents a new species. Comparative genomics of the family Paracoccaceae revealed an open pangenome with a small core and a large accessory genome, abundant in functions for energy production and conversion, replication, recombination and repair, and transcription. Mobile genetic elements were dominated by integration/excision and transfer-associated genes, reflecting extensive horizontal gene transfer and genomic plasticity. PHA-related genes (phaC, phaB, phaP, phaR, phaZ) were conserved in the soft-core genome, mostly organised as phaR-phaP-phaC-phaZ. Genome annotation of CCB-SX1 revealed a complete pathway for 3-hydroxybutyrate synthesis and methylmalonyl-CoA enzymes enabling 3-hydroxyvalerate formation. CCB-SX1 synthesised PHA from multiple carbon sources, with acetate yielding the highest PHA content (27.3 wt%) and producing the copolymer poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) with 1.2 mol% 3HV, while other carbon sources formed poly(3-hydroxybutyrate). A CRISPR-Cas9-nickase system was established to generate single and double knockouts of intracellular depolymerases (phaZ1, phaZ2). Disruption of phaZ1 significantly increased PHA accumulation, while phaZ2 deletion had negligible effect. These findings establish Marinibacterium sp. CCB-SX1 as a genetically tractable marine chassis with potential for metabolic engineering and biopolymer production.
Apologies Evvy & everyone. I’d hate to mislead . . .
I should have inserted “only” between “replicated” and “by a digital device”.
Of course bacteria exist - I’ve got loads of 'em - and I’d go as far as to claim that Béchamp’s microzymas were/are a thing too, and so is pleomorphism. So there! 
The problem for those believers in viruses is that the jury is still out and will remain so until a virus is produced and shown to the world in real life. I suppose anyone is entitled to their beliefs as long as they don’t lead to harm but this particular belief does, has done, and looks set to go on doing so . . . (and, of course, by wonderful coincidence, it also leads to totalitarian social control and massive wealth transfers in the wrong direction.) (As well as teaching us to fear one another) (Enough already.)
The power of religious ‘thinking’ eh?
2 Likes
Thanks AlanG
They can’t be shown to the world in real life due to their size. Hence the electron microscopes and digital views (I guess Boots won’t process the pictures 
).
What kind of jury do you have, that is ‘out’ with (at a guess) fewer than 0.1% with one view and 99+% with the other?
You and the antivirusers are questioning a very large chunk of science. It can’t be simplified to the level where a few pithy comments displace a million research papers and millions of scientists to the extent where you can dismiss and even mock every piece of scientists’ output that mentions viruses.
I think they have a long road ahead. The bacterial paper I put up is similar in complexity of appearance to many virus papers. All the viral-related complexities and interactions that appeared to exist need to be explained or re-interpreted in the light of a new theory that discounts the viruses at their centre.
It will be a long road IMO before novirusers can claim a real victory, because I don’t think anything has actually been shown by them. It seems that while they have asked presumably meaningful questions of the processes and explanations, to me they haven’t squared up to the task of getting into the medical weeds of the matter.
True, it’s hard to get the establishment scientists to debate them. It didn’t help that the novirusers rushed to abuse and mockery; this gained them a following at the expense of toxifying the discussion.
Have they started publishing anywhere? That might start a debate of sorts
They can’t be shown to the world in real life due to their size.
. . . so their existence can only be represented digitally(?). We seem to agree on that one! Yet the purveyors of bio-warfare porn reckon that they can be manipulated, spliced, modified, whatevs, in real life and thereby weaponised. In real life. (How much smaller, in real life, than invisible viruses are the supposed ‘spike proteins’ with which the ‘viruses’ are allegedly enhanced?)
What kind of jury do you have, that is ‘out’ with (at a guess) fewer than 0.1% with one view and 99+% with the other?
Should the advancement of science be by consensus and respect for authority or by a process of continuous research, questioning and study? (hint - how would Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler & Galileo Galilei answer?)
No research has yet established that the tiny particles observed by electron microscopy in the dead ‘cultures’ are anything other than the result of cell destruction. Virologists themselves claim that this destruction of cells in the ‘cultures’, which they call ‘cytopathic effects’, proves the existence and the function of ‘viruses’. This is where belief supersedes science.
You and the antivirusers are questioning a very large chunk of science. It can’t be simplified to the level where a few pithy comments displace a million research papers and millions of scientists to the extent where you can dismiss and even mock every piece of scientists’ output that mentions viruses.
Would you care to substitute ‘doubt and even challenge’ for ‘dismiss and even mock’ in your statement above? That would be a more accurate (and less belittling) description of the steadily increasing number of serious ‘terrain theory’ advocates and what they seek to convey in their writings etc. (The trick is to look past the ‘few pithy comments’ to the many books & papers out there.)
The cell destruction which can be observed and which results in the profusion of these tiny particles has yet to be shown to be caused by these particles themselves (or, indeed, the ‘parents’ of these particles making a cell explode). The identification of these particles with things called ‘viruses’ is achieved by a technique best described as ‘point and declare’. Nobody has yet isolated any of these particles or observed anything about them in terms of characteristics and function.
Who knows? - ‘virology’ may all be true but, as I maintain, it has yet to be shown to be so. On the other hand there can be no doubt about the existence of bacteria though debate may be had about what they’re up to!
It didn’t help that the novirusers rushed to abuse and mockery; this gained them a following at the expense of toxifying the discussion
‘Discussion.’ Current thinking in the medical establishment doesn’t allow such a thing. ‘Virology’ and its dreadful progeny (see my previous post!) is firmly ensconced in the prevailing paradigm and is not up for discussion other than in alternative forums (like this one). I’m not sure that reducing the issue to ‘pro-’ versus ‘anti-’ is helpful here unless value is added for you by taking a ‘side’ in order to justify an attribution of unbecoming conduct to the ‘other’. Mind you, when it comes to ‘vaccination’ (NB. offspring of virology), of any variety, I’m now very firmly in one camp against the other! (it took the covid hoax to wake me up to that issue). I wouldn’t mock the believers in vaccines either (sneer at the victims?) but the vaccinators should be stopped if lives and health are to be saved.
It was your jury Alan, I just pointed out the unusual breakdown of its views. A jury after Yvette Cooper’s heart 
I think you mock from a position of certainty and retreat to one of a polite doubter and challenger, one from which to suggest it’s the ‘other side’ reducing the issue to pro- and anti-virus.
I’m not even on the ‘other side’ I just want people here to be able to post articles that may mention viruses, or by people who elsewhere accept their existence, without derailment on that issue, unless it has actually come up in the article. Neither Meryl Nass nor Dr Mercola in my other post - two people who have made significant sacrifices in order to oppose the pharma covid juggernaut - alluded to that issue.
I agree vaccinators should be stopped, their ‘science’ seems the worst on offer; it’s an area polluted for generations by money.
I know you won’t agree with this, but I think RFKj’s position on vaccination is quite artful - subject it to objective science, knowing that that is as anathema to them as being stopped. He could have won over half the senate with that it it wasn’t for pharma funding most of them.
Of course we both know that it would be hard to find objective scientists in this area! But even the mention of the term gets them in a tizz.
Cheers
Hi folks, generally I’m with @AlanG here so I would put forward the following to question this:
Proving that a substance (called a virus), coming from or within a living creature, is pathogenic or has a cytopathic effect ( i.e. causes disease or degeneration of cells) is different from just pointing to particles in a dying or degenerating cell and attributing causation of that death or degeneration to those particles and calling them viruses. Labelling a particle in a photo from an electromagnet microscope, as a “virus” does not prove anything.
No-one has been able to use any tools ( including electron microscopes or digital magnification ) to discover particles in the body that can be proved to be the cause of disease or degeneration of cells. Further, none of those tools can be or have been used to prove that the particles being examined are contagious to other living creatures.
Dr. Stefan Lanka has shown in his experiments that the process alone of searching for a “virus” results in the destruction or degeneration of cells. He has put up 100,000 euros to get people to disprove what he says and a German Appeal court denied one claimant, there have been no others, AFAIK!
As I understand science, the burden of proof falls upon the person claiming X causes Y. If anyone shows that Y can be caused without any involvement of X then this disproves the original theory. Stefan Lanka has shown that, following the same procedures that are adopted to prove a virus exists, but leaving out any material taken out of a diseased person, the cells die or degenerate in exactly the same way revealing the same types of particles as occurred when “infected material” was being examined.
FIA enquiries of all medical authorities world-wide have been asked for copies of peer reviewed papers showing the isolation of so-called viruses from “infected” human subjects - but they all replied they cannot point to any.
The problem with focusing only on vaccination damage is that new “pandemics” can be created again and again whilst vaccination damage can be hidden by the architecture within which everyone is operating. As a general point on this, I found this article quite fascinating : “Mistaken for Reality” at escapekey’s substack
cheers
That EscapeKey geezer is inisghtful, isn’t he?
Link here https://escapekey.substack.com/p/mistaken-for-reality
Hi @CJ1 I’m not arguing against the novirusers case, rather I’m arguing against the way it pops up like a bad penny and hijacks the post.
In an analagous way, it’s well recognized in activist circles (ie groups that hold meeting on their particular gripe) that it’s bad form to turn up and try to steer the meeting onto your own agenda.
When I see a reply from @AlanG I know it’s likely not to be about the subject matter but a shoehorning of the novirus position, on a thin pretext.
Sorry,I won’t be discussing that again if it’s not in a post created for that purpose.
Cheers
1 Like
It was your jury Alan, I just pointed out the unusual breakdown of its views. A jury after Yvette Cooper’s heart
I think you mock from a position of certainty and retreat to one of a polite doubter and challenger, one from which to suggest it’s the ‘other side’ reducing the issue to pro- and anti-virus.
‘My jury’ is still out, as I wrote, and will remain so for the forseeable because you or anybody, any time, could produce irrefutable evidence of ‘virus’ existence and action as asserted by the mainstream medical establishment and I would eat my words (as I’ve been obliged to do about anthropogenic climate change so I know I can do it).
I tell you truly, I’m not holding my breath. The certainty of the virologists is based on speculation and circular reasoning. I’ve favoured doubt over certainty for a long time now over just about everything (only excepting death really) (and the heightened presence these days of evil in the world . . .)
I consider any public repetition of the tenets of germ theory without the appropriate caveats to be propaganda and therefore well within the compass of this forum. Disagree if you must but of course I wish you wouldn’t!
I’m not mocking, though I’m tempted by your accusation of ‘politeness’. (How low can I get I wonder?)
The point I’ll continue to make is that, however good the work on tackling health issues from an ‘alternative’ perspective (like Mercola’s EMF stuff which aligns with the terrain theorists’ take), I cannot give full credence to anyone still signed up to the allopathic narrative and its bastard progeny (so generously given to the world by the Rockefellers over a hundred years ago) to the extent that they are happy to share with us their particular belief in what amounts to the sine qua non of so much harm (germ/virus theory).
I’m bound in all conscience to mention this while commenting, here and anywhere. If I read articles containing comments that support the ‘virus’ narrative I reckon I’d be failing myself and everyone else by ignoring them and their implications. My lack of silence indicates my lack of consent to dodgy propaganda however well-intentioned the producer/sharer. (I’m pretty sure Herman & Chomsky had stuff to say about this sort of thing.)
And . . . your apparent reluctance to engage with the issue is understandable but I beg you to give it (terrain theory) a whirl. Pretty please!
You are trying too hard to find someone to debate with.
Neither Mercola’s nor Nass’s articles were about the virus narrative. In fact your criticism of Mercola was that he supports it - so, adhom.
Apply your ‘conscience’ to this: all you are doing is derailing discussions on topics only tangentially related to your interjection.
And stop posturing with your pretty pleases. I’ve said over and over what my objection is. I’ve asked you to start your own thread but you seem to prefer to stop other threads with sarcasm and then plead innocence and ‘reluctance’ when someone responds.
Start your own thread on your novirus stuff and post away and maybe people will bite. Maybe even me.
I’ve asked you to start your own thread
But this thread is already about the ‘hantavirus’ which is a scam being promoted, along with information about other ‘viruses’ which I consider, surely reasonably, to be dangerous ‘mainstream alternative’ propaganda from Ms. Nass, in a post on this thread. I’m calling it out. I fully accept the fact of your disagreement (though I also lament it) but, in spite of your strong feelings, my posts are still on-topic! Lets keep our eyes on the ball eh?
I’m sure a thread on so-called ‘camp 2’, ‘mainstream alternative’ or ‘alternative mainstream’ propaganda could be useful but it would of necessity cover many more topics. As for seeking a discussion about whether ‘viruses’ exist etc., I see no point frankly. Only the application of the scientific method (again!) and serious scrutiny of actual evidence (possibly a novelty for many) will settle this one.
I’m happy to stay with the ‘hantavirus cruise ship’ for the time being. Here’s another post on that. Hopefully you will find it relevant to the title of this thread and informative to boot. If there’s anything you consider false about it why not comment? (Look out this may be a trap!)
1 Like
(previous post) “And . . . your apparent reluctance to engage with the issue is understandable but I beg you to give it (terrain theory) a whirl. Pretty please!”
(last post) “As for seeking a discussion about whether ‘viruses’ exist etc., I see no point frankly. Only the application of the scientific method (again!) and serious scrutiny of actual evidence (possibly a novelty for many) will settle this one.”
If there is no point in a discussion, why ask so pointedly for it.
Hi @AlanG the FrauHodl article reads like a Whitney Webb analysis - I’ll need to read it 5 or 6 times to follow the threads but it looks fascinating.
cheers