The germ theory of disease: Experiments to determine mode of spread of influenza (Dr. Milton J. Rosenau, 1919)

ROSENAU, M. J.. (1919). EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE MODE OF SPREAD OF INFLUENZA. Journal of the American Medical Association, 73(5), 311.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1001/jama.1919.02610310005002
directSciHub download


The experiments here described were performed on an island in Boston Harbor, on volunteers obtained from the Navy. The work was conducted by a group of officers detailed for that purpose, from the U. S. Navy and the U. S. Public Health Service, consisting of Dr. G. W. McCoy, director of the Hygienic Library, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, Dr. Leake, and Dr. Lake, all on the part of the U. S. Public Health Service; and cooperating with those medical officers, was a group also detailed for this purpose on the part of the U. S. Navy, consisting of Dr. J. J. Keegan, Dr. De Wayne Richey and myself.

The work itself was conducted at Gallops Island, which is the quarantine station of the Port of Boston, and peculiarly well fitted for operations of this kind, serving adequately for the purposes of isolation, observations, and maintenance of the large group of volunteers

“The volunteers were all of the most susceptible age, mostly between 18 and 25, only a few of them around 30 years old ; and all were in good physical condition. None of these volunteers, 100 all told in number, had “influenza ;” that is, from the most care¬ ful histories that we could elicit, they gave no account of a febrile attack of any kind during the winter, except a few who were purposely selected, as having shown a typical attack of influenza, in order to test questions of immunity, and for the purpose of control. Now, we proceeded rather cautiously at first by administering a pure culture of bacillus of influenza, Pfeiffer’s bacillus, in a rather moderate amount, into the nostrils of a few of these volunteers. These early experiments I will not stop to relate, but I will go at once to what I may call our Experiment 1.”


As the preliminary trials proved negative, we became bolder, and selecting nineteen of our volunteers, gave each one of them a very large quantity of a mixture of thirteen different strains of the Pfeiffer bacillus, some of them obtained recently from the lungs at necropsy; others were subcultures of varying age, and each of the thirteen had, of course, a different history. Suspensions of these organisms were sprayed with an atomi¬ zer into the nose and into the eyes, and back into the throat, while the volunteers were breathing in. We used some billions of these organisms, according to our estimated counts, on each one of the volunteers, but none of them took sick. Then we proceeded to transfer the virus obtained from cases of the disease ; that is, we collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way : The patient with fever, in bed, has a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solution, using perhaps 5 ce., which is allowed to run into this tray ; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous membrane of the throat. We place these swabs with the material in a bottle with glass beads, and add all the material obtained in the tray. This is the stuff we transfer to our volunteers. In this par¬ ticular experiment, in which we used ten volunteers, each of them received a comparatively small quantity of this, about 1 c.c. sprayed into each nostril and into the throat, while inspiring, and on the eye. None of these took sick. Some of the same material was fil¬ tered and instilled into other volunteers but produced no results.


Our next experiment consisted in injections of blood. We took five donors, five cases of influenza in the febrile stage, some of them again quite early in the disease. We drew 20 ‘c.c. from the arm vein of each, making a total of 100 c.c, which was mixed and treated with 1 per cent, of sodium citrate. Ten c.c. of the citrated whole blood were injected into each of the ten volunteers. None of them took sick in any way. Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered ‘ it through Man- dler filters. While these filters will hold back the bacteria of ordinary size, they will allow “ultramicro- scopic” organisms to pass. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. sub- cutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way.


Eyler, J. M.. (2010). The state of science, microbiology, and vaccines circa 1918. Public Health Reports

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/00333549101250s306
directSciHub download


“Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”69 (p. 313)

The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results.70–72 It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.”

Murderous medicine: Nazi doctors, human experimentation, and Typhus

Jews were labeled disease carriers and a public health risk to justify the creation of ghettos.

Berkman, N. D.. (2006). Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(12), 944.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-12-200606200-00020
directSciHub download

Inattentional blindness: The 5G rollout and its ramifications

This post is under construction…


Daniel J simon, C. F. C. (1999). Gorilla in our midst – reference. Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained, Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events – Perception.
Simons, D. J. (2010).
Monkeying around with the Gorillas in Our Midst: Familiarity with an Inattentional-Blindness Task Does Not Improve the Detection of Unexpected Events. I-Perception, 1(1), 3–6.

5G map:
5G has been developed by the US/Israeli military as a weapon to disperse crowds (directed energy beams which are harmful to biological organisms). It has been used twice during the illegal Irak-war. There are virtually no studies about the safety of 5G and it can be regarded as a social experiment without consensus and control-group. The 60Ghz frequency interferes with oxygen absorption of hemoglobin.

Tretyakov, M. Y., Koshelev, M. A., Dorovskikh, V. V., Makarov, D. S., & Rosenkranz, P. W. (2005). 60-GHz oxygen band: precise broadening and central frequencies of fine-structure lines, absolute absorption profile at atmospheric pressure, and revision of mixing coefficients. Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 231(1), 1–14.

Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psycho-civilized Society by José M. R. Delgado. Publication date 1969

Electronic technology has reached a high level of sophistication,
and two-way radio commJ’nication with automobiles, airplanes,
and outer space vehicles is commonplace today. The
notable lag in development of similar instrumentation for communciation with the depth of the brain reflects the already
mentioned unbalanced evolution of our technological civilization,
which seems more interested in accumulating power than
in understanding and influencing the basic mechanisms of the
human mind.
This gap is now being filled, and as Figures 4 and 5 show, it
is already possible to equip animals or human beings with
minute instruments called “stimoceivers” for radio transmission
and reception of electrical messages to and from the brain in
completely unrestrained subjects. Microminiaturization of the
instrument’s electronic components permits control of all parameters of excitation for radio stimulation of three different points
within the brain and also telemetric recording of three channels
of intracerebral electrical activity. In animals, the stimoceiver
may be anchored to the skull, and different members of a colony
can be studied without disturbing their spontaneous relations
within a group. Behavior such as aggression can be evoked or
inhibited. In patients, the stimoceiver may be strapped to the
head bandage, permitting electrical stimulation and monitoring
of intracerebral activity without disturbing spontaneous activities.

Prof. Rainer Mausfeld: Fear and Power – The war against “X”

“Under the pretext of a governmental war against “X”, democratic structures can be dismantled and authoritarian structures established.”

title = {Angst und Macht – Herrschaftstechniken der Angsterzeugung in kapitalistischen Demokratien},
author = {Rainer Mausfeld},
publisher = {Westend-Verlag},
isbn = {ISBN-10: 3864892813 ISBN-13: 978-3864892813},
year = {2019},
series = {},
edition = {},
volume = {},
url = {}}

Download mirrors:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

p. 39
“Demselben Zweck einer Verdeckung eigener Ziele und Absichten dient eine Angsterzeugung durch propagandistische Deklaration einer großen Gefahr X, der die Bevölkerung durch einen »Kampf gegen X« entschlossen entgegentreten müsse. Eine derartige propagandistische Warnung begleiten die staat­lichen Apparate durch »die gegenwärtig alles beherrschende Verheißung des Schutzes vor Terrorismus und Bösem aller Art«.38 X kann dabei so ziemlich alles sein, was sich irgendwie wirksam zur Angsterzeugung nutzen lässt. X kann also für »Kommunismus« stehen, für Migranten, »Sozialschmarotzer«, Terrorismus, Fake News und Desinformation, Rechtspopu­lismus, Islamismus oder für irgendetwas anderes. Durch die propagandistische Ausrufung eines »Kampfes gegen X« lassen sich in »kapitalistischen Demokratien« gleichzeitig mehrere von den Zentren der Macht gewünschte Ziele erreichen: Zum einen wird der für Machtzwecke nutzbare Rohstoff »Angst« produziert, zudem lässt sich die Aufmerksamkeit sehr wirksam auf Ablenkziele richten, und schließlich lassen sich unter dem Vorwand eines Kampfes gegen X demokratische Strukturen abbauen und auf allen Ebenen der Exekutive und Legislative autoritäre Strukturen etablieren.”

Further References

PCR-test cannot be used to diagnose Covid (or any other viral) infections

Keywords: [PCR factcheck, PCR Faktencheck, Signal detection theory, False positive rate, Statistical Power, Sample Size, PCR Test reliability, PCR Test Validity, PCR primers, PCR repetitive cycles, PCR ROC curve, Receiver-Operator characteristic (ROC), Kary Mullis on (mis)use of PCR Test.]

Click to enlarge

Noble laureate and PCR test inventor Kary Mullis (expressis verbis; see below for original video material):
“With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It makes you believe in the Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else” (Kary Mullis was very outspoken about the scientific inspiration he derived from his LSD experiences; but see his book “Getting down with the molecules“).
The invaldity of the PCR method is especially significant when 45 repetition cycles are used, as stated in the original publication by Drosten et al. The generally excepted upper limit is at most 25-35 repetition cycles – everything above is completly unreliable as the proportion of false positives rises exponentially (see recommendations for PCR Cycling Parameters).
Quote: “Thermal cycling was performed at 55 °C for 10 min for reverse transcription, followed by 95 °C for 3 min and then 45 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s.
Corman, V. M., Landt, O., Kaiser, M., Molenkamp, R., Meijer, A., Chu, D. K., Bleicker, T., Brünink, S., Schneider, J., Schmidt, M. L., Mulders, D. G., Haagmans, B. L., van der Veer, B., van den Brink, S., Wijsman, L., Goderski, G., Romette, J. L., Ellis, J., Zambon, M., Peiris, M., … Drosten, C. (2020). Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 25(3), 2000045.

Zitat von Kary Mullis (dem Erfinder der PCR):“Wenn es gut gemacht wird dann kann man mit dem PCR Test so ziemlich alles in jedem finden. Es erinnert an die Buddhistische Sichtweise das alles in allem enthalten ist.”

Mainstream scientific outlets deny the fact; c.f.:

The PCR test is the crucial ‘domino stone’ on which all other fallacious conclusions rest (it forms the major premise of the quasi-syllogistic argument which is constantly presented to justify the neoliberal Corona measures which aggressively antagonise the middle-class). Given that all “Corona Lockdown Measures” are based on inferential PCR testing, this specific test thus lies at the very core of the invalid statistical conclusions which are currently propagated by the mass-media (i.e., systematic fearmongering to inhibit higher-order psychological processes; cf. dual-process theories of thinking and reasoning).

Expand Synopsis
  • The German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss), launched July 10, 2020, was founded by four trial attorneys to investigate and prosecute those responsible for implementing the economically devastating lockdowns around the world, as well as using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic
  • The Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee will be working with an international network of lawyers to argue the most massive tort case ever — a case described as “probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed”
  • They argue that pandemic measures were intended to sow panic so that the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, and the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints
  • Lockdowns were unnecessary, and any claim to the contrary is wrong, the Inquiry Committee insists. The virus was already in retreat and infection rates were starting to decline when lockdowns were imposed; scientific evidence shows a majority of people already have built-in protection against the virus due to cross-reactive T cell immunity, and the PCR test cannot be used to identify an active infection with SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus
  • While mortality statistics during the pandemic have been within the norms of any given year, meaning the pandemic has not resulted in an excess number of deaths or a death toll higher than normal, the collateral damage from pandemic response measures is nearly incalculable.

Source URL:

First of all, the PCR method has never been approved for diagnostic purposes. Its inventor, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly emphasised that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool. This crucial fact is simply denied in public discourse. Listen to Kary Mullis for yourself – don’t fall victim to the hype…Deutsche Version unten


As noted by Dr. Fuellmich:

“[PCR tests] are simply incapable of diagnosing any disease … A positive PCR test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone tests positive, it does not mean that they’re infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus. Even the United States CDC … agrees with this and I quote directly from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests dated July 13 2020.

The PCR swabs take one or two sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified in many cycles to make it visible. Everything over 35 cycles is … considered completely unreliable and scientifically unjustifiable.

However, the Drosten test as well as the WHO recommended tests … are set to 45 cycles. Can that be because of the desire to produce as many positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a large number of infections have been detected?”

“Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a German business magazine in 2014 … that these PCR tests are so highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive,” Fuellmich notes.

Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology, Camera from Germany, Capel from the Netherlands and Cahill from Ireland as well as a microbiologist, Dr. Harvey from Austria, all of whom testified before the German corona committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found.”

As explained by Fuellmich, crimes against humanity, first defined during the Nuremberg trials following World War II, are today regulated in Section 7 of the International Criminal Code. The three questions the committee seeks to answer through judicial means are:

1. Is there a COVID-19 pandemic or is there only a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test pandemic?

Specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the individual is infected with SARS-CoV-2 and has COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the COVID-19 infection?

2. Do pandemic response measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from COVID-19, or do these measures serve only to make people panic?

Are these measures intended to sow “panic in order to make people believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?”

3. Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied — more so than any other country — by the chief protagonists of this COVID-19 pandemic?

According to Fuellmich, Germany “is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence” to pandemic measures.

Answers to these questions are urgently needed, he says, because SARS-CoV-2, which is touted as one of the most serious threats to life in modern history, “has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world.”