Yet Another Study Shows the 'Virus' Transmission Paradigm is Nonsense

A recently-published study went to great lengths to make healthy people "catch" the flu. They didn't.

Well, well, the viral transmission theory gets debunked again.

PLOS Pathogens recently published a study by University of Maryland’s “Evaluating Modes of Influenza Transmission (EMIT-2)” team.

If you’re the kind of person that mindlessly believes mainstream malarkey and whose brain painfully twists and contorts when someone disputes the untenable ‘virus’ paradigm, you’re not going to like it.

Personally, I think the paper is kinda funny.

The researchers write: “It is now well established that humans shed infectious virus into fine particle aerosols both when coughing and also when simply breathing.”

That’s a remarkable thing to establish given that there is no such thing as an “infectious virus”.

But let’s play along.

The researchers then go on to write:

“Despite recent emphasis on airborne transmission, the relative importance of these transmission modes remains poorly understood and an important focus of continuing research interest. The lack of in-depth understanding of transmission modes and mechanisms impedes development, implementation, and prioritization of effective control strategies.”

Unbelievable.

Contrary to their claim of “recent emphasis”, we’ve been told since day dot that the influenza ‘virus’ is transmitted by coughing, sneezing and even breathing.

We’ve been told with the utmost certainty since forever that doing these things propels teeny weeny little ‘virions’ through the air, until they land on and/or are inhaled by other people. These other people then Catch a Cold™ or Come Down With The Flu™, and repeat the cycle in a phenomenon known as contagious transmission.

The absolute idiots masquerading as health officials even used the Gospel of Contagion to crash the global economy and make the world’s already shaky mental health even worse by locking down Planet Earth.

Now here we are in 2026, and University of Maryland researchers admit that - despite what all those Chief Health Peanuts told us during the Great COVID Con - this process “remains poorly understood”.

That’s because this process does not exist. It’s complete bullshit.

Excuse my English.

I’ve previously written how controlled experiments have flatly refuted the viral transmission theory, even when bedridden flu patients cough directly into the mouths of healthy volunteers.

Turns out the EMIT researchers themselves previously had a crack at ‘transmitting’ the flu - and failed.

In a 2013 RCT, they had volunteers intranasally ‘inoculated’ with ‘infectious doses’ of tissue culture “influenza virus”.

It turns out that subjects intranasally ‘infected’ “with influenza virus had mild symptoms and minimal shedding of virus in exhaled breath compared with symptomatic community-acquired cases on a college campus collected in the same year (2013) as well as mildly symptomatic influenza cases from a longitudinal cohort.”

Instead of admitting their findings were just more evidence that the virus transmission gig was a complete wank and that something else causes respiratory ailments, they did what all researchers beholden to a failed paradigm do.

They made excuses.

“These findings suggested that if lack of transmission was due to use of an egg-adapted challenge virus, a controlled human influenza virus transmission trial with community-acquired cases as Donors could be an improved and more valid approach to studying the dynamics of influenza transmission.”

It was all the eggs’ fault, you see.

And so, instead of sticking cultured goo up people’s noses, they decided to conduct another trial, this time with conditions that replicate how influenza ‘viruses’ allegedly spread in real life.

During 2023 and 2024 they recruited people who reported flu symptom onset within the previous 48 hours. All then tested positive for influenza A virus by a molecular test. These subjects, dubbed “donors”, were then placed in quarantined rooms featuring low ventilation with healthy subjects.

The researchers conducted 23 exposure events involving influenza donors, each lasting between 111 and 250 minutes, totaling 82.2 cumulative influenza exposure-event hours.

Eleven events involved one donor and 12 involved two. During the events, volunteers engaged in conversation-focused activities (such as icebreaker questions), interactive games (such as the card game UNO and drawing and guessing game Telestrations), plus some physically active periods (stretching, yoga, or dancing). A designated object was passed following a donor-centered alternating sequence, including a marker in 19 events, a tablet computer in 2, and microphone in 2.

So if the virus transmission theory was correct, these extended bouts of close interaction between infected ‘donors’ and healthy volunteers should have resulted in at least some of the healthy volunteers getting sick.

So what actually happened?

Stugatz.

Despite the fact PCR is great at turning a whole lot of nothing into a positive something, none of the healthy volunteers tested positive for influenza ‘virus’.

Nor did any of them get the flu.

The researchers wrote:

“Recipients sporadically reported individual symptoms, with overall symptom severity lower than that of Donors. Malaise was the most frequently reported symptom (Fig 6a). Total symptom scores fluctuated over time, with most Recipients reporting more symptoms after exposure to a Donor.”

Figure 6a from the study shows that the symptom score was generally zero for healthy volunteers, with intermittent spikes that always remained below 2.5 (out of 10).

As for experiencing symptoms predominantly after exposure events, and malaise being the most commonly reported symptom, how do you think you might feel after spending hours in a poorly ventilated room in which CO2 levels rose up to 11.5-fold?

That’s not “catching a virus” - it’s breathing crap quality air.

The experiment, like so many before it, failed to uphold the nonsensical virus transmission paradigm.

So once again, the researchers did what all researchers beholden to a failed paradigm do.

They made excuses.

“Possible explanations include that people infected during mild influenza seasons or who cough very little may be minimally contagious,” they wrote.

“Our middle-aged Recipient cohorts were older than Donors and possibly less susceptible to infection because of additional years of vaccination and infection.”

Right. Because we all know how well flu vaccines work.

They don’t.

“Finally, environmental controls in the hotel distributed aerosols evenly but reduced short-range exposure to concentrated clouds of exhaled breath that may play an important role in transmission. New designs will need to address these issues.”

Study after study fails to support the voodoo virus transmission theory.

But mainstream researchers keep flogging a dead horse. Rather than admit the entire virus paradigm is hokum, they concoct unlikely explanations and call for new studies with just the right conditions for ‘virus transmission’ - perhaps with subjects standing on their heads while facing east and reciting “Mary had a little lamb, it’s fleece was white as the Colombian Creatine a lot of health officials seem to be snorting these days.”

When your pet theory repeatedly fails to prove itself under different conditions by different research groups, it’s time - not to strain your brain thinking of highly specific conditions that can be created to hopefully support the theory - but to admit it’s a complete crock.