The Adventitious Adenovirus

“Adventitious agents are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as microorganisms that may have been unintentionally introduced into the manufacturing process of a biological medicinal product [5]: these include bacteria, fungi, mycoplasma/spiroplasma, mycobacteria, rickettsia, protozoa, parasites, transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) agents and viruses. Adventitious agents could be inadvertently introduced into a vaccine through starting materials used for production, such as cell substrates, porcine trypsin, bovine serum, or any other source materials of animal or human origin.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5130882/

How many times have you been to the doctor only to be told that the symptoms you were experiencing were just “viral?” It’s nothing to worry about and the “virus” will run its course in about a week or two. Rarely, a doctor may run a PCR test if they suspect you have the flu or some other condition. However, most often they just assume you had one of the various “viruses” that induce the exact same symptoms of disease collectively known as the common cold. This is due to the fact that tests are either non-existent or are considered useless in determining the source of the cold:

“No lab tests exist to diagnose colds—a quick physical exam or self-check is usually all that’s needed—but there are several available to test for flu, including rapid tests that can be done in a clinic.”

https://www.verywellhealth.com/cold-flu-diagnosis-4689129

“Though there are some lab tests that can detect common viral agents like rhinovirus and respiratory syncytial virus, they are rarely used because the common cold tends to go away before a diagnostic test is necessary.”

https://www.healthline.com/health/common-cold-diagnosis#outlook

Why is it so difficult to test for and detect common cold “viruses?” This is because there are supposedly over 200 different “viruses” which each cause the exact same symptoms of disease. These “viruses” include:

1. “Coronaviruses”
2. “Rhinoviruses”
3. “Respiratory syncytial virus”
4. “Enteroviruses”
5. “Human metapneumovirus”
6. “Human parainfluenza virus”
7. “Adenoviruses”

Thus, doctors typically only do a clinical exam to see if the symptoms are upper or lower respiratory, however due to overlapping symptoms of disease, both can be affected. Doctors can not determine the type of “virus” based on symptoms alone, even between the common cold, the flu, and “Covid-19.” The only tests available are for the flu and “Covid-19,” so the common cold “viruses” are primarily lumped into the same category.

According to the CDC:

What is the difference between a cold and flu?

“Influenza (flu) and the common cold are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. Flu is caused by influenza viruses only, whereas the common cold can be caused by a number of different viruses, including rhinoviruses, parainfluenza, and seasonal coronaviruses. Seasonal coronaviruses should not be confused with SARS-COV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Because flu and the common cold have similar symptoms, it can be difficult to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone. In general, flu is worse than the common cold, and symptoms are typically more intense and begin more abruptly. Colds are usually milder than flu. People with colds are more likely to have a runny or stuffy nose than people who have flu. Colds generally do not result in serious health problems, such as pneumonia, bacterial infections, or hospitalizations. Flu can have serious associated complications.

How can you tell the difference between a cold and flu?

Because colds and flu share many symptoms, it can be difficult (or even impossible) to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone. Special tests can tell if a person is sick with flu.”

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/coldflu.htm

As the symptoms of all of these different “viruses” overlap, the only way to tell them apart is through testing. This is primarily only done for the flu and “Covid-19.” If it isn’t the flu or “Covid-19” (which nearly every person is tested for now anyways), there is no need for doctors to test for the common cold. If they do a flu and/or “Covid” test which comes back negative, they can just assume the patient has the “rhinovirus” or they can pick from among the other 200+ cold “viruses” to blame as the culprit. Or they can simply just use the scapegoat: “It’s viral.” It doesn’t matter as the treatment is exactly the same due to the fact that it is the same disease.

It is important to know the reason why numerous “viruses” can be blamed for causing the exact same symptoms of disease. This is due to the fact that no particles assumed to be “viruses” have ever been properly purified and isolated directly from the sample taken from a sick patient and then proven to be pathogenic in a natural way. Instead, virologists take a sample, combine it with “viral” transport media, and add the unpurified mixture to toxic tissue and/or cell cultures to create cell death in order to claim that the resulting particles are “viruses.” I have gone through and shown that all of the “coronaviruses,” including “SARS-COV-2,” have never been purified, isolated, nor proven pathogenic. I have shown that to be the case for “rhinoviruses” as well. I have even shown this for the influenza “virus” which can be mistaken for the common cold. Now it is time to reveal that the exact same tricks were used to claim the existence of another common cold-causing “virus” with the relatively obscure “adenovirus.”

According to the CDC:

“Adenoviruses are common viruses that cause a range of illness. They can cause cold-like symptoms, fever, sore throat, bronchitis, pneumonia, diarrhea, and pink eye (conjunctivitis). You can get an adenovirus infection at any age. People with weakened immune systems or existing respiratory or cardiac disease are more likely than others to get very sick from an adenovirus infection.

Adenoviruses can cause a wide range of illnesses such as

• common cold or flu-like symptoms
• fever
• sore throat
• acute bronchitis (inflammation of the airways of the lungs, sometimes called a “chest cold”)
• pneumonia (infection of the lungs)
• pink eye (conjunctivitis)
• acute gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach or intestines causing diarrhea, vomiting, nausea and stomach pain)

https://www.cdc.gov/adenovirus/index.html

From that description, “adenovirus” sure sounds quite a bit like a certain “coronavirus” we’ve heard a lot about recently. However, as human “coronaviruses” were not discovered until the 1960’s, “adenovirus” gets to be the first to claim these symptoms as it was supposedly “isolated” in 1953:

“Adenoviruses were first discovered in 1953, by Rowe and his colleagues. These viruses were first isolated from Adenoid cell culture, hence the family name of Adenoviridae. At present, 51 distinct serotypes have been recognized and recorded.”

http://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/adeno/2004takahashi/webpage/second.html

As can be seen from the above description, “adenoviruses” were first “isolated” from CELL CULTURES. If you know anything about the cell culture process, this immediately places the sample in an unpurified and non-isolated state as it is mixed with numerous contaminants and foreign elements. Presented below is Rowe’s entire 1953 paper showing how this culture process was carried out. You will see numerous substances added to the culture such as different kinds of nutrient media, chicken plasma, beef amniotic fluid, beef extract, horse serum, chick embryo extract, phenol red, penicillin and streptomycin, and soybean trypsin inhibitor. The degeneration pattern seen on various cells resulting from this toxic recipe was used to claim the isolation of a “virus” even though Rowe was unable to show his “virus” was pathogenic in any animal in any way whatsoever. However, this is par for the course in virology:

Isolation of a Cytopathogenic Agent from Human Adenoids Undergoing
Spontaneous Degeneration in Tissue Culture.

During the course of a study of the growth of human adenoid tissue in roller tube culture, a characteristic degeneration has been encountered which has been found to be serially
transmissible in other tissue cultures.

Methods. Adenoids were obtained during the winter and spring of 1952-53 from operations on young children. The tissues were minced, washed 3 times in nutrient media, and cultured by the chicken plasma clot technic. The majority of adenoids and all other tissues were grown in a modification of the beef amniotic fluid medium described by Enders (1) a few adenoids were cultured in media that were modified from those of Youngner et al.(2) Explant cultures of other tissues were prepared in the same manner; HeLa cell cultures (3) were obtained from Microbiological Associates, Bethesda, Md. Culture fluids were changed twice weekly, and the supernatant fluids were stored in screw-capped vials at -2O’C. Passages were made by transfer of supernatant fluid in a dilution of 10-l.

Results. During the first week of culture most adenoid cultures demonstrated sheets of epithelium, often ciliated, with a few areas of fibroblastic outgrowth. After 8 to 28 days in culture, 33 of the 53 (62%) adenoids observed for this period demonstrated a characteristic rounding of the peripheral epithelium, progressing to complete destruction of the epithelium within 7 to 10 days. The morphological appearance of the round cells was distinctive, and the appearance of a few of these cells almost invariably was followed by progressive replacement of the epithelium by the same type of cell. These cells were large, round or slightly ovoid, with a smooth, distinct margin, clear peripheral cytoplasm, and a densely granular center, the nucleus obscured by the granulation.

Culture fluids of 14 adenoids demonstrating this degeneration have been transferred to fresh cultures of adenoids, human embryonic tissue, or HeLa cells, and in 13 instances characteristic changes were produced in the recipient cultures. The changes observed in the recipient adenoid or embryonic tissues were identical with the picture of the original degeneration of the adenoids. The changes in HeLa cell cultures consisted of clumping and rounding of the cells, followed by dislodgement of the clumps from the wall of the tube. One isolation (strain No. 2) of the agent was obtained from an adenoid which degenerated on the eighth day of culture, by passage of the supernatant fluid to cultures of a second adenoid, the controls of which did not undergo spontaneous degeneration during 69 days of observation and from which no cytopathogenic agent could be isolated. This strain has been carried through a total of 17 passages, the first in adenoid, one in human embryo trachea, and the last 15 in HeLa cells, with production of the typical changes in every passage. Degeneration of the seventeenth passage tissue occurred one day after infection with fluid representing a theoretical dilution of the original adenoid fluid of 10^32. Fluid of the eleventh passage when passed to cultures of human fetal trachea reproduced the typical round cell degeneration after 3 days. Similarly, other strains of the agent have been carried without difficulty through serial passages, and have consistently reproduced the degeneration. In both human embryo skin and HeLa cell cultures the agent has been found to reach a titer in the supernatant fluid of more than 10^5 infectious units per ml when titrated in HeLa cells.

The medium consisted of beef amniotic fluid 85%, beef emlbryo extract 10% and inactivated horse serum 5%.

During the first week of culture the following medium was used: Hanks’ solution 40%, inactivated horse serum 40%, and chick embryo extract 20%. After this time the medium was changed to the following: Hanks’-Sims’ solution (3: 1) 85%, inactivated horse serum 5%, and chick embryo extract 10%. All media contained phenol red (O.OOl%O, penicillin and streptomycin (5O to 250 units of each), and soybean trypsin inhibitor (0.005%).

The incubation period of the cytopathogenic effects in human epithelium is usually 4 to 8 days; with higher dilutions of the inoculum the incubation period may be as long as 23 days. In cultures consisting almost entirely of human embryo fibroblasts the incubation time is longer, ranging from 8 to 15 days for the lowest dilution, to as long as 40 days with higher dilutions. Incubation time in HeLa cells varies from 2 to 20 days, depending on the concentration of the agent. The following tissues have been found to show cytopathogenic effects after infection with the agent: human adenoid; human embryonic nose, pharynx, palate, tongue, trachea, skin, muscle, and pancreas; new-born human prepuce; HeLa cells; suckling rabbit kidney and trachea; suckling hamster trachea, lung, kidney, skin, and muscle; and chick embryo lung and skin. The effects seen in hamster and chick embryo cultures were not distinctive, being characterized by gradual death and disappearance of tissue with lysis of the plasma clot. The following tissues have shown no evidence of cytopathogenic changes following inoculation with the agents: beef embryonic trachea, mouse embryo mixture, mouse glioblastoma, monkey testis, and guinea pig trachea and kidney.

Hematoxylin-eosin stained preparations of infected human embryonic tracheal epithelium
cultures have been examined by Dr. Henry Pinkerton, St. Louis University School of Medicine, who made the following description: “The normal cells take the hematoxylin stain, both nucleus and cytoplasm. The affected cells show eosinoplzilic swollen nuclei, with what I take to be nuclear inclusions. These are usually basophilic, but occasionally eosinophilic. There is margination and fragmentation of the nuclear chromatin (which stains deeply blue-black), often wrinkling of the
nuclear membrane, and swelling of the nuclei. The cytoplasm stains deep reddish purple, and occasionally contains 10 to 12 small pale blue inclusions’. . . . Often, also, the nucleus is blended with the cytoplasm to form a granular purplish mass in which no nucleus can be recognized.” Photomicrographs of stained roller tube cultures are shown in Fig. 1-3.

The agent has not been found to grow on bacteriological media, including repeated cultures on thioglycollate broth, blood agar, and several types of pleuropneumonia media. Activity of the agent was destroyed by heating at 62°C for 30 minutes; the agent was filterable through a Mandler No. 14 candle with some loss in titer. No loss of activity was found after storage at 3°C for a week or after three cycles of quick-freezing and thawing. No clinically recognizable disease has been produced by the agent inoculated by various routes into experimental animals, including embryonated eggs, suckling and adult mice, suckling hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, rhesus monkeys, and a chimpanzee.

Hyperimmunization of rabbits with agent-containing tissue culture fluids resulted in the production of antibodies capable of neutralizing the agent in tissue culture, whereas immunization with control culture fluid did not. Rabbit antisera against herpes simplex and vaccinia viruses did not neutralize the agent in tissue culture, and rabbit hyperimmune serum against strain No. 2 of the adenoid agent did not neutralize herpes simplex virus in suckling mice or vaccinia virus in tissue culture. The cytopathogenic effects of the agent were prevented or significantly delayed by addition to the cultures of human gamma globulin in a final concentration of 1:500 or some human sera in dilutions of 1:50 or higher, whereas other human sera showed no neutralizing capacity at dilutions of 1:25.

In this laboratory a variety of human viruses have been inoculated into human adenoid and embryo cultures and HeLa cell cultures, including herpes simplex, vaccinia, influenza A’ and B, Type 1 poliomyelitis, and members of the Coxsackie A and B groups, as well as human pleuropneumonia-like organisms and presumably virus-containing materials from cases of measles and varicella; in no instance has the picture produced by the adenoid agents been produced. The pattern of destruction of adenoid epithelium by herpes simplex and poliomyelitis viruses was somewhat similar to that of the adenoid agents, but their effects on HeLa cells did not resemble that produced by the adenoid agents.

Summary. 1. From the present evidence it appears that an unidentified, possibly new, tissue culture cytopathogenic agent has been isolated repeatedly from human adenoids undergoing spontaneous degeneration in tissue culture. The filterability and the inability to cultivate the agent on bacteriological media and to demonstrate organisms in stained tissue culture preparations would indicate that the agent belongs to the group of viruses or rickettsiae. It is tentatively proposed to designate the agent as the “adenoid degeneration agent”, abbreviated as “A.D. agent.” 2. That the agent is derived from the adenoid tissue rather than from the nutrient media is indicated by the fact that some adenoids and all human embryonic tissues cultivated in the identical media and at the same time have not undergone degeneration, although they are susceptible to infection with the agent; also, repeated attempts to isolate the agents from adenoid cultures not demonstrating degeneration have been uniformly unsuccessful. 3. Further investigation is in progress to determine the relation of the agent to the adenoids and to study their possible role in human disease: par ticularly upper respiratory infections.

https://doi.org/10.3181%2F00379727-84-20714

In Summary:

• No lab tests exist to diagnose colds—a quick physical exam or self-check is usually all that’s needed
• Though there are some lab tests that can detect common viral agents like “rhinovirus” and “respiratory syncytial virus,” they are rarely used because the common cold tends to go away before a diagnostic test is necessary
• Flu is caused by influenza “viruses” only, whereas the common cold can be caused by a number of different “viruses,” including “rhinoviruses,” “parainfluenza,” and seasonal “coronaviruses”
• Seasonal “coronaviruses” should not be confused with “SARS-COV-2,” the “virus” that causes “COVID-19” 
• Because colds and flu share many symptoms, it can be difficult (or even impossible) to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone (the same applies for “Covid-19” as well)
• Adenoviruses are common “viruses” that cause a range of illness:
  1. Common cold or flu-like symptoms
  2. Fever
  3. Fore throat
  4. Acute bronchitis (inflammation of the airways of the lungs, sometimes called a “chest cold”)
  5. Pneumonia (infection of the lungs)
  6. Pink eye (conjunctivitis)
  7. Acute gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach or intestines causing diarrhea, vomiting, nausea and stomach pain)
• “Adenoviruses” were first discovered in 1953, by Rowe and his colleagues who “isolated” the “virus” from Adenoid cell culture
• At present, 51 distinct serotypes have been recognized and recorded

• During the course of a study of the growth of human adenoid tissue in roller tube culture, a characteristic degeneration was encountered which was found to be serially transmissible in other tissue cultures
• Adenoid tissues taken from children were minced, washed 3 times in nutrient media, and cultured by the chicken plasma clot technic
• The majority of adenoids and all other tissues were grown in a modification of the beef amniotic fluid medium described by Enders
• A few adenoids were cultured in media that were modified from those of Youngner et al.
• Explant cultures of other tissues were prepared in the same manner
• Culture fluids were changed twice weekly, and the supernatant fluids were stored in screw-capped vials at -2O’C
• After 8 to 28 days in culture, 33 of the 53 (62%) adenoids observed for this period demonstrated a characteristic rounding of the peripheral epithelium, progressing to complete destruction of the epithelium within 7 to 10 days
• The morphological appearance of the round cells was said to be distinctive
• Culture fluids of 14 adenoids demonstrating this degeneration were transferred to fresh cultures of adenoids, human embryonic tissue, or HeLa cells, and in 13 instances characteristic changes were produced in the recipient cultures (out of how many, they don’t say…)
• This strain was carried through a total of 17 passages, the first in adenoid, one in human embryo trachea, and the last 15 in HeLa cells, with production of the typical changes in every passage
• Degeneration of the seventeenth passage tissue occurred one day after infection with fluid representing a theoretical dilution of the original adenoid fluid of 10^32
• Fluid of the eleventh passage when passed to cultures of human fetal trachea reproduced the typical round cell degeneration after 3 days
• Other strains of the agent were said to be carried without difficulty through serial passages, and consistently reproduced the degeneration
• The medium consisted of:
  1. Beef amniotic fluid 85%
  2. Beef emlbryo extract 10%
  3. Inactivated horse serum 5%
• During the first week of culture the following medium was used:
  1. Hanks’ solution 40%
  2. Inactivated horse serum 40%
  3. Chick embryo extract 20%
• After this time the medium was changed to the following:
  1. Hanks’-Sims’ solution (3: 1) 85%
  2. Inactivated horse serum 5%
  3. Chick embryo extract 10%
• All media contained phenol red (O.OOl%O, penicillin and streptomycin (5O to 250 units of each), and soybean trypsin inhibitor (0.005%)
• The incubation period of the cytopathogenic effects in human epithelium is usually 4 to 8 days; with higher dilutions of the inoculum the incubation period may be as long as 23 days
• In cultures consisting almost entirely of human embryo fibroblasts the incubation time is longer, ranging from 8 to 15 days for the lowest dilution, to as long as 40 days with higher dilutions
• Incubation time in HeLa cells varies from 2 to 20 days, depending on the concentration of the agent
• Breaking News: The higher the amount of toxins added to the cell/tissue culture, the faster the cell/tissue dies
• The following tissues were found to show cytopathogenic effects after infection with the agent:
  1. Human adenoid
  2. Human embryonic nose,pharynx, palate, tongue, trachea, skin, muscle, and pancreas
  3. New-born human prepuce
  4. HeLa cells
  5. Suckling rabbit kidney and trachea
  6. Suckling hamster trachea, lung, kidney, skin, and muscle
  7. Chick embryo lung and skin
• The effects seen in hamster and chick embryo cultures were not distinctive, being characterized by gradual death and disappearance of tissue with lysis of the plasma clot
• No clinically recognizable disease was produced by the agent inoculated by various routes into experimental animals, including embryonated eggs, suckling and adult mice, suckling hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, rhesus monkeys, and a chimpanzee (i.e. they failed miserably in attempting to prove pathogeniticity)
• Also note that many of the tissues from these animals were ones which showed CPE yet they could still not produce disease in any of them
• Hyperimmunization of rabbits with agent-containing tissue culture fluids (not purified/isolated “virus) resulted in the production of antibodies capable of neutralizing the agent in tissue culture (if they were unable to produce disease in rabbits, what were the antibodies doing there…?)
• The cytopathogenic effects of the agent were prevented or significantly delayed by addition to the cultures of human gamma globulin in a final concentration of 1:500 or some human sera in dilutions of 1:50 or higher, whereas other human sera showed no neutralizing capacity at dilutions of 1:25
• In other words, they could prevent or delay CPE dependent upon the amount of blood added to the culture
• In their laboratory a variety of human “viruses” were inoculated into human adenoid and embryo cultures and HeLa cell cultures, including herpes simplex, vaccinia, influenza A’ and B, Type 1 poliomyelitis, and members of the Coxsackie A and B groups, as well as human pleuropneumonia-like organisms and presumably “virus-containing” materials from cases of measles and varicella; in no instance has the picture produced by the adenoid agents been produced
• In other words, they are basing their disease-less producing “virus” on pictures of patterns they had never seen before, which they created during tissue culture experiments
• The pattern of destruction of adenoid epithelium by herpes simplex and poliomyelitis “viruses” was somewhat similar to that of the adenoid agents, but their effects on HeLa cells did not resemble that produced by the adenoid agents
• Rowe concludes with 3 points:
  1. From the present evidence it appeared that an unidentified, possibly new, tissue culture cytopathogenic agent had been isolated repeatedly from human adenoids undergoing spontaneous degeneration in tissue culture
  2. That the agent was derived from the adenoid tissue rather than from the nutrient media was indicated by the fact that some adenoids and all human embryonic tissues cultivated in the identical media and at the same time have not undergone degeneration, although they are susceptible to infection with the agent; also, repeated attempts to isolate the agents from adenoid cultures not demonstrating degeneration have been uniformly unsuccessful (even though they never actually isolated anything from cultures showing degeneration either…)
  3. Further investigation was in progress to determine the relation of the agent to the adenoids and to study their possible role in human disease: particularly upper respiratory infections
• In other words, Rowe did not purify and isolate any “adenovirus” nor prove pathogeniticity but instead created ways to break down tissues through the use of added toxins in order to claim a “virus” was present due to the pattern of degeneration created

It is very obvious that Rowe and Co. tried really hard to make the case that they had discovered and “isolated” a new “virus” yet the evidence they presented showed just the opposite. Not only were they unable to show purified/isolated “virus” particles taken directly from the adenoids of sick patients (as there is no indication the children were even sick to begin with), they were UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY CLINICAL DISEASE with their “agent.” All they can say is that sometimes, through different types of tissue/cell cultures experiments and numerous culture passages between them, they saw some sort of pattern in the cultures after waiting days/weeks/months which depended on the conditions of the experiments. Even then, they admit that herpes simplex and polio produced similar patterns in cultures showing that this was not a specific pattern to their “virus.” This creation of patterns caused by the different recipes used by virologists in the culturing technique is the very trick used to “discover” and claim the “adenovirus” as well as over 200 different causes for the exact same symptoms of disease. This recipe always includes unpurified samples combined with different kinds of nutrient media, animal cells/blood and other foreign proteins/microorganisms, antibiotics and antifungals, etc. Virologists can pick and chose whichever recipe they desire in order to create their adventitious scapegoats. No “virus” is ever necessary.