Loss of Taste and Smell... Is it a "New" Symptom?

And what are some other explanations for what causes this phenomenon?

by D. Alec Zeck

As many of you know, I’ve consistently raised awareness to (and created entire educational events around) the lack of evidence for the existence of SARS-CoV-2 — as well as other viruses, over the last 4-or-so years.

One of the most common pushbacks I receive is related to the supposed “specific” and “new” symptoms attributed to the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus: loss of taste and smell. Another common one is a persistent strange odor.

For whatever reason, many people fall back into the utterly fraudulent viral paradigm when someone can’t explain exactly what caused their loss of taste and smell (or other supposedly “COVID-specific” symptoms, for that matter). We’ll cover that faulty logic later in the article.

Are these symptoms really new?

And even if they are new (in the sense that more people experienced them than in previous years), are they proof of SARS-CoV-2, or any other “virus” for that matter?

If not a virus, what might be the cause of loss of taste and smell — even if experienced for an extended period of time?

Let’s explore.

A custom google search “loss of taste and smell common cold” with the dates set from 2017-2019 (random pre-COVID-era dates) shows this phenomenon isn’t new at all:

“Temporary illness: A cold or the flu can cause you to temporarily or permanently lose your smell or taste. This is the most common cause of acute loss of smell in over 80 percent of patients.”

“A cold temporarily damages your sense of smell and thus your ability to perceive flavor… According to the American Rhinologic Society, “The common cold (also called an upper respiratory infection) often causes inflammation in the nose impairing smell via swelling and obstruction.”

This is just a cursory look. Let’s explore further.

A few days ago on X (formerly twitter), a user named @Jinren369 sent me an LA Times Article from 1988, “Sense of Smell Can Be Victim of Bout With Flu”:

If you recently suffered from the flu and have not recovered your sense of smell, you aren’t alone, researchers say…

It can happen to people who suffer from flu or upper respiratory infections, said Robert Frank, a University of Cincinnati psychophysicist. It is common for sufferers with colds or the flu to lose their sense of smell—and, as a result, their ability to taste—briefly during the time of the ailment. But, Frank said, some people do not regain their sense of smell for months, or longer.

These people are seeing us six months after the flu has passed, and they still don’t have their sense of smell,” he said. “We still don’t even know if it’s permanent or not… We don’t know for sure right now, but we think there may be people who permanently lose their sense of smell after this kind of episode.”

After a period of time, some victims report sensing a persistent, strange odor. Researchers have not determined what that means, Frank said.

Read that again: “It is common for sufferers with colds or the flu to lose their sense of smell… some people do not regain their sense of smell for months, or longer… These people are seeing us six months after the flu has passed, and they still don’t have their sense of smell… After a period of time, some victims report sensing a persistent, strange odor.

Prior to 2020, it was common knowledge that people lost their taste of smell due to the common cold, (which is not caused by a “virus”, by the way). It seems that we’ve developed some sort of collective amnesia regarding this matter. Could this collective amnesia be the result of consistent fear-based propaganda surrounding COVID in early 2020, accompanied by the repetitive messaging, “you will experience loss of taste and smell. You will experience loss of taste and smell. You will experience loss of taste and smell.”?

Another custom google search from February 2020 - May 2020 returns countless results attaching these symptoms to the allegedly “novel virus” SARS-CoV-2:

• “Loss of smell from coronavirus: How to test your sense."

• “Loss of smell and taste in combination with other symptoms is a strong predictor of COVID-19 infection.”

• “Loss of Smell and Taste Could Be Early Sign of Coronavirus/COVID-19."

Needless to say, we were bombarded with this new idea, en masse, that this phenomenon is caused by a supposed “ new virus.”

A QUICK REFRESHER: VIROLIEGY 101

I do not say this lightly: the foundations for virology, and thus the entire field of virology, is fraudulent and pseudoscientific.

Pseudoscience is anything claiming to be scientific that doesn’t follow the scientific method. In every single "viral isolation" paper — which is the foundational evidence for the field of virology (of which both all other pieces of virology and the field of vaccinology are built upon), a variation of this procedure is followed :

snot/blood/other fluids from a sick person assumed to contain virus particles (but never verified to contain virus particles) is added to viral transport medium (VTM). At a minimum VTM contains fetal bovine serum (FBS), amphotericin B (a nephrotoxic antimycotic) and gentamicin (a nephrotoxic antibiotic). Nephrotoxic means “toxic to kidneys”, by the way. That’ll come in next.

After this, they take that mixture (a sample of snot/blood/other fluids and VTM) and add it to a foreign cell line that has been kept alive via unnatural means in a lab, typically VERO E6, VERO CCL81 (kidney cells from an adult green monkey) or human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells.

Then, after that mixture is added to the cells (or sometimes alongside adding the mixture or just before adding the mixture) the nutrient serum for the cells, FBS, is reduced from 10% to 2% (and sometimes to 1% or 0%), effectively starving the cells of their food. They also add gentamicin (sometimes geneticin) and amphotericin B to the culture. Again, these substances are known to be nephrotoxic (toxic to kidneys), and they're being added to kidney cells, where it's assumed they have no negative effects on the cells and are simply there to keep the environment free of fungal and bacterial growth.

The cells then break down, experiencing what is called the cytopathic effect (CPE), which is cell injury or death. The sample is then prepared for electron microscopy, (which is another MAJOR problem in and of itself: see here, here, and here), where many of the resultant particles are claimed be viruses.

This process is pseudoscientific (and absurd) for the following reasons:

The scientific method requires an observed natural phenomenon. Full stop. That menas you observe something happening in nature. The moment you take something out of its natural context, it's no longer an observed natural phenomenon (this is especially the case when excising tissue from a complex physical, chemical, emotional, electric, etc. entity, throwing a bunch of shit on it in a lab and assuming it tells you something about natural world is absurd).

the steps of the scientific method. From my presentation, “Reframing the Infectious Disease Paradigm.” 2024.

However, in the case of so-called "infectious diseases", you might say that you observe two or more people getting sick in the same space with similar symptoms. In my mind, that is a justified observed natural phenomenon.

After that, you form a hypothesis. For example, “I think Y phenomenon (dependent variable) is caused by X particle (independent variable)."

In order to proceed to test that hypothesis, you need to have X, the presumed cause, the thing you think causes Y, in order to vary and manipulate it to see if it produces the observed effect in question. That is arguably the most important step. In order to follow the scientific method, you need your independent variable, X. Virology has NEVER shown that "X" exists.

Their version of “X” is based in the absurd, assumption-riddled, unscientific process I wrote out above. They ASSUME the particles are in the fluids of a sick person, but never show they are. In fact, virologists willingly admit that, in order to isolate/purify/characterize/ sequence "viruses", they must follow the steps mentioned above. They provide excuses like “there’s not enough virus present in the fluids” (which is hilarious considering they also say this). They ASSUME the particles (which are ASSUMED to be present in the fluids in the first place) cause the cells to experience CPE (never mind the cells were starved and poisoned). And lastly, they ASSUME the resultant particles shown in electron micrograph images (after the cells experience CPE) are viruses.

Again, virology has no independent variable, and therefore, is by definition pseudoscientific. Additionally, they don’t conduct proper negative controls/control experiments. Because they don’t have an independent variable, and are therefore NOT testing their hypothesis, we can’t call what they’re doing a scientific experiment at all, so any semblance of a negative control/control experiment isn’t possible from the jump.

However, if we make MAJOR concessions on their behalf and consider fluids from a sick person to be the independent variable, they still don’t conduct proper negative controls.

I’ve been involved with a project led by Jamie Andrews, where we commissioned independent labs to conduct this exact same process, except that we didn't include any fluid sample from a sick person — meaning no possible source of a "virus" — and we achieved the exact same CPE, objectively, in 90/90 cell cultures.

We then had another lab produce transmission electron micrograph images of our samples, in which they found particles that were morphologically indistinguishable from what virologist refer to as “viruses.” And, we followed the exact same ATCC protocols followed by virologists — meaning we used the same concentration of antibiotics in the same timeframe, the same concentration of nutrient serum in the same timeframe, used the same materials and methods, etc. — thus falsifying the idea that the CPE seen in culture is a result of viruses, and falsifying the idea that the resultant particles seen in electron micrograph images are viral.

You can learn more about that project by clicking here.

With all of that being said, we (those who expose virology) weren’t even required to do ANY of that work in the first place, because the burden of proof lies on the individual/organization making the positive claim, i.e., “X is real and causes Y.” That is a maxim of law. We have no requirement to (nor can we) prove something doesn’t exist. We can only falsify the so-called evidence put forth, showing that it absolutely does not prove what they claim it does. The individual/organization claiming X does exist and cause Y must provide the proof, not the other way around.

So, any talk of what viruses do/don’t do is a reification fallacy and begging the question. Referring to expert opinion as evidence for viruses is an appeal to authority. Saying the overwhelming majority of experts believe is both appealing to authority and a bandwagon fallacy. Pointing to effects in culture or symptoms in humans as “evidence” of viruses is both begging the question and affirming the consequent. In order to make any claims about what X does/doesn’t do, you must first clearly demonstrate that X exists. It’s no different than saying “my pet unicorn with lasers for eyes caused my rug in front of my fireplace to catch on fire.” In order to say that the unicorn with lasers for eyes caused anything, you need to first demonstrate the unicorn with lasers for eyes exists.

And lastly, we don’t have to know what is the cause of [insert an effect] to know what clearly isn’t the cause of [insert effect]. And, again, by falsifying one paradigm, we are not required to find a better replacement. Think of it like this: if someone claims Joe killed John in Wisconsin in February 2020, but Joe clearly demonstrates that he was in Bali all of February 2020 (with security footage, pictures, text messages, receipts, etc.) — thus falsifying the idea that he was the cause of John’s death, is Joe still on the hook until they can find who did commit the murder?

With all of that being said, we fortunately do have other possible explanations for what caused the loss of taste and smell. But, again, I make no assertions here — every situation is unique and I can’t possibly know all the details related to an individual’s health situation. These are simply other possible explanations:

Other possible explanations for loss of taste/smell

1. Mass psychogenic illness/social contagion:

   This one is the most important, in my opinion, so I’m putting it first. Here’s an example covered brilliantly by Daniel Roytas in his new book, Can You Catch a Cold?: Untold History & Human Experiments, in 2017, 45,000 patients in New Zealand were switched from a brand-name antidepressant to a generic version. This change led to numerous reported side effects, with 27 common issues emerging. News outlets covered the story, but surprisingly, they only mentioned 6 of the 27 side effects. Following the news reports, there was a significant surge in adverse event reports—however, the increase in reports were limited to the 6 side effects that were highlighted in the news.

   With that, what happens when the news, government and the health establishment repeatedly issue repetitive messaging, “you will experience loss of taste and smell”?

2. Exposure to nnEMFs: It is possible that prolonged or repetitive exposure to non-native electromagnetic fields could cause the olfactory system (which I’m not even sure exists, either, at least as claimed), which is part of the nervous system, to malfunction. It is also possible that, given there was a relatively new (new in the sense that it is blanketing the earth for the first time) nnEMF toxin prevalent — mmWave technology — our bodies are having to adapt/are expressing symptomd related to this new nnEMF toxin.

3. General mineral imbalance: Mineral imbalances can lead to loss of taste and smell. It is said that certain minerals, such as zinc, copper, and magnesium, play important roles in maintaining healthy taste buds and olfactory function (again, that’s what’s claimed). Imbalances in these minerals can lead to impaired sense of smell, reduced taste sensitivity, or even complete loss of taste or smell. For example, zinc deficiency can impair taste and smell, while copper toxicity can damage olfactory receptors and taste buds. We know minerals exist, and we know we have the ability to taste and smell. Lol.

4. Weather changes: Seasonal and weather changes likely impact our sense of taste and smell. Changes in humidity and temperature can dry out nasal mucous membranes, while cold air can numb olfactory receptors. Additionally, sinus pressure and congestion from seasonal allergies can block olfactory receptors (assuming they exist as claimed), leading to impaired taste and smell. These effects are usually temporary and resolve once the seasonal or weather changes pass.

5. German New Medicine, Stink Conflict: In German New Medicine, a "stink conflict" refers to an emotional conflict triggered by a traumatic or distressing event related to a a situation that “stinks.” This conflict affects the olfactory system, leading to symptoms such as loss of taste and smell. According to GNM, the body attempts to avoid the perceived "stink" by impairing the sense of smell and taste, resulting in temporary or long-term loss of these senses.

6. Something Else..?: All of the things I listed are just possible explanations. I do not claim to know what caused/causes this phenomenon with any level of certainity. I’m certain there are a bunch of options that I’ve not considered, and loads more that we haven’t explored or discovered. I think most of us struggle with not knowing — but, in my opinion, it’s incredibly healthy to not know, as it leaves you open to continued exploration.

What I do know is this: If you claim X particle causes Y symptoms, you first need to demonstrate that X particle actually exists. As stated, you cannot point to Y symptoms as direct proof of X. That is an affirming the consequent logical fallacy, question begging, and a reification fallacy all in one. And, as stated previously, it was common-knowledge that seasonal colds and flus led to loss of taste and smell.

Please send this to anyone who’s certain they had COVID because they experienced loss of taste and smell.

-Alec

---

Happy Holidays from the Art of Liberty Foundation!

Celebrate the season with special discounts:

• 20% off from December 5th-8th with the code Liberty20

• 15% off from December 9th-12th with the code Liberty15

• 10% off from December 13th until Christmas with the code Liberty10

Shop for unique books and gifts now at Government-Scam.com/store and make this holiday season extra special!