I've often wondered about Virii. The last time I went to the doctor, they drew blood and checked it. From the doc's own mouth. "We think you've caught the latest virus, but we aren't sure which it is. It's either RSV or the new one. If it's the new one, you'll probably be in the hospital in a week. Until then, have this anti-biotic."
My old family doc used to say, "You've got the cold or flu bug. Get plenty of sleep, get vitamin C, and get some sunlight." He didn't prescribe anti-biotics all the time.
From what I recall, Anti-biotics are used against bacteria.
That's my point! The "proof" that virologists have offered before the existence of viruses are inadequate and insufficient... yet the virus skeptics are expected to prove that viruses don't exist, which is literally impossible! That's the joke.
The "proof" that virologists have offered before the existence of viruses are inadequate and insufficient...
On what basis do you make that determination? Certainly not on some book written by a couple of doctors with little or no expertise in the field?
I studied the immune system in the early 80s, not as a medical student, but as part of a project on developing computer based information systems. I was looking at how the immune system deals with viruses - specifically the signalling processes to see what analogies I could find to computer based information systems.
What I learned was that viruses are nothing out of the ordinary, in fact they follow the same structural rules and use the same proteins as cells in general. They have an envelope of lipids, similar to our own cells, receptors that attach to cells just as signalling molecules in the immune system do, and they contain genetic code, just like our own cells do. The only difference is they lack the ability to reproduce, and thus need a host cell to do so. Again, nothing surprising. Viruses are probably precursors to self-replicating cells that found an adaptive niche by hijacking cells that had already achieved self-replication. Under that model the immune system developed as a protective mechanism against them (and other pathogens) and the rest, as they say, is history.
Here's something most people don't know. Not all viruses are pathogens.
From 1981 for about 10 years until it stopped being a peer reviewed journal, I read every issue of Scientific American cover to cover [*]. The ground work on viruses and the immune system was laid 100 years ago, and since then it's been a case of nailing down the details, which I would argue has been very successful, and which SA covered in great detail.
The difference between then and now is that we have this thing called the internet where just about anyone can post their 'theory' of whatever, and by sheer dint of numbers they'll gain a following. It's a perfect example of what Korzybski called a 'belief system.' They spring up everywhere now, like dandelions after a spring rain, and to imagine that the powers who wish to deceive us wouldn't notice and take advantage of that phenomenon is extremely naive.
[*] I was probably trying to compensate for the fact that, owing to family issues, I missed the opportunity to go to university and had to settle for tech college on my own dime.
Thanks - the content of this comment means I don't have to replicate it in a comment of my own.
The fundamental point is quite simple - the adaptive immune system simply wouldn't exist if there were no pathogens, including viruses. Or, if there were, say 'bacteria' but not viruses, then the immune system would not know how to deal with viruses. It's a smoke and fire analogy perhaps.
Furthermore body chemistry, as you say, is an extremely complex area with a myriad lab chemistry reactions to infections readily discernible in blood tests carried out every minute.
Anyway, not much more need be said, except to say critique of methodology is not the same as concluding viruses don't exist - that's another logical fallacy.
I liked the bit about symbiosis - I am definitely of the school of though which suggests that viruses have been a fundamental part of evolution (of humans as well as other animals). Indeed, the existence of reverse transcriptase could also suggest that humans are, in fact, part virus themselves (I mean certain bodily processes). A human body is a collection of organisms, rather than one single organism. Life itself is a symbiosis. Likewise, the fact that viruses predate humans suggests humans evolved to be immune to a large extent. In this sense, viruses are beneficial. An obvious one is how you get lots of colds in childhood, helping to build a varied immunity, and then catch them much more rarely in adulthood.
I think a more interesting question to look at, which doesn't involve any misdirection about 'viruses don't exist' is about the degree to which some viruses can be harmful, if at all, versus the thousands and thousands of passenger viruses with whom we share a symbiotic relationship - a bit like the use of bacteriophages as opposed to antibiotics (thus avoiding the resistance issue). Something like HIV, for example, would actually have a beneficial effect for someone with a healthy, functioning immune system because it sort of keeps it on its toes, so to speak (it's a very weak virus). So the real question is more about the effect and interaction of these fascinating and exceptionally ancient organisms - maybe that's the 'secret research' they don't want us to think about...
I lean toward the idea of symbiosis as well. Example: mitochondria as ancient bacteria becoming part of the cells of more complex organisms.
But I object to the use of the word "virus" in this context because the history of the use of this word has indicated a pathogenic substance or entity and it comes from the latin for poison. I believe it would be much better if scientists describe what they actually observe rather than attaching such misleading labels to things.
I would certainly agree with you about the word 'virus', for sure. It's not really the right word to use for a symbiotic lifeform!
And I do think this is a more appropriate question - not 'do these organisms exist' but 'what are they?' and 'what is our relationship with them?' 'Are they harmful or not, if so to what extent?'.
And similar questions. From that point of view, arguing about whether or not they exist seems something of a misdirection.
My objection to the virus hypothesis hinges on my unwillingness to believe that a biological organism can put itself on pause... which is what viruses supposedly do. What's the lifespan of a virus, for instance? Oh, there isn't one? They can just exist is suspended animation indefinitely, waiting patiently for the the opportunity to strike?
I'm no biologist, but I think I know something about life. All biological organisms age, feed, excrete, breathe, etc... it's either an organism or it's not. And if can't reproduce unassisted, it's not an organism.
I honestly can't follow the debate when it gets into the finer points, but that's my hill to die on. If viruses don't adhere to the criteria for biological organisms, they're not biological organisms.
There are observable particles that exist. The question is not whether such particles exist, but what is their origin; what is their nature; do they have distinct characteristics that define them; what is their chemical makeup; do they cause disease; is "virus" an appropriate name for them or would other less heavily loaded terms be more appropriate, such as microvesicle, endosome, exosome, etc. As you have pointed out, there are "viruses" that are thought to be symbiotic rather than disease-causing, but then why call them "viruses" (latin: poisin, putrid pus). The word virus has been used since the 1800s to denote a disease-causing (liquid) substance. IMO it would be best just to drop the term "virus" altogether because it is so confusing, not just to lay people but to scientists themselves. Just call it what you see: a particle. Then do the appropriate experiments to determine the nature of that particle (i.e. if you can manage to separate or purify like (i.e. homogenous) particles, which isn't done in virology except in the case of the bacterial phages, which do not have the character of "viruses" though they are often called that.)
As a student of Alfred Korzybski and Stuart Chase, I'm all for giving things names that properly describe their function, but we seem to be stuck with 'virus' for the time being. That's a different issue from claiming viruses don't exist however. If we're talking about a genetic sequence contained in a lipid envelope with receptors for animal or plant cells that allow that sequence to enter the cell and use the cell's mechanisms to replicate its constituent parts and build new copies, then I'd have to argue that such a thing exists. Otherwise how would you explain the mechanism used in the Sputnik V vaccine, which use an adenovirus vector to deliver the DNA for the S protein? If viruses don't exist, then what are they using?
You probably can’t establish that anything doesn’t exist. But if you’re going to lock down the world, force millions to get an injection into their bodies, and enforce many other protocols that maim and kill because of a disease-causing particle you claim is life-threatening, there must be positive evidence that the particle exists. That evidence is completely lacking for viruses. I say they don’t exist because as far as is known right now, they don’t.
Well that gets the Dept. of Defence off the hook then. (DARPA, Fort Detrick, Chapel Hill, EcoHealth Alliance etc.), If viruses don't exist, then they couldn't have manufactured one and released it could they? So all those labs in eastern Europe were set up just to make us think that viruses exist, and 'gain of function' was what? Just another trick to get us to believe in viruses? What about the data the Russian govt. has from captured labs in Ukraine? Is that also a ruse to get us to believe in viruses?
You have to look at ALL the data, not just the data that supports your argument.
Whatever they are doing in those labs, it is not manipulating viruses. I’m sure they have released a variety of technological and chemical poisons into the environment. And no, understanding that viruses don’t exist definitely doesn’t let anybody off the hook. What was done during the last four years is the most massive crime against humanity imaginable. They’re all responsible. In my opinion, it makes it even worse that they perpetrated that abomination on the world, knowing that there were no viruses, because I am sure that they know that. A big part of the psyop has been making everybody afraid of something that doesn’t exist.
"A big part of the psyop has been making everybody afraid of something that doesn’t exist."
Or the psyop could be to get you to believe that viruses don't exist. That would be convenient if investigators were nipping at your heels over something that came from a lab that you financed. It's like that old saying about the devil's greatest trick being to get you to believe he doesn't exist.
There’s also no evidence of bioweapons or gain of function going on. Those are more false narratives designed to increase the level of fear. Dr. Sam Bailey has a number of videos explaining why these things don’t exist. She’s on Substack , and easy to find.
"Those are more false narratives designed to increase the level of fear."
Listen to yourself. You state that as if it were a fact, but where's your evidence? Sam Bailey?
Doctors are medical practitioners, that is to say they learn established practice, much of that through memorization. Ask anyone in med school. They're not theoretical or experimental scientists and are thus not qualified to make categorical statements about other people's disciplines, especially when those statements take the form of denying something exists. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, and yet they're trying to do exactly that. That's NOT science, that's ideology.
Prove to me that God exists. It's the same problem. You can't. That doesn't mean there isn't a God, simply that we have no proof other than people's willingness to believe.
Look, humanity has been assaulted in the most heinous manner imaginable these last three years. Beyond anything most people could ever imagine. That's traumatic and leads to all kinds of coping mechanisms, of which the perpetrators are well aware. So is it not beyond imagining that they might also promote beliefs designed to throw us off the trail? A trail that leads to the actual perpetrators. Do criminals intentionally leave clues lying around, or do they try to cover their tracks? So how can you tell the difference between a genuine clue and one designed to throw you off the trail? Because some husband and wife team promoting their notion of how science works said so?
Controversy sells. In this case it sells books of which Sam Bailey has three on offer. I have over 100 scientific papers, both pre-print and peer reviewed from dozens of research groups that deal with various aspects of Sars-Cov2, none of which cost me a dime. If this claim the Bailey's are making is so groundbreaking, then why are they selling books and not making their findings freely available to the scientific community?
The sad truth of the matter is that it's not just Big Pharma making coin off of other people's misery. Is this a case of that? Not sure, but I'm definitely suspicious of their motives.
I think it's a lot easier to see how Big Pharma makes billions off the belief in virology than to see how anyone makes money off of people doubting the so-called "settled science". Canada apparently just threw out millions upon millions of dollar of expired COVID vaxxes whille continuing to order more. They're making a killing off virology.
That's exactly right. The whole field of virology, testing, research, vaccines, etc. etc. etc. It's a trillion dollar industry. Nobody makes money by denying viruses. They get fired, demoted, smeared. (Sam Bailey and many others among them.)
You're level mixing here buddy. One is a multi-billion dollar scam, the other is someone trying to make a living after losing her job, and since she worked in the media before, it seems natural that she'd stick with what she knows, which is in fact what she's done.
"Sam is a co-author of the number 1 best seller in Amazon Microbiology Science: ‘Virus Mania’ which examines how the medical industry continually invents epidemics to make billion-dollar profits at our expense."
I don't begrudge her trying to make a living, but I'm less enthusiastic about her assertions, and those of her camp in general. Also, while there's no multi-billion dollar market for books of this nature, there doesn't have to be to make a pretty good living at it. So I have to ask, what are her actual priorities?
Dr. Saeed Qureshi (not a medical doctor but a scientist) makes the same point about physicians as you are making. In fact, he blames (majority) physicians for misinterpreting the claims of virology.
He worked for 30 years for Health Canada as an research scientist whose expertise is in analytical chemistry.
As for the Bailey's, Sam Bailey worked for a decade in clinical trials. Mark has a number of degrees in science, not just medicine.
It was the Covid fraud that woke them up and they began questioning things then, which led them down a path of discovery. They discovered the Perth Group of Australia led by the highly qualified Elani Papadopoulos . The Perth Group was among the first to question the AIDS virus and produced the seminal work "HIV, a virus like no other".
From that time, the Bailey's began doing heavy research, reading innumerable original scientific articles and coming to conclusions that were very different from what their medical training had taught them. But they were not the first. There were many others before them, especially from the AIDS virus skeptic camp: Etienne de Harven, evolutionary biologist Stefan Lanka and others.
Etienne de Harven cast doubt on the connection between AIDS and the HIV virus. Show me where he cast doubt on the existence of viruses themselves please.
Also, I've read several papers like this one https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202102.0264/v1 that speak about the furin cleavage site on the Sars-cov2 virus. How would they be able to identify that site if they hadn't sequenced the genome? Are they just making shit up? I must have read a dozen papers over the last few years that point to unnatural inserts in the virus, so what are they looking at, and why the claims that the genome has never been sequenced when the entire human genome has been sequenced as of 2003? Sequencing a viral genome is trivial by comparison.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and to date I haven't seen any. Just critiques of methodology which are valid in themselves, but that don't prove that viruses don't exist. How can they, since you can't prove a negative?
I'd also point out that work on viruses has been ongoing worldwide for decades now, and to assume that the thousands of people involved in that research have somehow missed the boat, or are part of some massive disinformation campaign just beggars belief.
I will only provide one of those citations followed by the author's commentary.
-----
“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”
Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.
There's a significant difference between believing in Sasquatch and believing in viruses: the virus narrative has been and is continuing to be used to cause tremendous harm to people and, less directly, to earth. It is a narrative of disempowerment and control. It was the entire foundation of the recent plandemic and a major factor in the efforts to establish a digital prison and herd us all into it. It's also the basis of the childhood vaccine schedule that has killed and maimed countless babies and children. Of course, people believe what they will--but believing in Sasquatch or flat earth or fairies is personal and affects no one else. Viruses are an entirely different kind of false narrative that needs to be understood for what it is. (My Substack, This Changes Everything, deals with the reasons why I think it's important that people know viruses do not exist. I invite you to check it out.)
I'd suggest checking out two Substacks: Mike Stone's ViroLIEgy has a huge number of his articles researching the topic of virology. His archive is free. Dr. Sam Bailey does videos on these and related topics. Most are around 20 minutes long and they are all both informative and entertaining. And also free both on Substack and on her website.
I've checked out the Baileys... They're the most convincing voices on this issue that I'm aware of...
I'm still looking for a single article that I can direct people towards if their initial reaction.. "You don't believe in viruses??? That's crazy! Everyone believes in viruses, because... because... because SCIENCE!!!"
When I was starting to write about the nonexistence of viruses, I asked Mike Stone which of his articles he would recommend for someone who might be hearing about this for the first time. He gave me this list:
The first one might be a good place to start for those who cry "Science!" because it starts with explaining how virology doesn't follow the scientific method and is therefore pseudoscience. It then covers specific aspects of how virology does its experiments to show how they do not do what they say they do.
Once it was empirically established that washing hands prevented infection, the search was on for "contagious pathogenic entities" that might possibly explain the observation. The reason for this is obvious: no other possible explanation fit the observed data. The standard of proof in this instance was repeatability over thousands of cases where hand washing demonstrably reduced infection. Actually identifying the responsible pathogens came later as result of their existence being inferred from observation and various experiments being devised to isolate those pathogens.
"…one of the pivotal issues with virology was that it invented itself as a field before establishing if viruses actually existed. It has been trying to justify itself since its inception: In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. "
I could say the same thing about Physics. Dalton postulated the existence of atoms before they were observed. Thompson and Rutherford constructed experiments to test Dalton's theory, the important point being that the theory preceded the experiments. How could it be otherwise, and where's the evidence that suggests virology didn't follow the same method?
That said, no one has ever seen an atom, so why should I believe they exist?
I see no reason to contest the claim that improvements in sanitation, notably handwashing, improved public health and led to a decrease in contagious illness..
Yet someone here will probably tell me I'm wrong... hence the reason why you have to have a sense of humour with this debate... otherwise it's exasperating.
What's truly exasperating is when you've made a life's study of scientific and engineering advances, and the methodology and philosophy behind those advances, only to see the entire edifice under attack by people who either know nothing about the subject, or are doing so intentionally to discredit the scientific endeavour itself.
I find it hard to believe there isn't an active program on the part of our rulers designed to discredit science, since it's the only reliable method we have of establishing objective reality. Objective reality is the enemy of those who would rule over us, their preference being 'narratives' of which 'viruses don't exist' is very likely an example.
It's the old divide and rule, and unfortunately it works.
I have absolutely come to the conclusion that there is definitely an active (subversive) program on the part of the bad guys to discredit science. We also see this in other areas of study like history - where we have the emerging 'fake events' narrative (fuelled by manufactured 'fake photos' designed for that very purpose of rewriting history - I reckon their codename for this one's got something to do with Winston, like Winnie, or Churchill, or some other product of lateral thinking). I think you also mentioned the 'nukes aren't real' narrative too.
All of this is indeed psychologically designed to make us totally distrust 'what we know' and indeed 'sources of information' - such that at the end of it all, after this incessant cognitive dissonance, we are then forced to ask O'Brien to tell us how many fingers he's holding up, and believe whatever random number he comes up with.
I would even say it's the mother of all psyops. If we can't trust anything, history, science, our own judgement then we are utterly helpless and subjugated.
And I think that's the most important thing for us to be talking about and highlighting, rather than getting caught up in this or that ridiculous conspiracy theory.
I think your question about atoms was rhetorical, but I think the question merits real consideration. That's called epistemology, isn't it?
I personally doubt that an atom could be split in a way that would produce massive destruction - that simply doesn't compute to my brain. Now that we know "experts" are often such liars with credentials, we can no longer afford glib answers to such questions.
For the record: I believe in pathogens. I'm not sure that Tobin does. Maybe he can clarify his position here.
“The general public, however intelligent, are struck only by that which it takes little trouble to understand. They have been told that the interior of the body is something more or less like the contents of a vessel filled with wine, and that this interior is not injured – that we do not become ill, except when germs, originally created morbid, penetrate into it from without, and then become microbes.
The public do not know whether this is true; they do not even know what a microbe is, but they take it on the word of the master; they believe it because it is simple and easy to understand; they believe and they repeat that the microbe makes us ill without inquiring further, because they have not the leisure – nor, perhaps, the capacity – to probe to the depths that which they are asked to believe.”
"I personally doubt that an atom could be split in a way that would produce massive destruction - that simply doesn't compute to my brain."
Interesting that you bring that up because there's a parallel belief system to the viruses don't exist meme that says nuclear weapons don't exist.
Nuclear chain reactions (fission) aren't that hard to understand. Tons of material covering the process on the net, you just have to look for it.
There's a branch of epistemology called "intuitive physics." It investigates the role played by our innate reflexes in dealing with the physical world, and how we often fail to recognize basic dynamic principles (such as inertia) often with catastrophic results.
YouTube is chock full of examples of these failures, some of them funny, some of them tragic. The same habits that occur in intuitive physics also crop up when we try to understand complex processes, such as nuclear fisson or cellular biology. It all seems so incredibly complex and mind boggling that we tend to look for simple explanations, or simply dismiss the evidence we're presented with as incomprehensible.
Arthur C. Clark wrote that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." As a student of anthropology I'm sure you're familiar with the cargo cults of the Trobriand Islands. Well, that's also true of us. We tend to rationalize things we don't understand to make them fit into our preconceived notions of how things ought to work. Intuitive physics. We're not aware of it any more than the Trobriand people are of what they're doing, but our culture is rife with this sort of thinking. People don't like uncertainty. They like what they think they know, and if I appeal to that, then they'll believe me and in many cases follow me right off a cliff.
You would not be alone in wondering about the existence of atoms. Also DNA. Neural synapses. Cell membranes. And many of the structures and processes that biology teaches happen in cells. Science has been making pronouncements about how the body works with very little actual evidence for a long time. Check out Dr. Tom Cowan’s weekly webinars. He is calling these and other scientific beliefs into question and suggesting that science and culture in general need to up our epistemological game and get more rigorous in exploring how we know what we know.
I personally consider everything produced by academia since the late 60's suspect... Around that time there was a serious effort to stifle progress in the social sciences... which was largely successful. Anthropological theory largely failed to progress following the demise of Structuralism... and in retrospect poststructuralism seems like a deliberate ruling class effort to make sure the radical implications of structuralism were not realized...
I'd go farther back than that and question everything produced by academia period.. What is "social science" anyway? How can you apply the processes of science to human psychology, or to how culture arises and functions? How can anyone possibly study how humans lived millennia ago without looking through the lens of their own understanding and thereby likely misinterpreting what they think they are finding? I'm a skeptic on all that kind of "knowledge." And the role of the ruling class in all knowledge creation is a huge barrier to truth about anything. My opinion.
"Pay special attention to the terms dependent variable, independent variable and control which are all necessary and required under international standards of science for all scientific experiments."
No they're not, in fact control groups are in some cases highly unethical in clinical trials. That's why Dr. Didier Raoult broke his HCQ trial and administered to the entire group, because the effectiveness of HCQ+Zn+Azithromycin was empirically established and some patients in the control group would have otherwise died. You don't let your subjects die just to prove a point, but he was actually criticized for not doing that!
"necessary and required under international standards of science"
Where? Show me where these 'international standards" are codified. Plenty of scientific work lacks one or another of the conditions mentioned. Much of modern physics in fact. This fixation on 'control' is an artifact of medical research, not a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. Sheldon Cooper postulates the Coopertron and Leonard Hofstadter wrangles some time at CERN and sets up an experiment to test the hypothesis. He finds the Coopertron in the mass and energy range predicted, and repeats the experiment multiple times with the same result each time, thus validating the hypothesis. Where's the control in that situation? There isn't one. You either find the predicted particle or you don't.
After looking further, I conclude that I was in error about international standards. Somehow I got that idea in my head, but it is incorrect. I've added the following update to this article:
(Update: This last statement about international standards has been recognized by the author to be in error and is stricken. Regardless, control experiments are vital for validating experimental conclusions.)
Despite the lack of standards in this regard, control experiments are necessary especially in the case of cell cultures claimed to demonstrate the cytopathic effect of "viruses". In fact, during the measles virus trials in Germany (2014-2017) and again during the "Corona crisis", Dr. Stefan Lanka commissioned control experiments to be conducted to demonstrate whether cytopathic effects could be observed following standard cell culture practices and setups, with the addition of various chemicals at the same intervals as generally used, but minus ONE variable: the liquid sample alleged to contain a virus.
The results of the labs in both instances were the same: the pathogenic effects occurred just as they normally do with the addition of a "pathogenic" "viral" sample.
The only place I could find details of the first of these experiments was in this article:
OK, I finally got around to reading the article you posted and sorry, but I can't say I'm impressed, in fact Dr. Lanka sounds more like a polemicist than a scientist, and according to his German Wikipedia page he's known for tossing insults, which is heavily frowned on in any professional setting.
"In 2006, Lanka was fined for insulting a public prosecutor. In 2007 there was another conviction for insulting the head of the Stuttgart Health Department. In 2010, Lanka insulted employees of the Bautzen district office, whom he accused of “criminal energy and idiocy” in a fax. Lanka also received a penalty order for insulting Reinhard Kurth, who was then president of the Robert Koch Institute.[1]"
I don't have the time to verify these claims, but that aside, the article itself begins with an attack on someone I've never heard of, so I'm supposed to just take his word for it?
"My concern in this article is not to discredit anyone, or to diminish their work – with the exception Prof. Drosten; his title should be revoked with immediate effect. Prof. Drosten is in my eyes a felon who has been reported to the police several times, and for good reason. Among others by Dr. Stefan Lanka."
Anyone can report someone to the police. What is this guy, 12 years old? I'm going to call the cops! Then he comes out with this:
"Why don’t Bhakdi and co. conduct the required control experiments as requested by Dr. Stefan Lanka, among others?"
Perhaps because they have better things to do with their time than humour a known polemicist? Incidentally, the form of that sentence is what's called 'begging the question' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question> and is a red flag to anyone who understands the use of rhetoric.
Further down the piece, after he gets through insulting everyone, he finally quotes some papers, but no links. I did a search on Bech, V. & von Magnus, P. (1958) which he cites. Here's the link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13508250/
If I could find it that easily, why couldn't he post it himself? (note the rhetorical form here. I use it as well when I think it's appropriate). Perhaps because he doesn't want us looking too closely to see if what he says is actually supported in the paper? I have no way of knowing, and I'm not inclined to dig any deeper - first of all because I lack the qualifications and expertise to assess his argument, and second because I just don't like his style, and that for me speaks to character, which in turn speaks to trust.
I don't know if you've read Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' but it's an amazing book that strikes right at the heart of the problem of entrenched scientific paradigms and how they're eventually overthrown. A lot of people have read that book since it was first published in 1962, and I suspect that it's influence hasn't been entirely positive. What I mean by that is that some part of a generation of scientists, raised on that book, have used it as an excuse to challenge anything they feel isn't tightly nailed down, and sometimes even things that are. In Lanka's case, I think it's the latter.
An unfortunate truth is that scientists are just as susceptible to human failings as anyone else, perhaps more so, given their position and the pressures that come with it. Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory is a perfect parody of the syndrome. Overbearing, narcissistic to an extreme, and not always right. I don't know if Lanka is in that category, but plenty of scientists are. I call them Selective Skeptics, which is self-explanatory.
Two things are at work here that we ought to be aware of. The first is the effect of the medium we're using, what McLuhan called 'the hidden ground.' The internet (ground) has an amplifying effect on just about everything, the result being that things which before would never see the light of day, are suddenly in our face 24/7 whether they make any sense or not (more often than not they don't).
So the question for me is not 'do viruses exist' but why is the idea that they don't getting so much traction? To answer that you need to study the psychological effects of mass-media in the context of being continuously lied to by just about everyone in a position of authority - a syndrome which itself is a consequence of the media environment, i.e. you can't hide the truth for very long in a mass-media world. So along comes someone who challenges that authority, and the impulse (driven mainly by emotion) is to follow them because, well... they're challenging authority and must therefore be correct (logical fallacy).
The other thing that's happening here is disinformation. If I'm flying an Su-35 (God, I'd love to fly one of those things!) and a missile locks onto me, I have a couple of things I can do. Release some chaff (metallic strips to confuse the missile's optics) or flares (to confuse heat seeking missiles). In this case the Su-35 is the Cabal (or whatever you want to call them) and the chaff and flares are intentionally divisive, misleading or irrelevant information that distracts from the main objective, which is identifying the source of whatever the current problem is, in this case The Cabal (tm).
In intelligence parlance there are handlers, assets, and useful idiots. Handlers and assets can be nested to several degrees, and they don't have to know who they're actually working for to be effective. Handlers know they're handlers, while assets typically don't know they're assets. As for useful idiots, these are people who need no coaching, other than perhaps a little funding and the occasional appeal to their vanity. They're already on a path which serves the Cabal so they don't require much maintenance. Lanka probably fits that category.
Frankly, the issue of whether viruses exist or not is for me irrelevant compared to the bigger game that's afoot, which is an obvious attempt at global domination by a cabal that has no right to do that. My focus is on those guys and how to counter them using the only means at my disposal: Words. That's why I focus so heavily on semantics, because if you can expose the fallacies in their arguments, as well as their constant manufactured distractions, you might possibly get through to someone more capable of effecting change. It's a long shot, granted, but as mentioned, we are in a new media environment and that's where the battle is currently taking place. You can see this in the ratings for CNN or FOX. Falling like a stone. You also see the effect right here on Substack, where meaningful dialogue occasionally takes place. Ironically the term that best describes the potential of this medium is 'going viral.' Once an idea takes root it is very hard to overcome, and that works for us as well as them. So we chose our words carefully, and politely challenge ideas that take us off the path, while pointing out what, as investigators, we should be looking at instead, and hope someone picks up on that.
That's really the only reason I do this stuff. If we weren't under attack (which we clearly are) I probably wouldn't bother with social media at all, since I'd much rather be playing music:)
I hadn't read the article in a very long time. In fact, i didn't recall much of what you quoted and I wonder if the author may have even changed it. Regardless,, the reason I gave the link, as I said, was because it was the only article I could find in the English language that had details about the measles virus control experiment. There may be others, but I have yet to read any.
As for Professor Drosten, I am familiar with him as he is an important character in the Covid-19 pandemic, being one of the authors of the Charité Berlin Corman-Drosten paper describing their PCR test assay for SARS-CoV-2 before any of the Chinese studies had even been published and gaining worldwide recognition by the WHO the day before it was published by Ecosurveillance in which the authors had conflicting interests. There is also contention whether Professor Drosten has the degree he claims to have or whether he forged it. Drosten is the equivalant of Fauci in Germany. He's the person the government listened to to the exclusion of all dissenters. So it is not surprising to me that the author of the article, presumably a German, would have such negative things to say about him.
BTW, the Corman-Drosten PCR test was the most widely used THROUGHOUT THE WORLD because of it's early recommendation by the WHO. And I should think we all know WHO that is?
We're getting into some deep territory here and I'll have to go over that article carefully before I respond, but for the moment I'll say this. I agree with the need for controls in experimental research 'where possible.' (substack's editor lacks italics - a serious shortcoming)
I would also point out that control is often conflated with 'eliminating variables' which while related, are not the same thing. Some variables are difficult if not impossible to control for, while others may be hidden and not recognized until years later. So it's not as cut and dried and some would make it out to be.
I'd also point out how the concept has been abused recently by those claiming the mantle of 'science' Specifically, when HCQ and IVM were shown to be effective in reducing CV19 symptoms, they were rejected on the basis that no long term double-blind random controlled trials had been conducted. Well of course they hadn't. It was a novel pathogen (as reported) so how could a long term trial have been conducted, but besides that, who would fund such a trial? The same people denouncing the lack of same? A case of obvious conflicting interests.
Even worse, on that basis alone, even though both HCQ and IVM had outstanding safety records, doctors were denied the option to prescribe under the principle of informed consent, and even threatened with loss of their licence if they did so. This was unprecedented interference in long-accepted medical practice where off-label prescription is common when presented with an unknown pathogen.
The truth of the matter is that doctors that prescribe off-label drugs to treat unknown pathogens are actually following the scientific method, even if no controls are possible. You look at the symptoms presented, run the standard tests to eliminate known variables, and if you come up empty you ask yourself, what drugs in our tool kit have been effective in dealing with similar symptoms? It's actually a form of experimentation, and where informed consent is obtained there's nothing unethical about it, especially when the patient is obviously in distress and might possibly die.
I ran into this problem when trying to acquire IVM for myself and family and eventually had to import it from China. Good thing too, because my wife and I later became sick with what I conclude was CV19, although we were never tested. I base that assumption on the symptoms, which were unlike any flu or cold I'd ever experienced, and reports from others online who'd experienced similar symptoms. 12mg of IVM daily plus Zn + vitamin D knocked it down in 5 days. I couldn't get AZT, but it never advanced to our lungs so fortunately that wasn't required.
I credit Dr. Raoult and the late Dr. Zelenko for getting us through what could have been a very bad patch. I also credit Dr Ioannidis for his early work establishing the IFR of CV19, which while preliminary, later proved to be fairly accurate, which eliminated much of the fear component being pushed by the so-called health authorities, such as Bonnie Henry and that Tam creature.... from hell's heart I stab at thee!
Ironically, Ionnidis' study was also denounced, and he's the guy who wrote the book pointing out the systemic flaws in many scientific papers, so you'd think he would know how to avoid that trap!
I believed I recalled reading about control experiments being required under (current) international standards of science and actually looking up the webpage referring to that, but it was some time back and I can't find it again. Perhaps that's not the important point (whether it's some king of international standard) but rather the fact that without control experiments scientists can mislead themselves and come to wrong conclusions. (Note: in this article I was speaking primarily about the need for control experiments to test whether the observed cytopathic effect in culture experiments (in vitro) could be due to laboratory conditions and experiment setup rather than to an (assumed) pathogen. These "virus" cultures include many foreign substances and cytoxic chemicals (such as antibiotics). I was not referring to human or even animal trials, in this case.)
I submit this article which explains the need for controls.
"Controls also help to account for errors and variability in the experimental setup and measuring tools: The negative control of an enzyme assay, for instance, tests for any unrelated background signals from the assay or measurement. In short, controls are essential for the unbiased, objective observation and measurement of the dependent variable in response to the experimental setup.
The only way for systematically overcoming the limits of our sensory apparatus […] is through the Scientific Method, through hypothesis‐testing, controlled experimentation.
Nominally, both positive and negative controls are material and procedural; that is, they control for variability of the experimental materials and the procedure itself."
I wander the net like a Bedouin on a camel, stopping now and then to observe and occasionally join the conversation. One thing I've noticed on over a dozen sites that deal with the 'pandemic' is that whenever the subject of viruses comes up, there's always someone who'll make the claim that they don't exist, and if you challenge them, they often become hostile and even accuse you of being 'controlled opposition.' Not saying that's the case here, but the topic has been raised and it's still early:)
I find this curious. As far as I can tell, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, but what stands out about it is that the debate is always framed as a Hegelian dialectic, i.e. a choice between one or the other, but never both. Why can't it be both though? Why can't both theories be valid in certain circumstances? I don't see anything about them that makes them mutually exclusive, and yet the debate always degenerates into a polemic, pitting one camp against the other.
This to me looks like yet another control mechanism to keep us spinning our wheels so we never get up enough tour de force to actually do anything. I see the same thing with these endless conferences that Sen. Ron Johnson sponsors. Everybody gets to give wonderful talks and feel important, and they all have their photos taken with the Great Man (hello Jessica) but nothing ever comes of it. Where are the indictments? Where's the Grand Jury? It's been three f'n years already. Not enough evidence? A senior senator can't pass a recommendation to the Attorney General? Come on people. Where's the beef?
Also, when I point out that the guy sponsoring these events is a big supporter of Ukraine and a dyed in the wool Israeli Firster, all I hear is crickets. Same goes for RFK. I guess even scientists need their heroes, but my God, you'd think they could make better choices.
I should say that I have come to appreciate you ebear for more reasons than one. I respect your position and especially the fact that you have devoted much of your life to science.
I was very fond of science in high school and considered higher learning with a scientific focus. But it just wasn't in the cards for me. I ended up becoming a wandering nomad, studying whatever I could along the way. More of a nature boy than a man of society.
As far as, "couldn't it be both", I'm not sure what this refers to. Both what? I see many sides, not just two. But I have begun along a path and it has taken me far afield, needless to say. I don't despise science, I ask for real science, not just dished up beliefs sponsored by government and Big Pharma. Of course, many scientists are sincere, as I perceive you to be. But that does not discount that sincere motives can be misguided, especially when the foundational principles underlying the line of inquiry and method are left unquestioned.
Thanks. Just to be clear, I'm a not a scientist in the sense of having a degree or even having worked in the field. My main interest is the history of science as it relates to epistemology, which asks the question "how do we know, and how do we know that we know?" Philosophy of science would be another way of putting it, but I think epistemology captures it just as well if not better.
"As far as, "couldn't it be both", I'm not sure what this refers to. "
Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory. That's the usual ground of the debate between no-virus and virus camps, but not always of course, so I should have been clearer.
I pretty much agree with you on the rest. Science has definitely been corrupted, which is what I try to correct in my own small way by pointing to the principles and methods as opposed to institutions or individuals. We're at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater unless we understand the difference.
The debate about "germ theory" vs the terrain model doesn't always degenerate into a shouting match. There are lots of authentic advocates of the "no-virus" position who are calm and mature about presenting their arguments. I'd suggest that the ones who are verbally violent and create a big polarity over it may be recruited or paid to do that as a way of discrediting no-virus so it doesn't get into the mainstream, because I think the case for no virus is very strong if people are allowed to hear it, and one doesn't need to be a scientist to understand. (In fact, science or medical training may be a barrier to understanding, due to the level of indoctrination in the current model which has become such a massive economic engine.) If you want to hear my explanation of why both these paradigms can't be true, I've endeavored to explain it in my article called Why Our Terrain Is The Key To Health https://barn0346.substack.com/p/why-our-terrain-is-the-key-to-health.
I'm certain that "isolation" means "the condition of being alone".
If I were a "virus", and you couldn't see me, you could blame me for everything that goes wrong.
I'd be unable to defend myself because I can't speak.
Virology will end up in court one day and the judge might require the "accused" (the virus) to make an "appearance". That will be interesting to watch.
Fear is the mind-killer and taking refuge in logical fallacies to cover up for lack of actually studying a subject and just reading about it, then drawing lots of confirmation biases from followers a sign of societal collapse and a wee bit dunning-kruger.
Something made me produce flu-like symptoms a day after I went to a party where, unknown to me at the time, someone was showing the same symptoms. I am willing to bet that it wasn't meteorites, aluminium foil, wifi or bad hummous that caused it...
I haven't read the article yet but I shall do then probably comment again tomorrow, as I'm tired and about to go to bed.
But for now I'll just say two things.
1/ The entire 'terrain theory' or 'viruses & germs don't exist' is another psyop. Designed to cause distrust in genuine science and associate the 'anti-establishment movement' (i.e. the resistance) with lunatic theories (a bit like flat earth) - thus turning people off the resistance. This is a seriously important point and you seriously shouldn't fall for it. It also applies to other shit and nasty ideas that only serve to discredit the resistance.
2/ The one and only counter-argument you need to know, which the 'no germs' people can't possibly explain is the simple fucking existence of something called the 'adaptive immune system'. If there were no germs/viruses/etc. then there wouldn't be an adaptive immune system. It's something called 'evolution'.
I have been a professional medical translator for over 20 years so let's just say I understand medical fucking science here. Look up 'memory B cells' as a starting point.
I'm tired and I need to go to bed, so I'm not even going to elaborate on this right now. I call psyop on this one.
I personally believe in pathogens and germs... and I suspect there's an easy way to test this hypothesis. Simply host a shit-eating contest and see how much shit a person has to eat before getting sick.
As for viruses, though, I remain unconvinced. Virus-believers want us to believe that there exist living creatures that can go into suspended animation indefinitely... meaning that they don't meet the biological criteria to be considered organisms... I'm not buying it, personally. Is illness caused by pathogens? I think so. Are those pathogens viruses? Depends on what you mean by viruses. If by viruses, you mean invisible cooties that must be appeased through vaccination, I'm going with "FUCK THAT!"
I'm aware that not all virus skeptics believe in contagious illness, but I do, because that's what makes sense to my brain. I remain to be convinced otherwise.
I really suggest you read my Substack, starting with the first article and continuing in order. If you do, let me know if it helps you or convinces you.
#1 (haha) just because you 'translate' what the wonderful medical establishment puts down for diagnosis, does not make you a professional science anything.
#2 (haha) the psyop does not need anything else to disturb 'the resistance'. It is way disturbed by other real things.
#3 Next time you are tired & cranky, give yourself some rest before commenting (or venting). I am sure you probably would word things in a different way.
I've often wondered about Virii. The last time I went to the doctor, they drew blood and checked it. From the doc's own mouth. "We think you've caught the latest virus, but we aren't sure which it is. It's either RSV or the new one. If it's the new one, you'll probably be in the hospital in a week. Until then, have this anti-biotic."
My old family doc used to say, "You've got the cold or flu bug. Get plenty of sleep, get vitamin C, and get some sunlight." He didn't prescribe anti-biotics all the time.
From what I recall, Anti-biotics are used against bacteria.
How do you go about establishing that something doesn't exist? What's the methodology?
That's my point! The "proof" that virologists have offered before the existence of viruses are inadequate and insufficient... yet the virus skeptics are expected to prove that viruses don't exist, which is literally impossible! That's the joke.
The "proof" that virologists have offered before the existence of viruses are inadequate and insufficient...
On what basis do you make that determination? Certainly not on some book written by a couple of doctors with little or no expertise in the field?
I studied the immune system in the early 80s, not as a medical student, but as part of a project on developing computer based information systems. I was looking at how the immune system deals with viruses - specifically the signalling processes to see what analogies I could find to computer based information systems.
What I learned was that viruses are nothing out of the ordinary, in fact they follow the same structural rules and use the same proteins as cells in general. They have an envelope of lipids, similar to our own cells, receptors that attach to cells just as signalling molecules in the immune system do, and they contain genetic code, just like our own cells do. The only difference is they lack the ability to reproduce, and thus need a host cell to do so. Again, nothing surprising. Viruses are probably precursors to self-replicating cells that found an adaptive niche by hijacking cells that had already achieved self-replication. Under that model the immune system developed as a protective mechanism against them (and other pathogens) and the rest, as they say, is history.
Here's something most people don't know. Not all viruses are pathogens.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21200397/
And not all cells developed independently, in fact symbiosis is a common feature of most living systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion
From 1981 for about 10 years until it stopped being a peer reviewed journal, I read every issue of Scientific American cover to cover [*]. The ground work on viruses and the immune system was laid 100 years ago, and since then it's been a case of nailing down the details, which I would argue has been very successful, and which SA covered in great detail.
The difference between then and now is that we have this thing called the internet where just about anyone can post their 'theory' of whatever, and by sheer dint of numbers they'll gain a following. It's a perfect example of what Korzybski called a 'belief system.' They spring up everywhere now, like dandelions after a spring rain, and to imagine that the powers who wish to deceive us wouldn't notice and take advantage of that phenomenon is extremely naive.
[*] I was probably trying to compensate for the fact that, owing to family issues, I missed the opportunity to go to university and had to settle for tech college on my own dime.
Thanks - the content of this comment means I don't have to replicate it in a comment of my own.
The fundamental point is quite simple - the adaptive immune system simply wouldn't exist if there were no pathogens, including viruses. Or, if there were, say 'bacteria' but not viruses, then the immune system would not know how to deal with viruses. It's a smoke and fire analogy perhaps.
Furthermore body chemistry, as you say, is an extremely complex area with a myriad lab chemistry reactions to infections readily discernible in blood tests carried out every minute.
Anyway, not much more need be said, except to say critique of methodology is not the same as concluding viruses don't exist - that's another logical fallacy.
I liked the bit about symbiosis - I am definitely of the school of though which suggests that viruses have been a fundamental part of evolution (of humans as well as other animals). Indeed, the existence of reverse transcriptase could also suggest that humans are, in fact, part virus themselves (I mean certain bodily processes). A human body is a collection of organisms, rather than one single organism. Life itself is a symbiosis. Likewise, the fact that viruses predate humans suggests humans evolved to be immune to a large extent. In this sense, viruses are beneficial. An obvious one is how you get lots of colds in childhood, helping to build a varied immunity, and then catch them much more rarely in adulthood.
I think a more interesting question to look at, which doesn't involve any misdirection about 'viruses don't exist' is about the degree to which some viruses can be harmful, if at all, versus the thousands and thousands of passenger viruses with whom we share a symbiotic relationship - a bit like the use of bacteriophages as opposed to antibiotics (thus avoiding the resistance issue). Something like HIV, for example, would actually have a beneficial effect for someone with a healthy, functioning immune system because it sort of keeps it on its toes, so to speak (it's a very weak virus). So the real question is more about the effect and interaction of these fascinating and exceptionally ancient organisms - maybe that's the 'secret research' they don't want us to think about...
I lean toward the idea of symbiosis as well. Example: mitochondria as ancient bacteria becoming part of the cells of more complex organisms.
But I object to the use of the word "virus" in this context because the history of the use of this word has indicated a pathogenic substance or entity and it comes from the latin for poison. I believe it would be much better if scientists describe what they actually observe rather than attaching such misleading labels to things.
Very interesting! Are we within striking distance of a synthesis of supposedly irreconcilable positions?
I would certainly agree with you about the word 'virus', for sure. It's not really the right word to use for a symbiotic lifeform!
And I do think this is a more appropriate question - not 'do these organisms exist' but 'what are they?' and 'what is our relationship with them?' 'Are they harmful or not, if so to what extent?'.
And similar questions. From that point of view, arguing about whether or not they exist seems something of a misdirection.
My objection to the virus hypothesis hinges on my unwillingness to believe that a biological organism can put itself on pause... which is what viruses supposedly do. What's the lifespan of a virus, for instance? Oh, there isn't one? They can just exist is suspended animation indefinitely, waiting patiently for the the opportunity to strike?
I'm no biologist, but I think I know something about life. All biological organisms age, feed, excrete, breathe, etc... it's either an organism or it's not. And if can't reproduce unassisted, it's not an organism.
I honestly can't follow the debate when it gets into the finer points, but that's my hill to die on. If viruses don't adhere to the criteria for biological organisms, they're not biological organisms.
You're either alive or you're not.
Interesting!
There are observable particles that exist. The question is not whether such particles exist, but what is their origin; what is their nature; do they have distinct characteristics that define them; what is their chemical makeup; do they cause disease; is "virus" an appropriate name for them or would other less heavily loaded terms be more appropriate, such as microvesicle, endosome, exosome, etc. As you have pointed out, there are "viruses" that are thought to be symbiotic rather than disease-causing, but then why call them "viruses" (latin: poisin, putrid pus). The word virus has been used since the 1800s to denote a disease-causing (liquid) substance. IMO it would be best just to drop the term "virus" altogether because it is so confusing, not just to lay people but to scientists themselves. Just call it what you see: a particle. Then do the appropriate experiments to determine the nature of that particle (i.e. if you can manage to separate or purify like (i.e. homogenous) particles, which isn't done in virology except in the case of the bacterial phages, which do not have the character of "viruses" though they are often called that.)
As a student of Alfred Korzybski and Stuart Chase, I'm all for giving things names that properly describe their function, but we seem to be stuck with 'virus' for the time being. That's a different issue from claiming viruses don't exist however. If we're talking about a genetic sequence contained in a lipid envelope with receptors for animal or plant cells that allow that sequence to enter the cell and use the cell's mechanisms to replicate its constituent parts and build new copies, then I'd have to argue that such a thing exists. Otherwise how would you explain the mechanism used in the Sputnik V vaccine, which use an adenovirus vector to deliver the DNA for the S protein? If viruses don't exist, then what are they using?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenovirus_genome
You probably can’t establish that anything doesn’t exist. But if you’re going to lock down the world, force millions to get an injection into their bodies, and enforce many other protocols that maim and kill because of a disease-causing particle you claim is life-threatening, there must be positive evidence that the particle exists. That evidence is completely lacking for viruses. I say they don’t exist because as far as is known right now, they don’t.
hear, hear!
And unlike believing in viruses, believing in leprechauns is FUN!!!
Well that gets the Dept. of Defence off the hook then. (DARPA, Fort Detrick, Chapel Hill, EcoHealth Alliance etc.), If viruses don't exist, then they couldn't have manufactured one and released it could they? So all those labs in eastern Europe were set up just to make us think that viruses exist, and 'gain of function' was what? Just another trick to get us to believe in viruses? What about the data the Russian govt. has from captured labs in Ukraine? Is that also a ruse to get us to believe in viruses?
You have to look at ALL the data, not just the data that supports your argument.
Whatever they are doing in those labs, it is not manipulating viruses. I’m sure they have released a variety of technological and chemical poisons into the environment. And no, understanding that viruses don’t exist definitely doesn’t let anybody off the hook. What was done during the last four years is the most massive crime against humanity imaginable. They’re all responsible. In my opinion, it makes it even worse that they perpetrated that abomination on the world, knowing that there were no viruses, because I am sure that they know that. A big part of the psyop has been making everybody afraid of something that doesn’t exist.
"A big part of the psyop has been making everybody afraid of something that doesn’t exist."
Or the psyop could be to get you to believe that viruses don't exist. That would be convenient if investigators were nipping at your heels over something that came from a lab that you financed. It's like that old saying about the devil's greatest trick being to get you to believe he doesn't exist.
There’s also no evidence of bioweapons or gain of function going on. Those are more false narratives designed to increase the level of fear. Dr. Sam Bailey has a number of videos explaining why these things don’t exist. She’s on Substack , and easy to find.
"Those are more false narratives designed to increase the level of fear."
Listen to yourself. You state that as if it were a fact, but where's your evidence? Sam Bailey?
Doctors are medical practitioners, that is to say they learn established practice, much of that through memorization. Ask anyone in med school. They're not theoretical or experimental scientists and are thus not qualified to make categorical statements about other people's disciplines, especially when those statements take the form of denying something exists. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, and yet they're trying to do exactly that. That's NOT science, that's ideology.
Prove to me that God exists. It's the same problem. You can't. That doesn't mean there isn't a God, simply that we have no proof other than people's willingness to believe.
Look, humanity has been assaulted in the most heinous manner imaginable these last three years. Beyond anything most people could ever imagine. That's traumatic and leads to all kinds of coping mechanisms, of which the perpetrators are well aware. So is it not beyond imagining that they might also promote beliefs designed to throw us off the trail? A trail that leads to the actual perpetrators. Do criminals intentionally leave clues lying around, or do they try to cover their tracks? So how can you tell the difference between a genuine clue and one designed to throw you off the trail? Because some husband and wife team promoting their notion of how science works said so?
Controversy sells. In this case it sells books of which Sam Bailey has three on offer. I have over 100 scientific papers, both pre-print and peer reviewed from dozens of research groups that deal with various aspects of Sars-Cov2, none of which cost me a dime. If this claim the Bailey's are making is so groundbreaking, then why are they selling books and not making their findings freely available to the scientific community?
The sad truth of the matter is that it's not just Big Pharma making coin off of other people's misery. Is this a case of that? Not sure, but I'm definitely suspicious of their motives.
I think it's a lot easier to see how Big Pharma makes billions off the belief in virology than to see how anyone makes money off of people doubting the so-called "settled science". Canada apparently just threw out millions upon millions of dollar of expired COVID vaxxes whille continuing to order more. They're making a killing off virology.
That's exactly right. The whole field of virology, testing, research, vaccines, etc. etc. etc. It's a trillion dollar industry. Nobody makes money by denying viruses. They get fired, demoted, smeared. (Sam Bailey and many others among them.)
You're level mixing here buddy. One is a multi-billion dollar scam, the other is someone trying to make a living after losing her job, and since she worked in the media before, it seems natural that she'd stick with what she knows, which is in fact what she's done.
From her website: https://drsambailey.com/about-dr-sam-bailey/
"Sam is a co-author of the number 1 best seller in Amazon Microbiology Science: ‘Virus Mania’ which examines how the medical industry continually invents epidemics to make billion-dollar profits at our expense."
I don't begrudge her trying to make a living, but I'm less enthusiastic about her assertions, and those of her camp in general. Also, while there's no multi-billion dollar market for books of this nature, there doesn't have to be to make a pretty good living at it. So I have to ask, what are her actual priorities?
Dr. Saeed Qureshi (not a medical doctor but a scientist) makes the same point about physicians as you are making. In fact, he blames (majority) physicians for misinterpreting the claims of virology.
He worked for 30 years for Health Canada as an research scientist whose expertise is in analytical chemistry.
https://bioanalyticx.com/my-training-and-expertise-people-ask/
As for the Bailey's, Sam Bailey worked for a decade in clinical trials. Mark has a number of degrees in science, not just medicine.
It was the Covid fraud that woke them up and they began questioning things then, which led them down a path of discovery. They discovered the Perth Group of Australia led by the highly qualified Elani Papadopoulos . The Perth Group was among the first to question the AIDS virus and produced the seminal work "HIV, a virus like no other".
(see theperthgroup.com)
From that time, the Bailey's began doing heavy research, reading innumerable original scientific articles and coming to conclusions that were very different from what their medical training had taught them. But they were not the first. There were many others before them, especially from the AIDS virus skeptic camp: Etienne de Harven, evolutionary biologist Stefan Lanka and others.
Etienne de Harven cast doubt on the connection between AIDS and the HIV virus. Show me where he cast doubt on the existence of viruses themselves please.
Also, I've read several papers like this one https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202102.0264/v1 that speak about the furin cleavage site on the Sars-cov2 virus. How would they be able to identify that site if they hadn't sequenced the genome? Are they just making shit up? I must have read a dozen papers over the last few years that point to unnatural inserts in the virus, so what are they looking at, and why the claims that the genome has never been sequenced when the entire human genome has been sequenced as of 2003? Sequencing a viral genome is trivial by comparison.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and to date I haven't seen any. Just critiques of methodology which are valid in themselves, but that don't prove that viruses don't exist. How can they, since you can't prove a negative?
I'd also point out that work on viruses has been ongoing worldwide for decades now, and to assume that the thousands of people involved in that research have somehow missed the boat, or are part of some massive disinformation campaign just beggars belief.
The following is an excerpt from a very long article on GOF citing many (very many) mainstream articles.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/07/gain-of-fiction/
I will only provide one of those citations followed by the author's commentary.
-----
“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.
There's a significant difference between believing in Sasquatch and believing in viruses: the virus narrative has been and is continuing to be used to cause tremendous harm to people and, less directly, to earth. It is a narrative of disempowerment and control. It was the entire foundation of the recent plandemic and a major factor in the efforts to establish a digital prison and herd us all into it. It's also the basis of the childhood vaccine schedule that has killed and maimed countless babies and children. Of course, people believe what they will--but believing in Sasquatch or flat earth or fairies is personal and affects no one else. Viruses are an entirely different kind of false narrative that needs to be understood for what it is. (My Substack, This Changes Everything, deals with the reasons why I think it's important that people know viruses do not exist. I invite you to check it out.)
Sure, I'll check it out! Do you have any "ABC's of virus skepticism"? I've been doing for a handy-dandy intro guide...
I'd suggest checking out two Substacks: Mike Stone's ViroLIEgy has a huge number of his articles researching the topic of virology. His archive is free. Dr. Sam Bailey does videos on these and related topics. Most are around 20 minutes long and they are all both informative and entertaining. And also free both on Substack and on her website.
I've checked out the Baileys... They're the most convincing voices on this issue that I'm aware of...
I'm still looking for a single article that I can direct people towards if their initial reaction.. "You don't believe in viruses??? That's crazy! Everyone believes in viruses, because... because... because SCIENCE!!!"
When I was starting to write about the nonexistence of viruses, I asked Mike Stone which of his articles he would recommend for someone who might be hearing about this for the first time. He gave me this list:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/26/introduction-to-viroliegy/
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/the-germ-theory-house-of-cards
https://viroliegy.com/2024/01/19/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-6-the-germ-duel/
https://viroliegy.com/2023/09/08/the-indirect-approach/
The first one might be a good place to start for those who cry "Science!" because it starts with explaining how virology doesn't follow the scientific method and is therefore pseudoscience. It then covers specific aspects of how virology does its experiments to show how they do not do what they say they do.
The other articles are also good.
Very important distinction indeed!
"Scientists of the mid and late nineteenth century were preoccupied with the identification of imagined contagious pathogenic entities…"
Indeed they were, and for good reason.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144018/
Once it was empirically established that washing hands prevented infection, the search was on for "contagious pathogenic entities" that might possibly explain the observation. The reason for this is obvious: no other possible explanation fit the observed data. The standard of proof in this instance was repeatability over thousands of cases where hand washing demonstrably reduced infection. Actually identifying the responsible pathogens came later as result of their existence being inferred from observation and various experiments being devised to isolate those pathogens.
"…one of the pivotal issues with virology was that it invented itself as a field before establishing if viruses actually existed. It has been trying to justify itself since its inception: In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. "
I could say the same thing about Physics. Dalton postulated the existence of atoms before they were observed. Thompson and Rutherford constructed experiments to test Dalton's theory, the important point being that the theory preceded the experiments. How could it be otherwise, and where's the evidence that suggests virology didn't follow the same method?
That said, no one has ever seen an atom, so why should I believe they exist?
I see no reason to contest the claim that improvements in sanitation, notably handwashing, improved public health and led to a decrease in contagious illness..
Yet someone here will probably tell me I'm wrong... hence the reason why you have to have a sense of humour with this debate... otherwise it's exasperating.
What's truly exasperating is when you've made a life's study of scientific and engineering advances, and the methodology and philosophy behind those advances, only to see the entire edifice under attack by people who either know nothing about the subject, or are doing so intentionally to discredit the scientific endeavour itself.
I find it hard to believe there isn't an active program on the part of our rulers designed to discredit science, since it's the only reliable method we have of establishing objective reality. Objective reality is the enemy of those who would rule over us, their preference being 'narratives' of which 'viruses don't exist' is very likely an example.
It's the old divide and rule, and unfortunately it works.
I have absolutely come to the conclusion that there is definitely an active (subversive) program on the part of the bad guys to discredit science. We also see this in other areas of study like history - where we have the emerging 'fake events' narrative (fuelled by manufactured 'fake photos' designed for that very purpose of rewriting history - I reckon their codename for this one's got something to do with Winston, like Winnie, or Churchill, or some other product of lateral thinking). I think you also mentioned the 'nukes aren't real' narrative too.
All of this is indeed psychologically designed to make us totally distrust 'what we know' and indeed 'sources of information' - such that at the end of it all, after this incessant cognitive dissonance, we are then forced to ask O'Brien to tell us how many fingers he's holding up, and believe whatever random number he comes up with.
I would even say it's the mother of all psyops. If we can't trust anything, history, science, our own judgement then we are utterly helpless and subjugated.
And I think that's the most important thing for us to be talking about and highlighting, rather than getting caught up in this or that ridiculous conspiracy theory.
I think your question about atoms was rhetorical, but I think the question merits real consideration. That's called epistemology, isn't it?
I personally doubt that an atom could be split in a way that would produce massive destruction - that simply doesn't compute to my brain. Now that we know "experts" are often such liars with credentials, we can no longer afford glib answers to such questions.
For the record: I believe in pathogens. I'm not sure that Tobin does. Maybe he can clarify his position here.
From a real scientist...
“The general public, however intelligent, are struck only by that which it takes little trouble to understand. They have been told that the interior of the body is something more or less like the contents of a vessel filled with wine, and that this interior is not injured – that we do not become ill, except when germs, originally created morbid, penetrate into it from without, and then become microbes.
The public do not know whether this is true; they do not even know what a microbe is, but they take it on the word of the master; they believe it because it is simple and easy to understand; they believe and they repeat that the microbe makes us ill without inquiring further, because they have not the leisure – nor, perhaps, the capacity – to probe to the depths that which they are asked to believe.”
-Antoine Bechamp
"I personally doubt that an atom could be split in a way that would produce massive destruction - that simply doesn't compute to my brain."
Interesting that you bring that up because there's a parallel belief system to the viruses don't exist meme that says nuclear weapons don't exist.
Nuclear chain reactions (fission) aren't that hard to understand. Tons of material covering the process on the net, you just have to look for it.
There's a branch of epistemology called "intuitive physics." It investigates the role played by our innate reflexes in dealing with the physical world, and how we often fail to recognize basic dynamic principles (such as inertia) often with catastrophic results.
YouTube is chock full of examples of these failures, some of them funny, some of them tragic. The same habits that occur in intuitive physics also crop up when we try to understand complex processes, such as nuclear fisson or cellular biology. It all seems so incredibly complex and mind boggling that we tend to look for simple explanations, or simply dismiss the evidence we're presented with as incomprehensible.
Arthur C. Clark wrote that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." As a student of anthropology I'm sure you're familiar with the cargo cults of the Trobriand Islands. Well, that's also true of us. We tend to rationalize things we don't understand to make them fit into our preconceived notions of how things ought to work. Intuitive physics. We're not aware of it any more than the Trobriand people are of what they're doing, but our culture is rife with this sort of thinking. People don't like uncertainty. They like what they think they know, and if I appeal to that, then they'll believe me and in many cases follow me right off a cliff.
Keep in mind the fact that all "magic" involves "deliberate deception" by a person who has perfected the "art of deception".
I agree with Tobin. Sam Bailey also has some great videos on this topic.
You would not be alone in wondering about the existence of atoms. Also DNA. Neural synapses. Cell membranes. And many of the structures and processes that biology teaches happen in cells. Science has been making pronouncements about how the body works with very little actual evidence for a long time. Check out Dr. Tom Cowan’s weekly webinars. He is calling these and other scientific beliefs into question and suggesting that science and culture in general need to up our epistemological game and get more rigorous in exploring how we know what we know.
I personally consider everything produced by academia since the late 60's suspect... Around that time there was a serious effort to stifle progress in the social sciences... which was largely successful. Anthropological theory largely failed to progress following the demise of Structuralism... and in retrospect poststructuralism seems like a deliberate ruling class effort to make sure the radical implications of structuralism were not realized...
I'd go farther back than that and question everything produced by academia period.. What is "social science" anyway? How can you apply the processes of science to human psychology, or to how culture arises and functions? How can anyone possibly study how humans lived millennia ago without looking through the lens of their own understanding and thereby likely misinterpreting what they think they are finding? I'm a skeptic on all that kind of "knowledge." And the role of the ruling class in all knowledge creation is a huge barrier to truth about anything. My opinion.
"Pay special attention to the terms dependent variable, independent variable and control which are all necessary and required under international standards of science for all scientific experiments."
No they're not, in fact control groups are in some cases highly unethical in clinical trials. That's why Dr. Didier Raoult broke his HCQ trial and administered to the entire group, because the effectiveness of HCQ+Zn+Azithromycin was empirically established and some patients in the control group would have otherwise died. You don't let your subjects die just to prove a point, but he was actually criticized for not doing that!
"necessary and required under international standards of science"
Where? Show me where these 'international standards" are codified. Plenty of scientific work lacks one or another of the conditions mentioned. Much of modern physics in fact. This fixation on 'control' is an artifact of medical research, not a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. Sheldon Cooper postulates the Coopertron and Leonard Hofstadter wrangles some time at CERN and sets up an experiment to test the hypothesis. He finds the Coopertron in the mass and energy range predicted, and repeats the experiment multiple times with the same result each time, thus validating the hypothesis. Where's the control in that situation? There isn't one. You either find the predicted particle or you don't.
After looking further, I conclude that I was in error about international standards. Somehow I got that idea in my head, but it is incorrect. I've added the following update to this article:
(Update: This last statement about international standards has been recognized by the author to be in error and is stricken. Regardless, control experiments are vital for validating experimental conclusions.)
Despite the lack of standards in this regard, control experiments are necessary especially in the case of cell cultures claimed to demonstrate the cytopathic effect of "viruses". In fact, during the measles virus trials in Germany (2014-2017) and again during the "Corona crisis", Dr. Stefan Lanka commissioned control experiments to be conducted to demonstrate whether cytopathic effects could be observed following standard cell culture practices and setups, with the addition of various chemicals at the same intervals as generally used, but minus ONE variable: the liquid sample alleged to contain a virus.
The results of the labs in both instances were the same: the pathogenic effects occurred just as they normally do with the addition of a "pathogenic" "viral" sample.
The only place I could find details of the first of these experiments was in this article:
http://thdrussell.blogspot.com/2020/09/open-appeal-to-virologists-from.html
OK, I finally got around to reading the article you posted and sorry, but I can't say I'm impressed, in fact Dr. Lanka sounds more like a polemicist than a scientist, and according to his German Wikipedia page he's known for tossing insults, which is heavily frowned on in any professional setting.
"In 2006, Lanka was fined for insulting a public prosecutor. In 2007 there was another conviction for insulting the head of the Stuttgart Health Department. In 2010, Lanka insulted employees of the Bautzen district office, whom he accused of “criminal energy and idiocy” in a fax. Lanka also received a penalty order for insulting Reinhard Kurth, who was then president of the Robert Koch Institute.[1]"
I don't have the time to verify these claims, but that aside, the article itself begins with an attack on someone I've never heard of, so I'm supposed to just take his word for it?
"My concern in this article is not to discredit anyone, or to diminish their work – with the exception Prof. Drosten; his title should be revoked with immediate effect. Prof. Drosten is in my eyes a felon who has been reported to the police several times, and for good reason. Among others by Dr. Stefan Lanka."
Anyone can report someone to the police. What is this guy, 12 years old? I'm going to call the cops! Then he comes out with this:
"Why don’t Bhakdi and co. conduct the required control experiments as requested by Dr. Stefan Lanka, among others?"
Perhaps because they have better things to do with their time than humour a known polemicist? Incidentally, the form of that sentence is what's called 'begging the question' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question> and is a red flag to anyone who understands the use of rhetoric.
Further down the piece, after he gets through insulting everyone, he finally quotes some papers, but no links. I did a search on Bech, V. & von Magnus, P. (1958) which he cites. Here's the link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13508250/
If I could find it that easily, why couldn't he post it himself? (note the rhetorical form here. I use it as well when I think it's appropriate). Perhaps because he doesn't want us looking too closely to see if what he says is actually supported in the paper? I have no way of knowing, and I'm not inclined to dig any deeper - first of all because I lack the qualifications and expertise to assess his argument, and second because I just don't like his style, and that for me speaks to character, which in turn speaks to trust.
I don't know if you've read Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' but it's an amazing book that strikes right at the heart of the problem of entrenched scientific paradigms and how they're eventually overthrown. A lot of people have read that book since it was first published in 1962, and I suspect that it's influence hasn't been entirely positive. What I mean by that is that some part of a generation of scientists, raised on that book, have used it as an excuse to challenge anything they feel isn't tightly nailed down, and sometimes even things that are. In Lanka's case, I think it's the latter.
https://oceanofpdf.com/authors/thomas-s-kuhn/pdf-epub-the-structure-of-scientific-revolutions-download-60984829539/
An unfortunate truth is that scientists are just as susceptible to human failings as anyone else, perhaps more so, given their position and the pressures that come with it. Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory is a perfect parody of the syndrome. Overbearing, narcissistic to an extreme, and not always right. I don't know if Lanka is in that category, but plenty of scientists are. I call them Selective Skeptics, which is self-explanatory.
Two things are at work here that we ought to be aware of. The first is the effect of the medium we're using, what McLuhan called 'the hidden ground.' The internet (ground) has an amplifying effect on just about everything, the result being that things which before would never see the light of day, are suddenly in our face 24/7 whether they make any sense or not (more often than not they don't).
So the question for me is not 'do viruses exist' but why is the idea that they don't getting so much traction? To answer that you need to study the psychological effects of mass-media in the context of being continuously lied to by just about everyone in a position of authority - a syndrome which itself is a consequence of the media environment, i.e. you can't hide the truth for very long in a mass-media world. So along comes someone who challenges that authority, and the impulse (driven mainly by emotion) is to follow them because, well... they're challenging authority and must therefore be correct (logical fallacy).
The other thing that's happening here is disinformation. If I'm flying an Su-35 (God, I'd love to fly one of those things!) and a missile locks onto me, I have a couple of things I can do. Release some chaff (metallic strips to confuse the missile's optics) or flares (to confuse heat seeking missiles). In this case the Su-35 is the Cabal (or whatever you want to call them) and the chaff and flares are intentionally divisive, misleading or irrelevant information that distracts from the main objective, which is identifying the source of whatever the current problem is, in this case The Cabal (tm).
In intelligence parlance there are handlers, assets, and useful idiots. Handlers and assets can be nested to several degrees, and they don't have to know who they're actually working for to be effective. Handlers know they're handlers, while assets typically don't know they're assets. As for useful idiots, these are people who need no coaching, other than perhaps a little funding and the occasional appeal to their vanity. They're already on a path which serves the Cabal so they don't require much maintenance. Lanka probably fits that category.
Frankly, the issue of whether viruses exist or not is for me irrelevant compared to the bigger game that's afoot, which is an obvious attempt at global domination by a cabal that has no right to do that. My focus is on those guys and how to counter them using the only means at my disposal: Words. That's why I focus so heavily on semantics, because if you can expose the fallacies in their arguments, as well as their constant manufactured distractions, you might possibly get through to someone more capable of effecting change. It's a long shot, granted, but as mentioned, we are in a new media environment and that's where the battle is currently taking place. You can see this in the ratings for CNN or FOX. Falling like a stone. You also see the effect right here on Substack, where meaningful dialogue occasionally takes place. Ironically the term that best describes the potential of this medium is 'going viral.' Once an idea takes root it is very hard to overcome, and that works for us as well as them. So we chose our words carefully, and politely challenge ideas that take us off the path, while pointing out what, as investigators, we should be looking at instead, and hope someone picks up on that.
That's really the only reason I do this stuff. If we weren't under attack (which we clearly are) I probably wouldn't bother with social media at all, since I'd much rather be playing music:)
I hadn't read the article in a very long time. In fact, i didn't recall much of what you quoted and I wonder if the author may have even changed it. Regardless,, the reason I gave the link, as I said, was because it was the only article I could find in the English language that had details about the measles virus control experiment. There may be others, but I have yet to read any.
As for Professor Drosten, I am familiar with him as he is an important character in the Covid-19 pandemic, being one of the authors of the Charité Berlin Corman-Drosten paper describing their PCR test assay for SARS-CoV-2 before any of the Chinese studies had even been published and gaining worldwide recognition by the WHO the day before it was published by Ecosurveillance in which the authors had conflicting interests. There is also contention whether Professor Drosten has the degree he claims to have or whether he forged it. Drosten is the equivalant of Fauci in Germany. He's the person the government listened to to the exclusion of all dissenters. So it is not surprising to me that the author of the article, presumably a German, would have such negative things to say about him.
BTW, the Corman-Drosten PCR test was the most widely used THROUGHOUT THE WORLD because of it's early recommendation by the WHO. And I should think we all know WHO that is?
We're getting into some deep territory here and I'll have to go over that article carefully before I respond, but for the moment I'll say this. I agree with the need for controls in experimental research 'where possible.' (substack's editor lacks italics - a serious shortcoming)
I would also point out that control is often conflated with 'eliminating variables' which while related, are not the same thing. Some variables are difficult if not impossible to control for, while others may be hidden and not recognized until years later. So it's not as cut and dried and some would make it out to be.
I'd also point out how the concept has been abused recently by those claiming the mantle of 'science' Specifically, when HCQ and IVM were shown to be effective in reducing CV19 symptoms, they were rejected on the basis that no long term double-blind random controlled trials had been conducted. Well of course they hadn't. It was a novel pathogen (as reported) so how could a long term trial have been conducted, but besides that, who would fund such a trial? The same people denouncing the lack of same? A case of obvious conflicting interests.
Even worse, on that basis alone, even though both HCQ and IVM had outstanding safety records, doctors were denied the option to prescribe under the principle of informed consent, and even threatened with loss of their licence if they did so. This was unprecedented interference in long-accepted medical practice where off-label prescription is common when presented with an unknown pathogen.
The truth of the matter is that doctors that prescribe off-label drugs to treat unknown pathogens are actually following the scientific method, even if no controls are possible. You look at the symptoms presented, run the standard tests to eliminate known variables, and if you come up empty you ask yourself, what drugs in our tool kit have been effective in dealing with similar symptoms? It's actually a form of experimentation, and where informed consent is obtained there's nothing unethical about it, especially when the patient is obviously in distress and might possibly die.
I ran into this problem when trying to acquire IVM for myself and family and eventually had to import it from China. Good thing too, because my wife and I later became sick with what I conclude was CV19, although we were never tested. I base that assumption on the symptoms, which were unlike any flu or cold I'd ever experienced, and reports from others online who'd experienced similar symptoms. 12mg of IVM daily plus Zn + vitamin D knocked it down in 5 days. I couldn't get AZT, but it never advanced to our lungs so fortunately that wasn't required.
I credit Dr. Raoult and the late Dr. Zelenko for getting us through what could have been a very bad patch. I also credit Dr Ioannidis for his early work establishing the IFR of CV19, which while preliminary, later proved to be fairly accurate, which eliminated much of the fear component being pushed by the so-called health authorities, such as Bonnie Henry and that Tam creature.... from hell's heart I stab at thee!
Ironically, Ionnidis' study was also denounced, and he's the guy who wrote the book pointing out the systemic flaws in many scientific papers, so you'd think he would know how to avoid that trap!
I believed I recalled reading about control experiments being required under (current) international standards of science and actually looking up the webpage referring to that, but it was some time back and I can't find it again. Perhaps that's not the important point (whether it's some king of international standard) but rather the fact that without control experiments scientists can mislead themselves and come to wrong conclusions. (Note: in this article I was speaking primarily about the need for control experiments to test whether the observed cytopathic effect in culture experiments (in vitro) could be due to laboratory conditions and experiment setup rather than to an (assumed) pathogen. These "virus" cultures include many foreign substances and cytoxic chemicals (such as antibiotics). I was not referring to human or even animal trials, in this case.)
I submit this article which explains the need for controls.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6776925/
"Controls also help to account for errors and variability in the experimental setup and measuring tools: The negative control of an enzyme assay, for instance, tests for any unrelated background signals from the assay or measurement. In short, controls are essential for the unbiased, objective observation and measurement of the dependent variable in response to the experimental setup.
The only way for systematically overcoming the limits of our sensory apparatus […] is through the Scientific Method, through hypothesis‐testing, controlled experimentation.
Nominally, both positive and negative controls are material and procedural; that is, they control for variability of the experimental materials and the procedure itself."
I wander the net like a Bedouin on a camel, stopping now and then to observe and occasionally join the conversation. One thing I've noticed on over a dozen sites that deal with the 'pandemic' is that whenever the subject of viruses comes up, there's always someone who'll make the claim that they don't exist, and if you challenge them, they often become hostile and even accuse you of being 'controlled opposition.' Not saying that's the case here, but the topic has been raised and it's still early:)
I find this curious. As far as I can tell, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, but what stands out about it is that the debate is always framed as a Hegelian dialectic, i.e. a choice between one or the other, but never both. Why can't it be both though? Why can't both theories be valid in certain circumstances? I don't see anything about them that makes them mutually exclusive, and yet the debate always degenerates into a polemic, pitting one camp against the other.
This to me looks like yet another control mechanism to keep us spinning our wheels so we never get up enough tour de force to actually do anything. I see the same thing with these endless conferences that Sen. Ron Johnson sponsors. Everybody gets to give wonderful talks and feel important, and they all have their photos taken with the Great Man (hello Jessica) but nothing ever comes of it. Where are the indictments? Where's the Grand Jury? It's been three f'n years already. Not enough evidence? A senior senator can't pass a recommendation to the Attorney General? Come on people. Where's the beef?
Also, when I point out that the guy sponsoring these events is a big supporter of Ukraine and a dyed in the wool Israeli Firster, all I hear is crickets. Same goes for RFK. I guess even scientists need their heroes, but my God, you'd think they could make better choices.
I should say that I have come to appreciate you ebear for more reasons than one. I respect your position and especially the fact that you have devoted much of your life to science.
I was very fond of science in high school and considered higher learning with a scientific focus. But it just wasn't in the cards for me. I ended up becoming a wandering nomad, studying whatever I could along the way. More of a nature boy than a man of society.
As far as, "couldn't it be both", I'm not sure what this refers to. Both what? I see many sides, not just two. But I have begun along a path and it has taken me far afield, needless to say. I don't despise science, I ask for real science, not just dished up beliefs sponsored by government and Big Pharma. Of course, many scientists are sincere, as I perceive you to be. But that does not discount that sincere motives can be misguided, especially when the foundational principles underlying the line of inquiry and method are left unquestioned.
Thanks. Just to be clear, I'm a not a scientist in the sense of having a degree or even having worked in the field. My main interest is the history of science as it relates to epistemology, which asks the question "how do we know, and how do we know that we know?" Philosophy of science would be another way of putting it, but I think epistemology captures it just as well if not better.
"As far as, "couldn't it be both", I'm not sure what this refers to. "
Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory. That's the usual ground of the debate between no-virus and virus camps, but not always of course, so I should have been clearer.
I pretty much agree with you on the rest. Science has definitely been corrupted, which is what I try to correct in my own small way by pointing to the principles and methods as opposed to institutions or individuals. We're at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater unless we understand the difference.
The debate about "germ theory" vs the terrain model doesn't always degenerate into a shouting match. There are lots of authentic advocates of the "no-virus" position who are calm and mature about presenting their arguments. I'd suggest that the ones who are verbally violent and create a big polarity over it may be recruited or paid to do that as a way of discrediting no-virus so it doesn't get into the mainstream, because I think the case for no virus is very strong if people are allowed to hear it, and one doesn't need to be a scientist to understand. (In fact, science or medical training may be a barrier to understanding, due to the level of indoctrination in the current model which has become such a massive economic engine.) If you want to hear my explanation of why both these paradigms can't be true, I've endeavored to explain it in my article called Why Our Terrain Is The Key To Health https://barn0346.substack.com/p/why-our-terrain-is-the-key-to-health.
Thank you, what an excellent thread.
Found this, for what it's worth. Author seems to have her own axe to grind, but her critique is accurate as far as I can tell:
https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2021/04/sam-bailey-on-isolating-viruses-and-why-she-is-wrong/
I'm certain that "isolation" means "the condition of being alone".
If I were a "virus", and you couldn't see me, you could blame me for everything that goes wrong.
I'd be unable to defend myself because I can't speak.
Virology will end up in court one day and the judge might require the "accused" (the virus) to make an "appearance". That will be interesting to watch.
Fear is the mind-killer and taking refuge in logical fallacies to cover up for lack of actually studying a subject and just reading about it, then drawing lots of confirmation biases from followers a sign of societal collapse and a wee bit dunning-kruger.
Something made me produce flu-like symptoms a day after I went to a party where, unknown to me at the time, someone was showing the same symptoms. I am willing to bet that it wasn't meteorites, aluminium foil, wifi or bad hummous that caused it...
I haven't read the article yet but I shall do then probably comment again tomorrow, as I'm tired and about to go to bed.
But for now I'll just say two things.
1/ The entire 'terrain theory' or 'viruses & germs don't exist' is another psyop. Designed to cause distrust in genuine science and associate the 'anti-establishment movement' (i.e. the resistance) with lunatic theories (a bit like flat earth) - thus turning people off the resistance. This is a seriously important point and you seriously shouldn't fall for it. It also applies to other shit and nasty ideas that only serve to discredit the resistance.
2/ The one and only counter-argument you need to know, which the 'no germs' people can't possibly explain is the simple fucking existence of something called the 'adaptive immune system'. If there were no germs/viruses/etc. then there wouldn't be an adaptive immune system. It's something called 'evolution'.
I have been a professional medical translator for over 20 years so let's just say I understand medical fucking science here. Look up 'memory B cells' as a starting point.
I'm tired and I need to go to bed, so I'm not even going to elaborate on this right now. I call psyop on this one.
Learn some basic fucking science.
I personally believe in pathogens and germs... and I suspect there's an easy way to test this hypothesis. Simply host a shit-eating contest and see how much shit a person has to eat before getting sick.
As for viruses, though, I remain unconvinced. Virus-believers want us to believe that there exist living creatures that can go into suspended animation indefinitely... meaning that they don't meet the biological criteria to be considered organisms... I'm not buying it, personally. Is illness caused by pathogens? I think so. Are those pathogens viruses? Depends on what you mean by viruses. If by viruses, you mean invisible cooties that must be appeased through vaccination, I'm going with "FUCK THAT!"
I'm aware that not all virus skeptics believe in contagious illness, but I do, because that's what makes sense to my brain. I remain to be convinced otherwise.
I really suggest you read my Substack, starting with the first article and continuing in order. If you do, let me know if it helps you or convinces you.
#1 (haha) just because you 'translate' what the wonderful medical establishment puts down for diagnosis, does not make you a professional science anything.
#2 (haha) the psyop does not need anything else to disturb 'the resistance'. It is way disturbed by other real things.
#3 Next time you are tired & cranky, give yourself some rest before commenting (or venting). I am sure you probably would word things in a different way.