God bless the autistic thunderdome, keeping newfaggots like these contained in it like the gulag.
Keep sperging, retards. It only gets funnier. I expect those two niggers to react negatively to this post.
If you unironically think the chinese coof isn't real please unironically kill yourself as you're a waste of breath. Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean the looney tunes-esque articles you're quoting are somehow true.
Way to misrepresent what someone has said to fit your desired interpretation of what they "said". You can be a real slimy, slippery eel sometimes, @Tablet County . This is why I don't really trust you, you seem to start engaging in good faith and then you pull this sort of stunt.
When I hear stock phrases like "The Science" I can't take the other person's argument in good faith to begin with. I see this kind of thought-terminating poison all the time and it's always from people who have no real argument and so turn to persuasion. In rhetoric there's a thing called a "snarl word", which is a word that has a negative connotation and is designed to guide the audience to have a negative reaction to it. Different snarl words are tailored to different audiences as well.
A good example for this site would be "goyslop". It's used to denigrate any food the speaker sees as disgusting and creates the perception that anyone who eats it is either dumb or niggercattle brainwashed into doing so by their ZOG overlords.
"The Science" is technically a snarl phrase but serves the same purpose; to dismiss any opposing viewpoints as being invalid because their viewpoints are constructed upon a dogmatic belief in "capital-S Science" or "Scientism" or "science as religion" regardless of whether their viewpoints are true or not.
It's vague language meant to drive someone toward a particular reaction by playing on their emotions, while also not being outright disparaging, i.e. loaded/high-inference language.
TL;DR, it's a sign of deception. When I see that sort of language I can't take the person spouting it in good faith because they are not acting in good faith. This is also the reason I keep bringing it up in my commentary on Bailey's essay; you shouldn't have to appeal to my emotions if you're proving fact.
Besides, @Cheeseknife has made it clear that he's not interested in a proper argument and would rather trade insults, and as a practitioner of the Sophomoric Method I'm totally fine with that.
@Cheeseknife wasn't calling the vast majority of people cultists, the way you're making it out to be, as in active participants in a cult. He was merely talking about the very thing Dr. Denis Rancourt talks about in the 6 minute clip I shared. Science has become The Science, and most people aren't even aware of this, they're not active participants.
They just follow along the paths that have been carved out as acceptable for them, like they do in most areas of life. Most people don't question why they do the things they do.
So they aren't "cultists", they're "useful idiots"? That isn't much better. Besides, you're missing the point of what I said. It doesn't matter whether you define "cultist" as an active participant in a cult or an ignorant sheeperson unknowingly spreading their dogma. The fact of the matter is that when you imply that the vast majority of people who follow mainstream science are being wilfully ignorant you are going to piss them off, especially if they've actually done their research, in which case they're going to perceive you as a crackpot taking shots at established fact. And to act like you're only being called a nigger because you upset the (((The Science))) adherents, as if you didn't just insult everybody's intelligence, is either a sign of deception or retardation. Not to mention it's textbook poisoning the well.
Also, to be clear I'm using "you" in a general sense here; I'm not accusing you of any of this, but rather Cheesyboy. While you've been obnoxious and mildly cringe I don't recall you engaging in this level of chicanery.
If science was taught, we'd be critical thinkers. Most of us aren't. Most people on this planet got injected with poison, many of them willingly, probably the majority. To act as if those people haven't been "seduced by the dogma of science" (The Science) is either delusional or dishonest.
It's not always a matter of critical thinking. Billy Bob Averagejoe can't prove or disprove scientific claims in his garage. He doesn't have the equipment, the disposable income, the time, or the technical know-how to prove whether or not the coof exists, or if the jab is poison or not. I could hypothetically refute or confirm the claims made in A Farewell to Virology by carrying out the experiments myself, but I'm not a science major, I don't own a microscrope or an ultracentrifuge or any of the cells or solutions I'd need to culture shit in, or even a petri dish. Even if medicine or other scientific disciplines were to become more accessible to the average bloke, certain disciplines are still too esoteric for everyone to intuit, so they're going to have to defer to experts. That and in the quest for accesibility you may be stripping away details, and feeding a watered-down version of medicine to Billy Bob Averagejoe could invite accusations of deception.
The way I see it is you're saying if you can't find an alternative explanation for X, then X must be the answer. Let alone the fact that you're still begging for proof that something doesn't exist.
You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. Period.
Hey kids! Remember when I used to post in this thread? Me neither! Let's get back to it.
Virology invented the hypothesis of viruses so whatever method it employs in an attempt to prove their existence, it must satisfy that definition. At the heart of the matter is a simple concept and we need to see evidence that alleged disease-causing particles cause new particles that are clones of the former. Claiming that detected proteins and nucleic acids are of a specific viral origin is not possible unless the alleged viral particles have been truly isolated by purification and shown to have these key biological characteristics. As outlined by The Perth Group in, “HIV - a virus like no other,” purification is necessary to prove the existence of viruses for several reasons, including the following:
1. Viruses replicate only in living cells. Since cells and viruses are composed of the same biochemical constituents, separation of particles from cellular material is essential for defining which nucleic acid and proteins belong to the virus particles.
2. To prove the particles are infectious. In other words, it is particles, not other factors, that are responsible for the production of new particles. This requires purification of both sets of particles.
3. To demonstrate their biological and pathological effects.
4. To obtain antigens (proteins) and nucleic acids for use in antibody and genomic tests respectively.
Although less common, virologists will sometimes obfuscate the meaning of ‘purification’ as well. On 23 May 2022, Belgian Professor of Virology Marc Van Ranst claimed that with regard to SARS-30 CoV-2, “in another article (https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc7122600) they have further purified the virus by ultracentrifugation in beta-cyclodextrin.” Van Ranst was referring to a 2008 paper that described, “large-Scale preparation of UV-Inactivated SARS coronavirus virions,” which related to the purported SARS-CoV-1 virus. However, this paper simply outlines a protocol claiming to purify virions and there is no part of the paper that demonstrated the existence of any replication-competent particle — all that was shown were some low quality images purporting to show “infected” Vero E6 cells. (See next section regarding ‘cytopathic effects’.) With regard to the “check of purified virions” following centrifugation, no images were provided but the claim was made that, “the concentration of purified virions is determined by BCA [bicinchoninic acid] assay with BSA [bovine serum albumin] as a standard.” This was an unfounded conclusion as the BCA assay simply measures the total concentration of protein in a solution — the technique is unable to provide evidence that there are any “virions” present in a sample.
Figure 1 below is an image purporting to show purified “bat SARS-like coronavirus” virions and was published in Nature in 2013 — the caption explains why such a declaration is ludicrous. (The convenient variation in particle size is apparently because, “[coronaviruses] usually have a diameter, excluding projections, of between 80 and 120 nm, although in extreme cases the diameter can vary between 60 and 220 nm.” ) Likewise, the claim in Van Ranst’s cited paper that, “it is better to confirm the amount of virion by 10% SDS-PAGE,” is just as erroneous as this is simply a gel electrophoresis process to separate out proteins by their molecular mass — it cannot provide evidence that the proteins belong to a virus. Van Ranst also stated, “we can already detect the viral RNA in clinical samples. We can complete the viral genome decipher. We can grow the virus in cell culture and inoculate it into animal models and induce disease.” It is unknown whether Van Ranst appreciated that the uncontrolled methodologies being employed in all such experiments do not provide the required evidence for any “virus.” So, when Van Ranst made the claim that, “no scientist doubts the existence of SARS-CoV-2,” it makes one wonder whether the virologists will now have to change the definition of ‘scientist’ to maintain the delusive practices?
Van Ranst was not the only virologist making claims about purifying viruses though. In response to an email enquiry, Dr Marica Grossegesse from the Robert Koch Institute responded that, “we purified SARS particles by density gradient. However, just from the cell culture derived virus, as you wrote. The challenge with purifying SARS from patient samples is that you won’t get a visible band.” Apart from the imprecise terminology in substituting the name of a syndrome (‘SARS’ is severe acute respiratory syndrome) for a postulated virus, no further evidence was supplied as to how these claims were established. Presumably, Grossegesse is also using the definitions of “purification” and “virus” as depicted in Figure 1? In any case, when pressed for further details about how the experiments were controlled she responded, “we are not allowed to share any protocols with a private person. I can only refer to our publications, where infection experiments are described in detail.” It appears that ‘detail’ has taken on a different meaning as well, as the publications failed to disclose the straightforward answers concerning controls being sought.
The area of isolation is one of the domains where virology is completely unhinged and as this essay will outline, SARS-CoV-2 remains nothing more than a hypothetical computer construct, assembled from genetic fragments of unproven provenance. There has never been a physically isolated (i.e. purified) particle shown to be responsible for the production of identical particles or a particle shown to be the cause of pathological effects in any human or in an experimental animal model. Thus, the declaration by virologists such as Van Ranst, along with the WHO and its adherents, that an infectious particle termed ‘SARS-CoV-2’ is causing a disease pandemic is shown to be patent scientific and intellectual fraud.
This image was described as, “[an] electron micrograph of purified virions,” obtained by, “ultracentrifugation through a 20% sucrose cushion (5 ml) at 80,000g for 90 min using a Ty90 rotor (Beckman).” Aside from the fact that the biological properties of these imaged vesicles were not established, there is no indication that anything in the Vero E6 cell culture has been purified and no other contextual images were provided. Additionally, no control culture micrographs were documented.
Source: Xing-Yi Ge, et al., “Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor,” Nature, 30 Oct 2013: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12711 (See also page 56 with regard to the claim that Ralph Baric et al. utilised these “viruses” to create new ones.)
Virology invented the hypothesis of viruses so whatever method it employs in an attempt to prove their existence, it must satisfy that definition. At the heart of the matter is a simple concept and we need to see evidence that alleged disease-causing particles cause new particles that are clones of the former.
This is a very strange and clunky way to say that "viruses must be shown to be viruses according to the definition of viruses or else they aren't viruses." I don't think I've ever seen such a simple idea expressed in such a circumlocutory way. It feels deceptive, which is weird because it isn't. Maybe Bailey's just as good at concision and essay writing as I am.
Claiming that detected proteins and nucleic acids are of a specific viral origin is not possible unless the alleged viral particles have been truly isolated by purification and shown to have these key biological characteristics. As outlined by The Perth Group in, “HIV - a virus like no other,” purification is necessary to prove the existence of viruses for several reasons, including the following:
1. Viruses replicate only in living cells. Since cells and viruses are composed of the same biochemical constituents, separation of particles from cellular material is essential for defining which nucleic acid and proteins belong to the virus particles.
2. To prove the particles are infectious. In other words, it is particles, not other factors, that are responsible for the production of new particles. This requires purification of both sets of particles.
3. To demonstrate their biological and pathological effects.
4. To obtain antigens (proteins) and nucleic acids for use in antibody and genomic tests respectively.
Sounds reasonable to me, but this could sound retarded to someone in the know.
Although less common, virologists will sometimes obfuscate the meaning of ‘purification’ as well. On 23 May 2022, Belgian Professor of Virology Marc Van Ranst claimed that with regard to SARS-30 CoV-2, “in another article (https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc7122600) they have further purified the virus by ultracentrifugation in beta-cyclodextrin.”
Here we have perhaps the most bizarre citation in this entire essay. The citation links to a brief article about Van Ranst on a website called wikispooks; ostensibly a wannabe wikileaks whose stated goal is to explore the supposed actions of deep states, which they call "deep politics". It sounds like some schizo shit but at a glance none of what I've seen on their site appears to be made up whackadoo bullshit, though it is incomplete in a lot of areas.
I can't for the life of me see why Bailey felt the need to include this citation. From a persuasive standpoint it's tone deaf; if you're trying to convince mainstream scientists or normies that you aren't crazy, then linking to a website that could be easily dismissed as "conspiracy theorist wikipedia" isn't a good way to go about it. Ideally the person reading this essay would judge the link and the information it provides on its own merits rather than dismissing it outright, but even scientists are still humans and prone to bias, so you have to take that into account.
Adding to that there's not much merit to the information provided in the wikispooks article to begin with, so its inclusion remains an utter fucking mystery. Is it defamatory, meant to show that Van Ranst is an untrustworthy shill/propagandist? Could Bailey not find a posting for him at a university website or something?
The quote itself comes from one of the emails sent in response to the earlier-mentioned Christine Massey's mass-foia requests, linked here.
Van Ranst was referring to a 2008 paper that described, “large-Scale preparation of UV-Inactivated SARS coronavirus virions,” which related to the purported SARS-CoV-1 virus. However, this paper simply outlines a protocol claiming to purify virions and there is no part of the paper that demonstrated the existence of any replication-competent particle — all that was shown were some low quality images purporting to show “infected” Vero E6 cells. (See next section regarding ‘cytopathic effects’.) With regard to the “check of purified virions” following centrifugation, no images were provided but the claim was made that, “the concentration of purified virions is determined by BCA [bicinchoninic acid] assay with BSA [bovine serum albumin] as a standard.” This was an unfounded conclusion as the BCA assay simply measures the total concentration of protein in a solution — the technique is unable to provide evidence that there are any “virions” present in a sample.
Relevant article here. I think this is gonna be another one where my lack of expertise in this area leaves me with very little to say. If the article in question does indeed fail to provide adequate evidence then obviously that's bad and Van Ranst is a dumbass.
Figure 1 below is an image purporting to show purified “bat SARS-like coronavirus” virions and was published in Nature in 2013 — the caption explains why such a declaration is ludicrous. (The convenient variation in particle size is apparently because, “[coronaviruses] usually have a diameter, excluding projections, of between 80 and 120 nm, although in extreme cases the diameter can vary between 60 and 220 nm.” ) Likewise, the claim in Van Ranst’s cited paper that, “it is better to confirm the amount of virion by 10% SDS-PAGE,” is just as erroneous as this is simply a gel electrophoresis process to separate out proteins by their molecular mass — it cannot provide evidence that the proteins belong to a virus. Van Ranst also stated, “we can already detect the viral RNA in clinical samples. We can complete the viral genome decipher. We can grow the virus in cell culture and inoculate it into animal models and induce disease.” It is unknown whether Van Ranst appreciated that the uncontrolled methodologies being employed in all such experiments do not provide the required evidence for any “virus.” So, when Van Ranst made the claim that, “no scientist doubts the existence of SARS-CoV-2,” it makes one wonder whether the virologists will now have to change the definition of ‘scientist’ to maintain the delusive practices?
Science jargon and sassiness. Oddly the citation in this section doesn't contain a link, listing their citation as "Malcom MacNaughton and Heather Davies, “Coronaviridae”, in Animal Virus Structure, Elsevier, 1987." From looking into it the article is behind a paywall of some sort, so that's probably the reason. The other is a footnote clearing up what SDS-PAGE stands for: "Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate-PolyAcrylamide Gel Electrophoresis". Of course. Naturally.
Van Ranst was not the only virologist making claims about purifying viruses though. In response to an email enquiry, Dr Marica Grossegesse from the Robert Koch Institute responded that, “we purified SARS particles by density gradient. However, just from the cell culture derived virus, as you wrote. The challenge with purifying SARS from patient samples is that you won’t get a visible band.” Apart from the imprecise terminology in substituting the name of a syndrome (‘SARS’ is severe acute respiratory syndrome) for a postulated virus, no further evidence was supplied as to how these claims were established. Presumably, Grossegesse is also using the definitions of “purification” and “virus” as depicted in Figure 1? In any case, when pressed for further details about how the experiments were controlled she responded, “we are not allowed to share any protocols with a private person. I can only refer to our publications, where infection experiments are described in detail.” It appears that ‘detail’ has taken on a different meaning as well, as the publications failed to disclose the straightforward answers concerning controls being sought.
There's a citation here leading to a page on Dr. Grossegesse on a website called ResearchGate, which seems to be like LinkedIn for science nerds. Here is the email exchange mentioned in this passage, where the anonymous email-sender, after Grossegesse tells them she can't talk about procedure, continues to send emails asking for her to disclose procedure.
As for the publications that apparently have no straightforward answers? God knows. Maybe they've been discussed previously and in the gap between that post and now I've forgotten about it, or it hasn't been discussed yet and we'll get a link later on in the article. For now I'll have to take it on faith that the Robert Koch Institute's publications don't provide any useful information.
The area of isolation is one of the domains where virology is completely unhinged and as this essay will outline, SARS-CoV-2 remains nothing more than a hypothetical computer construct, assembled from genetic fragments of unproven provenance. There has never been a physically isolated (i.e. purified) particle shown to be responsible for the production of identical particles or a particle shown to be the cause of pathological effects in any human or in an experimental animal model. Thus, the declaration by virologists such as Van Ranst, along with the WHO and its adherents, that an infectious particle termed ‘SARS-CoV-2’ is causing a disease pandemic is shown to be patent scientific and intellectual fraud.
Again with this "as this essay will outline" bullshit. I understand, Bailey is laying the groundwork here by showing that virologists appear to have a cargo cult understanding of their own discipline and that SARS-CoV-2 has supposedly never been isolated, but so far this essay feels like it's all sizzle and no steak. I would think it more prudent to frontload all of the important information and then elaborate on it later. Show the bare details, the raw undisputable proof that virology is fraudulent first, then transition into the systemic issues that allowed the alleged fraud to continue on for so many years.
Maybe Bailey has done that and is doing that and I'm just too dumb to see it. But the way it feels right now is that Bailey uses "as this essay will outline" the way others might use "I swear to God." It's like I'm being convinced of the premise of the essay rather than being shown it.
That ends this section. How soon I'll tackle the next one is a mystery. This has been kind of a sloppy post so I'll see about looking it and the relevant section over again and revising my stream-of-consciousness bullshit. All this writing reminded me that I actually enjoy writing and decided to take a break to work on some fiction. Then, for completely unrelated reasons I started reading The Andromeda Strain, which further distracted me from my autism quest. Failing any prompt follow-up to this section, here is the plain text of the next section:
It is hard to know exactly what to call virology, but it is not science. The current practitioners are engaging in some form of algorithmic or statistical speculation added to circular reasoning and confirmation bias, with a complete absence of what should be the corresponding process of refutation that lies at the heart of the scientific method. While the abandonment of the scientific method may be unnoticed or accidental by lower level participants, there are almost certainly conspiratorial motivations at higher levels of the global hierarchy. For example, the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency are all parties to virology’s deceptive practices, as will be exposed in this essay. However, the anti-scientific practices are replicated in most other countries, whether this relates to claims of virus isolation and the wholesale misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for clinical diagnostics, or a failure to disclose the crucial control details involved in virus culture and genome creaEon, which is the focus of much of this essay. How is it that we test a scientific theory? Karl Popper expressed the centrality of refutation of a theory or hypothesis, thus:
So it is, I hold, the possibility of overthrowing it, or its falsifiability, that constitutes the possibility of testing it, and therefore the scientific character of a theory; and the fact that all tests of a theory are attempted falsifications of predictions derived with its help, furnishes the clue to the scientific method. This view of the scientific method is corroborated by the history of science, which shows that scientific theories are often overthrown by experiments, and that the overthrow of theories is indeed the vehicle of scientific process. The contention that science is circular cannot be upheld.
It is thus a reasonable question to ask has virology ever been a scientific pursuit? With regard to the scientific method, the virologists create unfalsifiable hypotheses by setting up paradigms where any number of observations, whether it be illness or alleged test results can be attributed to their ‘viruses’. The observations are passed off as proof of virus existence in the manner of a circular loop of reasoning that no longer requires the demonstrable existence of a virus. Any claims of reproducibility, for example, in the form of a PCR process or a purported viral genome, are simply more circuits of the same loop.
Historically, virology has been characterised by a lack of valid control experiments and none of its foundational claims have been established through proper exercise of the scientific method. The first alleged virus to be discovered was the Tobacco Mosaic Virus and one of the proofs for this is said to be contained in Dmitri Ivanovsky’s 1903 treatise Über die Mosaikkrankheit der Tabakspflanze (About the Mosaic Disease of the Tobacco Plant). However, it is patently clear that Ivanovsky’s described experiments lacked any valid control comparisons and were thus unscientific and inconclusive. He even commented that, “this disease finds favourable conditions of existence only in coastal regions. Such a conclusion fully agrees with the above observations concerning the influence of moisture on the development of the disease. Mosaic disease appears to be unique to humid and warm climates.” However, as germ theory was developing into the predominant disease-causation ideology at that time, rather than concluding that the Mosaic Disease was caused by environmental conditions, Ivanovsky concluded he had discovered an invisible virus.
It is perhaps tempting to forgive the early pioneers that their uncontrolled and unscientific methodologies were simply typical practices for that era. However, germ theory critic Claude Bernard offered the following insight into the importance of controls when adhering to the scientific method decades earlier in 1865: “If indeed we characterise experiment by a variation or disturbance brought into a phenomenon, it is only in so far as we imply that the disturbance must be compared with the normal state. As experiments indeed are only judgments, they necessarily require comparison between two things; and the intentional or active element in an experiment is really the comparison which the mind intends to make.” Bernard was advising the need to have a valid control, or some suitable comparison to ensure it was only the new experimental element that was causing an outcome. Thus, the most charitable we could be is to suggest that perhaps some of the early virus hunters were unaware of the importance of the scientific method in their enthusiastic and unbridled pursuit of invisible enemies.
Moving forward to another early claimed virus discovery, the textbook Retroviruses informs us that, “in 1911, Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Institute in New York reported the cell-free transmission of a sarcoma in chickens...The virus isolated by Rous bears the name of its discoverer: Rous sarcoma virus.” However a review of Rous’ paper, “A Sarcoma of the Fowl,” reveals that he did not claim to isolate anything, let alone anything that met the definition of a virus. His methodology involved grinding up chicken tumour material, filtering it, and injecting it directly into other chickens with the observation that some of them would also develop tumours. He reported that the “control” experiments consisted of injecting unfiltered tumour material into chickens which tended to result in much larger tumours. Rous postulated the presence of a causative ultramicroscopic organism but conceded that, “an agency of another sort is not out of the question.” Indeed, the experiment failed to provide any evidence of an infectious and replicating particle. It simply showed that diseased tissue introduced by an unnatural and invasive route into another animal could cause it to exhibit a similar disease process.
The claim that in 1925 pathologist William Gye demonstrated Rous had found a virus is also false. He merely asserted that a virus was at work in these experiments and conspicuously stated, “I wish particularly to stress one aspect of the search for the invisible viruses, and that is that the animal test is the final proof of the presence of the organism in an inoculum.” Again, the “final proof” did not involve the actual identification of an infectious organism in the inoculum — it simply demonstrated tumour formation following injection of diseased tissue. Further, it was determined in 1927 that sarcoma of the fowl could be induced by the injection of dilute arsenious acid and foreign embryonic pulp. The carcinogenic effects were also replicated following the equivalent bacteriological filtration that Rous performed and the disease was shown to arise from the foreign tissue, not from the host tissues. The viral hypothesis should have been thrown out but half a century later the establishment kept it alive and rewarded Rous with a Nobel prize in 1966 for, “his discovery of tumour-inducing viruses.”
In 1954, when John Enders and Thomas Peebles claimed they had propagated the measles virus in human and monkey kidneys cells, no further tolerance should have been extended to virology’s unscientific experiments. Enders and Peebles added throat washings and blood to their cell cultures and on observing CPEs, or dying and breaking down cells in their test tubes, concluded that the in vitro appearances, “might be associated with the virus of measles.” They did warn that, “cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in the monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors,” but went on to inappropriately conclude that, “this group of agents is composed of representatives of the viral species responsible for measles.” Enders and Peebles performed no control experiments to check whether the culture procedure itself, that is the stressing of the cells in a test tube, would produce the same CPEs, thereby invalidating the evidence for their conclusion. Ideally, several control experiments should have been done: some with no human-derived samples added, some with human-derived samples from well subjects, and some with human-derived samples from unwell subjects, but said not to have measles clinically or some other alleged “viral” condition.
The virologists however, have continued to repeat the uncontrolled methodology of Enders and to this day claim that such CPEs are incontestable evidence of viruses. Dr Stefan Lanka has documented the history of these unscientific practices, and in 2021 demonstrated that CPEs could be induced in cell cultures by the laboratory process itself. The results of Lanka’s experiments are depicted in Figure 2. In many virology publications a control or ‘mock-infected' experiment is mentioned but the details of such experiments are conspicuous by their absence. A Northwestern University, Illinois webpage states that mock-infected means, “a control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used, one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus.” The definition is already problematic as terms such as ‘virus’ and ‘infected’ have been introduced and thus presumed to exist before being established. In any case, as will become clear, those involved in alleged virus isolation and genome creation are certainly not treating the mock-infected specimen in the same way minus the ‘virus’, and can be disingenuous or blatantly obstructive when pressed to admit this fact.
In June 2022, in response to an Official Information Act (OIA) request concerning the paper, “Characterization of the First SARS-CoV-2 Isolates from Aotearoa New Zealand as Part of a Rapid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic,” the University of Otago stated, “the paper published by Professor Quiñones-Mateu and colleagues was a descriptive paper...This means there was no hypothesis to prove or disprove.” In a nutshell, the response perhaps unwittngly summarised the wider state of affairs in virology. In 2008, the journal Infection and Immunity featured a guest commentary titled, “Descriptive Science” that explained why, “descriptive research by itself is seldom conclusive,” and may simply serve as a starting point to orientate further investigations. The authors pointed out that, “microbiology and immunology are now experimental sciences and consequently investigators can go beyond simply describing observations to formulate hypotheses and then perform experiments to validate or refute them.” As this essay outlines, the virology establishment will not divulge or carry out these required experiments, seemingly in order not to refute itself. It intentionally limits itself to ongoing opportunistic fishing-expeditions backed by confirmation bias, thus disqualifying itself from the scientific method due to its inconsistency with the hypothesis-driven and falsifiable approach described by Popper.
The author has previously written in a postscript derived from A. F. Chalmers’ book What is this thing called Science?, that 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 incepEon:
In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. Scientists of the mid and late nineteenth century were preoccupied with the identification of imagined contagious pathogenic entities. The observations of the naïve inductionist did not identify a virus a priori, and then set about studying its properties and characteristics. The extant presupposition of the time was that a very small germ particle existed that may explain contagion. What came thereaber arose to fulfil the presuppositional premise.
Because a scientific theory demands evidence that has repeatedly been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, it is clear that “viruses” never even reached the stage of a theory. According to the science, they remain mere speculation.
(And yes, I obviously know this isn't a real peer-review process, but I think it's very relevant).
That's why it's pretty hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. He did come in with bad faith and smear tactics, but if he actually is genuinely invested in the topic, then I'm the first one to welcome the shift. Only he knows whether he's being sincere or not.
Yes, viruses are real and exist. We can observe changes in behaviour of cells as a result of infection with viruses, we can isolate the RNA and dsRNA and DNA of viruses; and we can modify them to induce effects. If you disagree you're a midwit that hasn't ever been inside a lab, and failed secondary level biology. Simple as that.
