I just wanted to say, having watched and read for countless hours on this topic, that this article by Alex and the conversation below with Kirk, John and, Vince is probably all you actually need to get the ball rolling for anyone who does not understand the problem. Thanks all.
Alec, I am a skeptic by nature, and Covid hysteria has only broadened my horizons, BUT, and it’s a big but, I read both sides of the argument. We all call for debate and following scientific principles, etc., but I have seen that a number of ppl, Steve Kirsch, James Lyons-Weiler and Tom Mckernan among others, have offered to debate anyone and everyone on your side of this debate. Yet, not once have you or any of your ‘people’ taken them up on it. I understand that it was offered without any pre-conditions, just debating n scientific truths and proving one’s perspective over the other...why has no one taken them up on it!? I’m an MD, and I would be very interested in this discussion/debate, and many of my friends and colleagues would as well. What’s the reasoning, hesitation? If your stance is so powerful and supported by scientific fact, none of you should have any problems with an open debate. MAKE IT HAPPEN!
In my view there is nothing to debate really since all "virologists", scientists, researchers and institutions all around the world are all in full agreement that an alleged "virus" has never been isolated and purified directly from the fluids of a sick host where the sample has not first being combined with other genetic material like a tissue culture. A person at the CDC even went as far as to say that what we are asking for "is outside of what is possible in virology". Since that is acknowledged by the biggest health institution in the world then what else is there to debate?
If people want to debate the issues with the various pseudo-scientific experiments then that is for pure entertainment as far as I am concerned. Why? Because unless you have first proved the existence of something you cannot conduct an experiment just like Alec wrote in this article of his.
CDC reply: "is outside of what is possible in virology" page 3
I have to ask: I too am a skeptic by nature .But are debates the way we settle scientific questions? It seems to me that the methodology the Virologist uses is very flawed. All you need to ascertain the truth is to have a matched control taken from a healthy individual, ceteris paribus. Now compare the cytopathic effect from the infected, experimental subject to the matched control. BTW, Stefan Lanka-A Virologist-has done this very experiment. In both cases, the CPE was the same-meaning that the procedure itself was breaking down the Vero cells. This experiment is a dagger into the heart of Virology.
I agree that the methodology matters and seems flawed. After reading the whole back/forth re: debates, I am now convinced Kirsch et al are not being genuine. It’s disconcerting to say the least, esp when, in the end, we are all really just searching for the truth. I like Dr Cowan’s approach, and that should be done, but just like all the other ‘shoulda’s’, when coming up agains t people’s belief systems, it becomes exceedingly difficult to overcome. True science requires an open-mind, and it seems like Kirsch, Fleming et al, in spite of their claims to be open-minded and searching for truth, they are still ‘captured’ by their own underlying false beliefs and unwilling to challenge themselves
Scientific debates done correctly are useful because they bring other perspectives to the table where everyone can take a good look at them and have the chance to reevaluate ones position on things but I would argue that they are only useful IF we are talking about scientific work which is work that follows the scientific method. That however is not something that "virology" follow which by definition makes "virology" pseudo-scientific.
You said: "All you need to ascertain the truth is to have a matched control taken from a healthy individual".
I agree and disagree and here is why. We don't need a control in this case because in order for an experiment to be an experiment we must start with the independent variable which in this case is the alleged "virus". We can't experiment with things that we haven't even proved to exist PRIOR to the experiment taking place. It's like doing an experiment with unicorns, how would we set it up unless we have found one? This is pure common sense and logic and yet it seems unfathomable to the "virologists" that this is actually required.
"Virologists" try to divert the question back to the pseudo-scientific experiments but that is all that it is, a diversion from the foundational issue which is the lack of evidence for the "virus" PRIOR to the pseudo-scientific experiment taking place. Now I am not saying that the work of Dr Stefan Lanka is meaningless, far from it since it highlight another problem with their methods BUT we all need to firmly understand that the core issue is the lack of evidence for the existence of the "virus" PRIOR to any experiment taking place.
After much rumination, I’ve reached the conclusion that this issue of whether or not viruses exist is misplaced. Rather than placing the focus on whether or not viruses exist, a more productive question would be to ask: do the purported pathogens that we label "viruses" function as described? After all…,we can’t presume to have identified all the extant microbes. So let’s focus on the ones we labeled viruses. When phrased in this manner, the cracks on the foundations of Viral Theory begin to form.
Firstly, how does a particle with no metabolism, no navigational senses and no apparent means of locomotion manage to penetrate the double lipid layer of the cell and journey to the tiny interior of the nucleus? This is no small feat! It would be analogous to a blind traveler hitchhiking from LA to NY. And once this miraculous journey has been achieved, we are to believe that the nucleus has evolved little resistance to this parasitic predator. It’s a fanciful tale! But I always keep an open mind ready to have my skepticism resolved.
But more importantly, we can all agree that any scientific experiment necessitates a control group in order to carry the banner of science, This is the Achilles heel of Virology. In all the cited experiments showing the Cytopathic Effect, why is this prerequisite of modern science conspicuously missing?
You said: "do the purported pathogens that we label "viruses" function as described?"
To that I would answer, how can something that we have never found in nature have a function at all? The question you make assume the existence of "viruses", what we are asking for is the actual evidence of that.
I just wanted to say, having watched and read for countless hours on this topic, that this article by Alex and the conversation below with Kirk, John and, Vince is probably all you actually need to get the ball rolling for anyone who does not understand the problem. Thanks all.
So, those CRIMINALS just added THIS to the "vaccine" "schedule": ALC-0315 and ALC-0159
https://outraged.substack.com/p/so-those-criminals-just-added-this
Thanks for the clarity. Have one also.
Alec, I am a skeptic by nature, and Covid hysteria has only broadened my horizons, BUT, and it’s a big but, I read both sides of the argument. We all call for debate and following scientific principles, etc., but I have seen that a number of ppl, Steve Kirsch, James Lyons-Weiler and Tom Mckernan among others, have offered to debate anyone and everyone on your side of this debate. Yet, not once have you or any of your ‘people’ taken them up on it. I understand that it was offered without any pre-conditions, just debating n scientific truths and proving one’s perspective over the other...why has no one taken them up on it!? I’m an MD, and I would be very interested in this discussion/debate, and many of my friends and colleagues would as well. What’s the reasoning, hesitation? If your stance is so powerful and supported by scientific fact, none of you should have any problems with an open debate. MAKE IT HAPPEN!
In my view there is nothing to debate really since all "virologists", scientists, researchers and institutions all around the world are all in full agreement that an alleged "virus" has never been isolated and purified directly from the fluids of a sick host where the sample has not first being combined with other genetic material like a tissue culture. A person at the CDC even went as far as to say that what we are asking for "is outside of what is possible in virology". Since that is acknowledged by the biggest health institution in the world then what else is there to debate?
If people want to debate the issues with the various pseudo-scientific experiments then that is for pure entertainment as far as I am concerned. Why? Because unless you have first proved the existence of something you cannot conduct an experiment just like Alec wrote in this article of his.
CDC reply: "is outside of what is possible in virology" page 3
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-March-1-2021-SARS-COV-2-Isolation-Response-Redacted.pdf
I have to ask: I too am a skeptic by nature .But are debates the way we settle scientific questions? It seems to me that the methodology the Virologist uses is very flawed. All you need to ascertain the truth is to have a matched control taken from a healthy individual, ceteris paribus. Now compare the cytopathic effect from the infected, experimental subject to the matched control. BTW, Stefan Lanka-A Virologist-has done this very experiment. In both cases, the CPE was the same-meaning that the procedure itself was breaking down the Vero cells. This experiment is a dagger into the heart of Virology.
I agree that the methodology matters and seems flawed. After reading the whole back/forth re: debates, I am now convinced Kirsch et al are not being genuine. It’s disconcerting to say the least, esp when, in the end, we are all really just searching for the truth. I like Dr Cowan’s approach, and that should be done, but just like all the other ‘shoulda’s’, when coming up agains t people’s belief systems, it becomes exceedingly difficult to overcome. True science requires an open-mind, and it seems like Kirsch, Fleming et al, in spite of their claims to be open-minded and searching for truth, they are still ‘captured’ by their own underlying false beliefs and unwilling to challenge themselves
Scientific debates done correctly are useful because they bring other perspectives to the table where everyone can take a good look at them and have the chance to reevaluate ones position on things but I would argue that they are only useful IF we are talking about scientific work which is work that follows the scientific method. That however is not something that "virology" follow which by definition makes "virology" pseudo-scientific.
You said: "All you need to ascertain the truth is to have a matched control taken from a healthy individual".
I agree and disagree and here is why. We don't need a control in this case because in order for an experiment to be an experiment we must start with the independent variable which in this case is the alleged "virus". We can't experiment with things that we haven't even proved to exist PRIOR to the experiment taking place. It's like doing an experiment with unicorns, how would we set it up unless we have found one? This is pure common sense and logic and yet it seems unfathomable to the "virologists" that this is actually required.
"Virologists" try to divert the question back to the pseudo-scientific experiments but that is all that it is, a diversion from the foundational issue which is the lack of evidence for the "virus" PRIOR to the pseudo-scientific experiment taking place. Now I am not saying that the work of Dr Stefan Lanka is meaningless, far from it since it highlight another problem with their methods BUT we all need to firmly understand that the core issue is the lack of evidence for the existence of the "virus" PRIOR to any experiment taking place.
After much rumination, I’ve reached the conclusion that this issue of whether or not viruses exist is misplaced. Rather than placing the focus on whether or not viruses exist, a more productive question would be to ask: do the purported pathogens that we label "viruses" function as described? After all…,we can’t presume to have identified all the extant microbes. So let’s focus on the ones we labeled viruses. When phrased in this manner, the cracks on the foundations of Viral Theory begin to form.
Firstly, how does a particle with no metabolism, no navigational senses and no apparent means of locomotion manage to penetrate the double lipid layer of the cell and journey to the tiny interior of the nucleus? This is no small feat! It would be analogous to a blind traveler hitchhiking from LA to NY. And once this miraculous journey has been achieved, we are to believe that the nucleus has evolved little resistance to this parasitic predator. It’s a fanciful tale! But I always keep an open mind ready to have my skepticism resolved.
But more importantly, we can all agree that any scientific experiment necessitates a control group in order to carry the banner of science, This is the Achilles heel of Virology. In all the cited experiments showing the Cytopathic Effect, why is this prerequisite of modern science conspicuously missing?
You said: "do the purported pathogens that we label "viruses" function as described?"
To that I would answer, how can something that we have never found in nature have a function at all? The question you make assume the existence of "viruses", what we are asking for is the actual evidence of that.
100% it's quite simple. It's baffling that "truth seekers" won't even listen to this information
I think if you read this article by Christine Massey you will understand that things are not the way you describe it.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/why-i-now-refuse-to-debate-steve-kirsch-or-richard-fleming-or-kevin-mccairn/
This really makes sense and look forward to more data as you all continue to build using logical reasoning!
This really makes sense and look forward to more data as you all continue to build using logical reasoning!