My response to Steve Kirsch's article, "If viruses don't exist, then how can we see them?"
Please read the Virus Challenge offered by Cowan et al
First off, I’d like to acknowledge Steve for his willingness to go against the grain in exposing the mainstream narrative surrounding COVID vaccines. He’s been instrumental in raising awareness to the fraudulent behavior of the CDC, the FDA, other government agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as raising awareness to the inefficacy and dangers surrounding the COVID vaccines. In fact, we recorded a wonderful episode with him on the HFFH podcast. I’m even more delighted that Steve continues to touch on the issues surrounding virology. Whether or not it’s his intention, he is lighting a fire under his readers to take a closer look at this topic. Reading the comment section on Steve’s posts makes this clear.
Second, regarding Steve’s “bet” on virology: The Virus Challenge offered by Cowan et al is the best way to settle the virus debate while adhering to unbiased science. I highly recommend that everyone read this challenge for themselves. It is a logical, unbiased, and scientific approach that meets virology halfway in attempting to prove the claim that viruses exist as disease causing particles.
With that out of the way, I’d like to comment on the rest of Steve’s article.
Commentary on Steve’s article
First, Steve begins his article with these images of “viruses”:
These images are from this paper, which cites several other papers claiming to have “isolated” viruses or “discovered” new viruses. As expected, these papers use the same pseudoscientific processes we’ve covered extensively (see the beginning of our presentation for context), and there are countless examples (which we also cover in our presentation) of morphologically indistinguishable particles found in people who were not presently sick and/or tested negative for so-called “viral” illnesses. Here’s one example. Again, there are several others.
With that, let’s move on to Steve’s first point regarding “the science”:
“How science works: the burden is on them to show their novel hypothesis is superior to the current working hypothesis. They haven’t done that. The current working hypothesis is that viruses exist. It fits 100 years of observations. If you want to say it’s wrong, you have to show that your NEW hypothesis explains the existing data better than the old hypothesis. That is how science works. The burden is on Cowan et al. to show that the current hypothesis is inadequate to explain the observations and that it should be replaced by their new improved hypothesis which fits the observations better. They never meet that burden. It’s ridiculously easy: All they have to do is show that the last 100 years of published papers on viruses are more likely explained by their hypothesis. No new experiments are needed.
The problem is that they don’t offer an alternate hypothesis that fits the observed data as well as or better than the current hypothesis! They have nothing.”
This is a burden of proof reversal fallacy. Let me explain.
The burden of proof lies on those making the claims that viruses exist. The onus is on them to prove their initial claim, regardless of how many people believe that viruses exist. Asserting that the burden of proof is on us to prove they don’t exist is akin to telling someone to prove that unicorns don’t exist or that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. You cannot prove a negative. Those making the positive claim must prove their claim. I understand that, pragmatically, it is helpful to provide a counter explanation for the existing false, unproven paradigm. Terrain proponents have done this repeatedly— both in our recent presentation and elsewhere. However, those of us that ask proponents of virology to prove their initial claim are not required to “show that our NEW hypothesis explains the existing data better than the old hypothesis.” Steve asserts that “that is how science works.” No, that is not how science works. The scientific method is clear:
So we have a natural phenomenon— people getting sick with symptoms of disease.
The hypothesis is essentially that submicroscopic pathogenic particles called “viruses” are the cause, and that they’re transmitted between people. Virology hasn’t even gotten off the ground with step 2, as they have no clearly defined independent variable (IV) that was shown to exist in nature. Virologists assume that there is a virus (what would be the IV) present in the fluids of a sick host without ever showing that the virus is actually in the fluids. They proceed to mix those fluids with several other substances (confounding variables galore) which then produces an effect, and they assert that the virus— which was never shown to exist in the beginning— was the cause. Oxford Dictionary defines Pseudoscience as “a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.” Virology does not adhere to the scientific method. As stated above, they can’t get off the ground at all actually, as they don’t have a clearly identified independent variable which is arguably the most important piece— the thing you think is the the cause of the observed phenomenon. Virology is therefore, by definition, pseudoscience. And that’s without even touching on the lack of proper controls and all of the unproven assumptions in the field. If I and others are wrong, please clearly articulate how virology does adhere to the method.
My final rebuttal to this point is this: not only does virology not adhere to the scientific method at all, the idea of contagious diseases itself is completely unproven as well. Essentially, every experiment that has attempted to show contagion via natural, reasonable means has shown the opposite. For clarity’s sake, there are studies claiming to prove contagion, but I’d argue that cracking open the skull of a monkey and pouring toxic substances in or injecting the stomach of a lab-rat outside of its natural environment are not natural, reasonable means. We discuss this point thoroughly in our presentation about 90 minutes in.
So again, what is Steve referring to when he says that this “fits 100 years of observations”? People getting sick? People getting sick in the same space? See the 2 screenshots below from our presentation covering the many possibilities for what causes symptoms to arise:
Virtually all of us have been indoctrinated to believe in the idea of viruses and contagion, so of course we’ll look for confirmation of it when we become ill, ignoring the hundreds— potentially thousands— of other things that are causing us to get sick. Does our belief in viruses causing disease make it objectively true? No. But what happens when this unproven idea is mixed with the nocebo effect and military grade, fear based propaganda? Disaster. Hell, even the CDC recognizes the impact of fear/anxiety on health outcomes, as this study shows that the 2nd strongest risk factor for death associated with COVID was fear/anxiety related disorders.
Let’s move on to Steve’s next point:
“They can’t even explain even a simple case where a family member gets COVID and then, all of a sudden, other people in the same household get the same illness. None of their explanations (and they offer hundreds of potential causes) can explain even this simple example. They want you to believe the unique gene sequences come from 5G or soda. It’s unbelievable that people actually take them seriously.”
Steve is pointing to symptoms of disease— experienced amongst 2+ people— as “proof” of a virus. If you claim X exists and causes Y, then you need to first prove X exists and clearly demonstrate that it causes Y. What Steve is essentially saying is “X exists and causes Y. Y is present, therefore X exists.” Broken down more specifically, Steve is saying “viruses exist and cause disease symptoms (unproven claim). Disease symptoms are present in my household, therefore viruses exist." This is an affirming the consequent fallacy.
And yes, our other explanations absolutely can explain the phenomenon of two or more people getting sick in the same space. Refer to the images above.
This is where the reductionist mindset that is subtly propagated by allopathy and germ-theory proponents is important to dissect. We are complex physical, spiritual, emotional, energetic, electrical, chemical, biological beings with gazillions of inputs and outputs unique to our own lives. I’d argue that disease symptoms likely arise due to several factors that are unique to the individual— sometimes unique to families, and sometimes unique to communities. What does Steve eat? What is Steve’s home environment like? What are his beliefs? How does he sleep? What pharmaceuticals does he take? What supplements? How are his stress levels? What toxins are present in his environment? We can speculate on this all day. This is for Steve, and anyone reading this that relates to the experience described by Steve, to contemplate.
Lastly, I don’t know anyone claiming the so-called “unique” gene-sequences are coming from soda or 5G. This is a clear strawman fallacy. I do believe soda and 5G are harmful to health, though, and there’s a few interesting epidemiological studies correlating the effects of 5G with COVID. I don’t want to get into the reductionist trap of saying 5G “causes” COVID, though. It is merely an additional toxin in our environment that may bring about symptoms of disease.
“How people are being misled into thinking science works the way THEY say it does. Instead, they are misled into thinking that because they claim that ‘no virus particle has been isolated’ based on the dictionary definition of isolation (instead of the virology definition), that that is proof that viruses don’t exist. Further, they require that the isolated particles are used to infect ‘test subjects’ which I assume are lab animals. But it’s a human virus. So why are we testing it on lab animals? We won’t be able to get an IRB to approve infecting humans. And infecting humans is hard and would require a huge quantity of virions to achieve success; very likely more virions that can be successfully harvested and preserved for the experiment. Even worse, they require each test subject to have identical sickness. Virology requires no such thing. My wife and I are completely different. We have different immune systems. I’m male, she’s female. We have different immune histories. We have different health issues. She got COVID first and lost her taste. I picked it up from her, and didn’t lose my taste. So this proves virology doesn’t exist?!?! And finally, the next impossible challenge. The virus isolated from test subjects must be identical to the original particles. I can guarantee you this is never true. This virus mutates in everyone and everyone gets many mutations. If virus in=virus out as they claim, there wouldn’t be any variants at all. So their challenge is based on a fairy tale world that virology works they way they think it does. They don’t understand virology, so they make these rookie errors.”
“How people are being misled into thinking science works the way THEY say it does.” Steve is absolutely correct, although not in the way that he thinks. Again, the scientific method is crystal-clear. Your supposed—dare I say alleged— cause must be shown to exist in nature, in the way you claim that it does, prior to proceeding with an experiment thats entire purpose is to determine whether that very thing is the cause or not. This is science. This is based in the scientific method. Appeals to authority aren’t evidence. Appeals to tradition aren’t evidence. Bandwagon fallacies aren’t evidence.
The definition of isolation according to Webster’s Dictionary: “to separate from another substance so as to obtain in a pure or free state”.
Again, Steve is correct— virology’s version of isolation does not fit the definition of isolation known by virtually everyone outside the small field of virology. Virology’s definition of isolation is something like: “take a sample of snot from a sick person that we assume contains a virus, mix it with DMEM, amphotericin B, gentamicin, trypsin, fetal calf serum, minimal nutrient medium, etc. on a monkey kidney cell.” Again, please refer to our presentation for deeper context on this pseudoscientific process.
So to be clear, because virology developed its own, polar-opposite definition of “isolation”, the rest of us must accept it without question? What if it doesn’t adhere to the scientific method or to logic? Does that matter? I’d hope so. Even John Franklin Enders, the man who developed this process, acknowledged that the exact same cytopathic effect (the effect virologists claim as “proof” of both existence and pathogenicity) was produced without any sample of snot (that allegedly contains the virus) present.
The last few sentences are both a begging the question fallacy and a reification fallacy in one. He is both assigning characteristics (amount of virus required and the idea that viruses “mutate”) to and assuming the existence of something that has not been proven to exist. Virologists come up with several excuses on why viruses cannot be isolated and virology cannot adhere to both sound logic and the scientific method. One of the most common ones, which is used here by Kirsch, is that “there’s not enough virus present in the fluids to isolate/purify it directly from the sample, and not enough present to effectively replicate symptoms of disease in a healthy host.”
Just to be clear: we’re to believe that these pathogenic, disease causing particles exist in the fluids of a sick host, but there’s “not enough” present to cause disease in others in controlled experiments? They hold this to be true while also claiming that viruses travel freely through the air, land on a surface, survive there for upwards of 2-3 days, make it to a body, enter the body, make it to a cell, break into the cell, hijack the cell’s machinery beginning a replication process that overwhelms the body and is excreted out through that person where it repeats the same process again? And when we question this unproven notion and its glaring contradictions, you say we “don’t understand virology, so they make these rookie errors”?
Steve’s next point:
“Why aren’t they specifying any tests for THEIR hypothesis? Did you notice that they have no test whatsoever to validate that their replacement hypothesis is true? Whoops! A slight oversight! The test for their hypothesis is simple: fit the observations over the last 100 years better than the current hypothesis. They can’t do this at all.”
Again, the onus is on them to prove their initial claim. Our hypothesis is essentially the null hypothesis— viruses don’t cause disease. But even that is inaccurate, because in order to even have a valid hypothesis and null hypothesis, you have to show the thing you think is the cause actually exists. Again, virology can’t even get off the ground with this. Of course we have no test to prove our position is correct because you can’t prove a negative.
Also, I completely agree with what Steve s implying here— more research needs to be done on the other explanations for why people get sick in the same space. However, is it likely that this type of research will receive funding? It’s no secret that pharmaceutical companies have a major influence over what’s published in medical journals. How difficult would it be to receive funding for a series of studies that would quite literally dismantle most of allopathic medicine, which relies heavily on the existence of viruses? Would the peer review process be truly unbiased? How would the powers-that-shouldn’t-be, the ones who rely on our perpetual sickness, feel about the public discovering this? For additional context, I’d like to include these two quotes from chief editors of prestigious medical journals:
Let’s move on to the last point that I’ll cover…
“The bottom line: You get the idea. Unless THEIR experiment is done to THEIR specification using THEIR judges, then virology is a hoax. Their experiment as specified is impossible to do because it was designed to fail for the reasons I just pointed out. It’s a completely disingenuous challenge designed to fool the public. They did the same publicity stunt when they did a FOIA to the CDC asking for an isolated virus. They want you to cast aside 100+ years of scientific studies, all of which are consistent with the ‘virus theory’ because they can’t find an experiment which meets their requirements. Science doesn’t work that way. Science is a ‘best fit’ of a hypothesis to data. Their hypothesis that “other things” caused the observed effect is ludicrous.”
We are not asking for an experiment to be done to our specifications with our judges. Again, we are asking for virology to adhere to the scientific method. We are asking the field of virology, which is the foundation for which every single tyrannical measure occurred over the last year, to prove their claim. Again, the burden of proof lies on those making the positive claim, not the other way around. And this positive claim has wreaked havoc on the world.
Christine Massey’s FOI requests across the world are far from “publicity stunts.” She is showing very clearly that institutions across the Earth cannot provide the evidence that adheres to the scientific method regarding the existence of viruses.
Steve continually refers to “100+ years of scientific studies.” Again— where? What studies adhere to the scientific method? Where is the proof of viruses? Where is the proof of contagion? Let me use an analogy to clear this up a bit more:
I’m a child. From the moment that I was able to conceptualize things, I’ve been told that Santa Claus exists. Countless things in my environment reaffirm (or reify) his existence, including but not limited to all of the cartoons, movies, pictures and stories, the half-eaten cookies and milk on Christmas morning, the pieces of beard found in the fireplace, the presents under the tree, the Santa-Claus sleigh tracking app that I watch on Christmas Eve. All of these things mean Santa Claus actually exists, right? Right?
Of course the answer is “no.” Santa Claus is a story, a fairytale, a concept. Despite the many things that reify Santa’s existence, despite the millions of kids who “believe” in him, Santa Claus doesn’t actually exist. We see visible “effects” that are claimed or believed to be caused by Santa, but Santa isn’t real.
So when Steve loosely refers to “100+ years of studies”, understand that the studies are irrelevant if the foundation is quicksand.
In summary, I appreciate Steve for his work exposing the fraud of COVID vaccines. Steve is relatively new to this space and “woke up”, so to speak, very recently. I sincerely hope that he will continue to dig deeper. The virus challenge offered by Cowan et al is reasonable, unbiased, and science-based.
Several professionals have jumped the virology ship recently— namely Dr. Lee Merritt and Dr. Mike Yeadon (an appeal to authority fallacy, I know). This is significant though, because both were willing to set aside their biases on virology— a significant portion of their respective careers, to expose the pseudoscience and unproven assumptions at its foundation.
Virologists presuppose that there is a virus present in the fluids that are presented to the cell culture (alongside DMEM, fetal bovine serum, amphotericin B/gentamicin, etc.), and assume that the virus in the snot is causing the cell to experience the cytopathic effect.
They have never established that a virus is present inside the fluids of a sick host, first, and second, have never taken said virus from the fluids and presented it to a healthy host to see if it causes disease.
Pseudoscience is anything that doesn’t follow the scientific method but claims to be scientific. Virology does not adhere to the scientific method while claiming to be scientific.
This issue is extremely important because every single piece of the official COVID narrative and all of the ensuing tyranny has this field at its foundation. The lockdowns, the social distancing, the masking, the experimental vaccines, the mandates, the business closures, the job loss, the severe depression, the economic impact, the censorship, the centralization of power, the increased government control, the segregation, the discrimination, the harmful hospital protocols, the unnecessary death, and every other piece of the official COVID-19 narrative rests on the shoulders of the completely unproven concept of pathogenic disease causing viruses that are passed from person-to-person.
Let’s get to the root now so that we can pursue a new, real understanding on the true nature of health and disease. Hopefully Steve will be joining us in that pursuit. Only time will tell.