Reading Progress:

No, I Didn’t Call Tom Cowan a ‘Cancer’ in the Movement

by Oct 7, 2022Health Freedom, Special Reports27 comments

Tom Cowan, a leading propagator of the claim that viruses do not exist, supports his position by habitually deceiving his audience.

Reading Time: ( Word Count: )

()

Introduction

I received an email yesterday morning from a fan of Tom Cowan’s who called me “ignorant” and “dumb” and accused me of “sowing disinfo” for insisting that SARS‑CoV‑2 exists. Cowan, for those who don’t know, is a leading proponent of the claim that viruses do not exist and therefore that this coronavirus is not the cause of the clinical disease known as COVID‑19.

The angry troll, who seems to suffer from the delusion that repeatedly emailing me to call me names will either persuade or intimidate me, alerted me to a video published by Cowan on October 5 in which Cowan claims that I engaged in a personal attack on him by calling him “a cancer” in the health freedom movement. However, that is a lie. I did not call Tom Cowan a cancer. This false claim of Cowan’s only serves to further illustrate the observation I have made previously that he is intellectually dishonest.

In fact, his new video making that false claim about me, in which he also responds to statements attributed to Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, provides several illustrative examples of his dishonesty.

What I Actually Said

A minute or two into the video, Cowan has this to say:

Children’s Health Defense runs a Basecamp sort of forum where people can share ideas, and what’s so interesting to me about this is if you look at that, you see an increased amount of vitriol, some of which is directed personally at me. And, so, as an example—I’m not sure who but I think it was Hammond—referred to me as a cancer on the freedom movement.

Later in the video, Cowan responds to my alleged name-calling by saying he is “flattered” by my having called him “a cancer” in the movement.

He says that “whoever said that, I think Hammond, must have read my book where I describe actually the dynamics of what we mean by cancer.” (To my knowledge, Cowan has several books, one of which is titled Cancer and the New Biology of Water, which like the rest of his books I have never read.) He explains that, in his view, a cancerous tumor is a result of the body having been “poisoned or disturbed or psychologically affected” and is “an amazing therapeutic step” in which the body coalesces “this poison, this debris, into essentially a kind of garbage receptacle, which is what we call the ‘tumor’”, which is really just “the attempt to heal the toxic organism.”

In other words, in Cowan’s view, cancer is not the disease but the cure. He is “flattered” to have been called “a cancer” because it is “very clear that we have a very toxic movement, and because of that, somebody needs to try to heal this, and just like the cancer tumor is the body’s attempt to heal the toxic condition of the body, apparently we’re being told that we’re the force, we’re the part, that’s trying to heal this movement of its toxic misconception that is the foundation of this whole Covid narrative, that it’s all based on a virus, which simply doesn’t exist.”

I regret to have to inform Cowan that he shouldn’t flatter himself since I never called him “a cancer”. We agree that there is a toxicity within the health freedom movement in need of a cure. We disagree that the cure is for the rest of us to join him in maintaining that viruses do not exist.

It is true that I recently mentioned Cowan in a private forum. Cowan is not a member, so obviously someone who is a member dishonored the group’s understanding that the off-the-record discussions there consist of privileged information that, in keeping with basic journalistic ethics, may not be shared or publicized without permission from the source. I only acknowledge the existence of the group and the discussion here because Cowan has now publicized the information that he evidently obtained from a dishonorable member.

I will also say that his claim that there is “an increased amount of vitriol” in the group, “some of which is directed personally” at him, is a mischaracterization. It is true, again, that I started a thread to share recently published content of mine addressing false claims of Cowan’s, which were the following:

Apart from that, generally speaking, whenever Cowan’s name has come up, it was brought up by admirers of his. Indeed, for posting my content to that thread, a certain amount of “vitriol” was directed at me. Out of respect for members’ privacy and to honor the code of ethics, that’s all I will say to correct the record on that account.

More directly to the point, it is not true that I referred to Tom Cowan as “a cancer on the freedom movement”. Cowan has demonstrated his own lack of ethics here by either willfully lying about what I said or repeating misinformation he was given and claiming it to be a fact while having failed to verify it for himself. Cowan has my email address. If he was interested in pursuing the truth, he could have asked me whether I called him “a cancer”, and I would have explained to him that I did not.

Here’s what really happened: I shared what was then my latest article, “Tom Cowan’s Sources Contradict His Claims about SARS-CoV-2’s Nonexistence”, in which I demonstrated how Cowan and his colleagues attempt to derive authority for their claims from sources in the scientific literature that actually contradict those claims.

Most specifically, I have shown how according to their own sources cited in their definitive “Statement on Virus Isolation” (as opposed to their gross mischaracterizations of those sources), SARS‑CoV‑2 has indeed been “fully isolated, characterized, and genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle.”

In keeping again with the code of ethics, I won’t speak about what other members had to say in the thread, but I must now disclose that in my own comments to the group, I shared the following additional criticism of the entire health freedom movement:

To me, being respectful certainly does not mean we choose to be silent . . . when witnessing others within the movement spreading demonstrably false claims. On the contrary, I frankly view that attitude as part of the problem with the health freedom movement. Too much clubbiness for my taste. I understand many of you might be friends with Cowan and his colleagues and so might react with distaste to my criticism of his habitual mischaracterization of sources. But I am personally not here to make friends. I am here to advance the goal of health freedom, and so I have a moral imperative to combat the problems within the movement that are holding it back, such [as] exposing the deceptions by which so many of my own readers have become convinced that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. To be honest, I am greatly disappointed that so few of us within the movement have been willing to take a stand against misinformation coming from within the movement. The only “side” I am on is the side of truth. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. I will not stand with deceivers but will do what I can to hold them accountable for their deceptions. There is a cancer within this movement that needs to be cut out if we are to ever achieve the goal of eliminating the threat of authoritarianism and medical tyranny. I say we get to it.

So, as you can see from the context, what I was describing as “a cancer within this movement” was not Tom Cowan personally but (a) the damaging misinformation emanating from within the movement (which is unfortunately not limited to the claim that viruses do not exist) and (b) what I perceive as the general unwillingness of health freedom advocates who know better to criticize other members of the movement for making demonstrably false claims.

Cowan’s Deceitful and Self-Contradictory Arguments

In addition to falsely claiming that I called him a cancer, Cowan also refers in his video to comments allegedly made in the group discussion by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler. If you are unfamiliar with Dr. Jack, as he is also known by his friends and colleagues, I encourage you to read my article published yesterday, “Breakthrough Study Shows Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier”.

Dr. Jack is among the members of the health freedom movement whom I have come to most deeply respect. Like Dr. Paul Thomas, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. with his organization Children’s Health Defense (CHD), and Del Bigtree with his organization Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), Dr. Lyons-Weiler with his organization the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) has been a courageous leader on the front lines in the battle for health freedom.

In his video, Cowan takes issue with comments attributed to Dr. Jack. It is not my place to either confirm or deny that these comments were made. I’ll leave that to Dr. Jack. But Cowan’s responses to these reported comments happen to further illustrate his intellectual dishonesty, so I will comment on Cowan’s responses.

Lying about the Purification Step of Virus Isolation

Dr. Jack is attributed in the video with the statement that “After being presented with direct evidence that the virus has been isolated, many different ways, none of them happen to satisfy them; they keep raising the bar.”

Cowan objects to the statement that he and his fellow virus deniers “keep raising the bar” by arguing that they have rather been consistent in maintaining that the proper method of virus isolation is to filter and ultracentrifuge the patient sample, then show that the resulting supernatant contains only virus particles by observation with electron microscopy before doing any other experiments such as inoculating cells with the virus in a lab culture using uninoculated controls.

“We have said that from the beginning,” Cowan says, “and they have failed to come up with one example of that for SARS-CoV-2 or any other so-called pathogenic virus.”

Indeed, in their “Statement on Virus Isolation”, they state that “the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus” is to take the patient sample and, without mixing it with any other source of genetic material, to filter and ultracentrifuge it. This “purifies the specimen” and is a “common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages”, which then “allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.” To support this characterization of “the proper way” to isolate a virus, they cite a study published in PLOS ONE in April 2019.

However, the statement attributed to Dr. Jack that they “keep raising the bar” when confronted with direct evidence contradicting their central claims is absolutely correct, as I will demonstrate momentarily.

First, though, note that they thus treat “purification” and “isolation” as synonymous. In fact, purification and isolation are two different things. Purification is a step in the process of virus isolation as described in the scientific literature. It is the use of cell culture, which is done after purification of the sample, that is described in the literature as the “gold standard” of virus isolation.

Second, filtration and centrifugation are two different methods of purification. They can both be used, or the one can be used instead of the other. They are not both required. In the studies I have read describing the isolation of SARS‑CoV‑2, centrifugation has typically been the method used.

Third, note the irreconcilable self-contradiction between their claim to have described “the proper way” to isolate a virus as described in the literature and their claim that viruses do not exist. If viruses do not exist, there cannot possibly be a “proper way” to isolate them. Their inherent self-contradictions render their arguments nonsensical.

Obviously, it would not do to characterize the supposedly “proper way” of isolating a virus without supporting that characterization with a source from the scientific literature. By citing the PLOS ONE study, they are claiming to derive authority for their characterization from that source.

The problem is that the study directly contradicts the claim for which they are citing it.

I covered that already in detail in my video “Debunking the ‘Statement on Virus Isolation’” and my follow-up article “Tom Cowan’s Sources Contradict His Claims about SARS-CoV-2’s Nonexistence”. To briefly summarize, their own source describes the isolation of bacteriophages, which are viruses that infect bacteria, using cell culture.

The study authors took bacterial samples from a lake, purified the samples with centrifugation to separate the phages from cellular debris, and then isolated the phages by culturing them in bacterial cells.

This method of using cell culture to isolate and characterize viruses makes perfect sense since viruses are “intracellular parasites” that require host cells for replication. Bacterial cultures are used for bacteriophages since these are viruses that infect bacteria. Animal and/or human cell lines are naturally used for viruses that infect animals and/or humans.

Now, to illustrate that it is true that Cowan and colleagues have a habit of “raising the bar” when directly confronted with evidence contradicting his claims, I need only to point out the conversation he and I previously had that I discussed in my article “Tom Cowan’s Sources Contradict His Claims about SARS-CoV-2’s Nonexistence”.

You can read the whole exchange there, but to briefly summarize the key point for our purposes here:

  1. Cowan had claimed that scientists do not purify the sample before inoculation in cell culture.
  2. I pointed out to him that in fact scientists do purify samples with centrifugation prior to inoculation in cell culture.
  3. Cowan then raised the bar by claiming that this centrifugation was “not purification”.
  4. I pointed out to him that he had himself described centrifugation as a purification process in his own “Statement on Virus Isolation”.
  5. Cowan then raised the bar by objecting that for centrifugation to be a purification step “they MUST show” electron microscopy images “of purified virions.”
  6. I pointed out to him that this was directly contradicted by his own source cited to support his characterization of “the proper way” to isolate a virus since the researchers who conducted that study did not do electron microscopy between purification of samples and inoculation in bacterial cell culture.

As I wrote in my prior article, “Thus, Cowan was setting a bar so high for me in terms of ‘proving’ that a virus has been purified that he couldn’t meet it himself with his own cited source despite having cited that source as an example of the ‘proper’ method of purifying and isolating a virus.”

So, yes, the statement attributed to Dr. Jack is precisely correct that when directly confronted with evidence falsifying their claims, they “raise the bar” to demand even greater evidence to the point of utter absurdity.

Lying about the Use of Controls When Doing Cell Culture

Continuing in the video, Cowan goes on to claim that scientists never use uninoculated controls when doing cell culture. In making that claim, he rhetorically inquires, “In fact, if you’re a real scientist, why wouldn’t you want to do that?”

He characterizes his intellectual opponents, among whom he specifically names Dr. Jack and me, as responding to this question with “excuses about why they don’t even want to do control experiments.”

This is just another perfect illustration, though, of Cowan’s intellectual dishonesty. It is provably false. I can prove that is false by once again simply referring to my prior article showing how his claims are directly contradicted by his own cited sources.

In that prior article, I responded to a video in which Cowan promoted a document by Mark Bailey in which Bailey cites a study that was, by Bailey’s account, “invalidated by the absence of appropriate control cultures.” I pointed out that, in fact, that study did describe the use of an uninoculated control and even provided electron microscopy images comparing the uninfected control with infected cell cultures.

Now, maybe Cowan has not read that article of mine and so is unaware of how I pointed out that Bailey’s claim is false. But a few months back, Cowan emailed me to request that I sign on to their “Virus Challenge”, which I declined to do since it begs the question and contains false claims. (You can read that full email exchange in that same prior article of mine, which I published because Cowan in a different video had referenced things that I said via email but mischaracterized our whole discussion, which made it necessary for me to set the record straight by providing the full context.)

In an email on July 12, using the abbreviation for “cytopathic effects”, I pointed out to him that “scientists already do use controls to differentiate between CPE (or lack thereof) in uninoculated versus inoculated control”.

Yet now here is Cowan once again in this latest video falsely claiming that scientists do not use controls when doing cell culture and falsely claiming that the only response I and others have to this is to make “excuses” about why scientists don’t do this.

This willful ignorance of evidence directly contradicting his claim and his deliberate strawman argumentation perfectly illustrates my point about his intellectual dishonesty.

Now, instead of engaging in deliberate strawman argumentation, we can anticipate that Cowan and Bailey might alternatively respond to this repeated observation of mine that they do use controls by raising the bar and arguing that Bailey didn’t really mean that they didn’t use controls in that study he cited, just that the controls that they did use somehow weren’t “appropriate”.

But Cowan insists that they do not respond to our presentation of evidence directly falsifying their claims by raising the bar. So, that places him in a little dilemma because no matter how he tries to wriggle out of it, he proves our point.

Contradicting Himself about Bacteriophages Being Viruses

Next, Cowan contradicts himself about bacteriophages being viruses. He attributes to Dr. Jack the statement, “There’s no answer from them other than anger when it was pointed out that bacteriophages, which they admit exist, are viruses.”

This is an observation of the self-contradiction between their claim that viruses do not exist and their acknowledgment of the existence of bacteriophages, which are viruses.

In response to this observation about their self-contradiction, Cowan in the video claims that bacteriophages are not viruses. Here is a transcript of that part of the video:

Bacteriophages are not virus. They probably do exist. It’s possible that they are an electron microscope artifact, but I don’t think so. The reason they’re not viruses, I was very clear about this, is when you stress bacteria in a culture, they take on a spore-like form where they coalesce into a tiny structure, which is about the size and consistency of what we are calling viruses, which therefore proves that you can actually find things the size and morphology and the composition of what they’re claiming are viruses, so that proves that finding them is not a technical problem. So bacteriophages are not viruses, they are spore-like forms of stressed bacteria, and therefore they can’t possibly prove that viruses exist because they don’t fit the definition of a virus. For instance, they don’t self-replicate, they just come from the breakdown of or the coalescence of the bacteria when they’re stressed, very similar to the misconception of what a virus is, which is just the breakdown product of stressed tissues.

There’s just one little problem with his claim that bacteriophages are not viruses and do not replicate themselves inside of the single-celled organisms we know as bacteria, which is that their “Statement on Virus Isolation” describes bacteriophages as “viruses”, citing a study in which phages were isolated using bacterial cell culture, with the observation of viral replication.

This again speaks to how Cowan cites sources to support his claims that directly contradict his claims.

I pointed out this very self-contradiction to Cowan in an email on July 12 (see again my prior article for the full exchange). I noted how their “Virus Challenge” proposal falsely claims that particles “successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent or infectious, hence cannot be said to be viruses.” Setting aside the repeated mistaken conflation of purification with isolation (these again being two different things), I pointed out to Cowan that their own Statement on Virus Isolation “cites a paper describing purification and isolation from bacteria of viral particles that were replication-competent”.

Thus, Cowan’s response to the observation that he cannot produce a rational response when directly confronted with his own self-contradictions perfectly illustrates the truth of that observation. His self-contradictions are simply irreconcilable.

Now, Cowan could argue that the PLOS ONE study he cites to support his authoritative claim to know “the proper way” to isolate a virus is a bunk study, an unreliable source; but, then, the consequence of that argument would be to also debunk his own Statement on Virus Isolation in which he attempts to derive authority for his claim from citing that study.

Conclusion

Tom Cowan and I agree that we have a very toxic movement. The “cancer” I was describing, however, is the regrettably pervasive intellectual dishonesty that is impairing the effectiveness of the movement in advancing the goal of eliminating the systematic violation by the government of individuals’ right to informed consent. This toxicity cannot be cured with even more toxicity. It cannot be cured with even more lies. No amount of additional strawman argumentation is going to heal this body. What is required for healing to occur is honesty.

Cowan could start by publicly withdrawing his false claim that I called him “a cancer”.

Then he could acknowledge that scientists do centrifuge samples prior to inoculation in cell culture, which according to his own Statement on Virus Isolation is a purification process; and he could acknowledge that his insistence that electron microscopy must be done between centrifugation and cell culture to be considered a purification step is contradicted by his own cited source on the “proper way” to isolate viruses, in which the researchers did electron microscopy only after replication of the phages in culture and not before.

Then he could acknowledge that he is also contradicting himself by claiming that bacteriophages are not viruses since he states in his Statement on Virus Isolation that they are; and he could acknowledge that bacteriophages are viruses since his own source cited to support his characterization of “the proper way” to isolate viruses demonstrated the replication of the phages inside of bacterial cell culture.

Then he could acknowledge that scientists do use control cultures when doing cell culture to determine whether a virus is present by observing for cytopathic effects and viral replication, which use of cell culture is the isolation of the virus once again according to their own source cited to support their characterization of “the proper way” to isolate viruses.

To demonstrate intellectual honesty by publicly issuing these acknowledgments would be a good start down the path towards healing and eliminating the toxicity within the movement.

I won’t personally be holding my breath, but who knows? Maybe Cowan will surprise me.

Response to Bill Huston’s Conspiracy Theory about Me

Update, October 15, 2022: A reader in the comments alerted me to a Substack article written by Bill Huston consisting entirely of personal attacks against me for having written the above article correcting Cowan’s false claims.

Huston titles his post “Jeremy R. Hammond’s Hilarious Self-Own against Dr. Tom Cowan”, which I’ve archived here in case he decides to alter or delete it. What is truly humorous about this is how Huston (a) refuses to even attempt to identify even just one factual or logical error of mine in any of the content I have published about the “no virus” issue to date and instead (b) engages purely in ad hominem argumentation including a lunatic conspiracy theory that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I are collaborating as “agents of Big Pharma” to push the industry’s agenda.

Since Huston’s post so perfectly illustrates the level of intellectualism I have constantly been dealing with for more than two years now from the “no virus” cult, I will take a few moments to address his post and correct certain false claims he makes for the record, including clarification about my relationship with Bobby Kennedy and his organization Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

As indicated by his article’s title, Huston blatantly lies that in my above article I first deny having called Cowan “a cancer”, but then I go on to “admit” that I did. He calls me a “freakin diptard” and writes:

The Hilarity in a Nutshell:

The main gag is that in the title, Hammond DENIES that he called Dr. Tom Cowan a “Cancer on the Movement”.

But then he ADMITS that did!!🤷🤦 But that this was OK, because it was in a private forum, and some member dishonorably violated the agreed rules and leaked the email. He then gives his full quote confirming that IS what he said!

And of course it’s true! Does it make any sense that this “dishonorable” leak from the private forum would be damaging if it were not true?

This is how shifty Hammond is.

As you have already verified for yourself if you’ve read my whole article above, I certainly did not “admit” that I called Tom Cowan a cancer but that it was “OK” for me to do so “because it was in a private forum”. This is a complete fabrication bearing no resemblance to what I actually wrote, as anyone who has actually read my above article can easily see for themselves.

Once again, from my Conclusion, “The ‘cancer’ I was describing, however, is the regrettably pervasive intellectual dishonesty that is impairing the effectiveness of the movement in advancing the goal of eliminating the systematic violation by the government of individuals’ right to informed consent.”

Huston’s behavior is illustrative of the pervasive intellectual dishonesty emanating from the “no virus” cult. As anyone with a modicum of honesty can see, far from offering an admission, I provided the full context of my statement about “a cancer” in the movement clearly showing how Cowan took that statement of mine completely out of context. All Huston has done is to persist in taking my words completely out of their context despite my having shown him how the context belies his claim. Thus, we can see that Huston is a willful liar.

At no point in Huston’s article does he substantively address any of the arguments I have presented in any of my published content addressing the “no virus” claims. He does not even attempt to identify any factual or logical errors in any of my arguments. That alone demonstrates Huston’s intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Instead, Huston’s blog devolves from his lie that I “admit” I engaged in name-calling against Cowan into his lunatic conspiracy theory.

The health freedom community, he says, has been “co-opted by Gatekeepers”, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and myself, who are “sheepdogging people back into the bogus, obsolete, & defunct Germ Theory” that underlies the approach of the medical establishment.

That is certainly a curious accusation given my constant exposure of mainstream propaganda serving to manufacture consent for criminal government policies that serve the interests of the pharmaceutical industry rather than the interests of public health, as well as my consistent emphasis throughout the pandemic on the importance of the “terrain”. As I have constantly observed from the start, SARS‑CoV‑2 is a necessary but insufficient factor in the pathogenesis of COVID‑19.

Huston then describes his “experience with Public Relations Operatives”, whom back in the day he called “PR hacks, flacks, hit-men, spin-doctors, corporate con-artists, bullshit artists, paid liars, and industry shills.” Then he proceeds to assert that I am such a shill with a section subheaded “Hammond as Public Relations Operative for Rockefeller Medicine”, in which he says, referring to me, that “it only makes sense” that “the establishment Rockefeller Allopathic Medical Industrial Complex . . . are, perhaps indirectly, his clients.”

Huston then asks for his readers to “explain to me the anomalous fact that Hammond is employed by Children’s Health Defense, and works closely with Bobby Kennedy, who ostensibly is fighting Big Pharma, & Corporate Medicine? Does this make any sense?”

He proceeds to describe “Hammond’s troubling close association with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.”, saying that I started “attacking the No Virus position” in October 2020, when I appeared on Kennedy’s show “Truth”. He describes me in that interview as being “extremely shifty” and “hard to pin down” on any issue, like “about masks”, where the possible answers to the question “Is Hammond in favor of face masks?” are: “a) Yes! B) No! c) I have no idea—Hammond is all over the place.”

Had Huston actually listened to that interview with the intent of understanding what I had to say, he would know what a stupid question that is. He would understand how I reject this notion that the only two positions one could possibly hold are to either be “for” or “against” the use of facemasks. I won’t bother to get into the nuances of the issue here, but to summarize the key points I made during the interview: (a) there was (and remains) no evidence to support the mandatory use of masks by members of the public in the community setting, and (b) it is up to each individual to decide, depending on their own unique circumstances, whether it would be appropriate to wear a mask either as personal protective equipment or as source control. These key points, which I was absolutely consistent about, are pretty hard to miss if you listen to the interview, but clearly, Huston had no interest in understanding, only in trying to find something he could try to use to support his description of me as a “shifty” character.

I actually never discussed the “no virus” claims with Kennedy in that interview. What Huston is instead referring to as an “attack” on “the No Virus position” was our discussion of the hypothesis that SARS‑CoV‑2 was the result of US government-funded “gain of function” experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. (By this reasoning, everything that I have ever written about the coronavirus and COVID‑19 is an “attack” on the belief in the nonexistence of the virus.) Huston calls this hypothesis a “Straw Man” argument since it “presumes that the Fake Virus is real”.

Actually, the fallacy here is Huston’s as he is begging the question. But his characterization of our discussion as a strawman perfectly illustrates how intelligent discussion about various important issues such as the origins of SARS‑CoV‑2 is completely impossible within the framework of virus denialism, which is serving to derail the health freedom movement from producing effective arguments to fight against the existential threat of medical tyranny.

I don’t think that Cowan et al. are industry shills or disinformation agents aiming to divide and discredit the health freedom movement, but they might as well be. The consequences are the same. Meanwhile, others of us in the movement that Huston personally attacks and vainly tries to discredit have been on the front lines effectively fighting the medical tyranny and converting people to the view that the “public health” establishment is completely unworthy of our trust.

Huston then asks, “Is RFK Jr. directing Hammond, or just taking his bad advice?” He asks if Kennedy is “influencing Hammond, steering him in a certain direction”, and if so, why? “Why steer the investigation into a certain direction, rather than just do a finding-of-fact, and let the facts themselves tell the story? That’s not how a scientific investigation is done, or how a civil litigation attorney does a finding of fact. Even if Bobby just uses a shifty, anti-science diptard like Hammond for research (and thus cover for CHD’s positions), this shows either bad faith, or extraordinarily bad judgment.”

Huston closes with a list of content I have produced about the “no virus” issue, describing my well-reasoned and fully supported arguments as “attacks” on “Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and anyone who espouses the ‘No Virus’ message.” His “Bottom Line” is:

Don’t waste your time on Hammond. He’s a disinfo agent being paid by CHD, seemingly to benefit the Rockefeller Allopathic Medical Industrial Complex, to attack the brave scientists on #TeamNoVirus and promoting the Germ Theory / Virology lie.

When confronted with his own words, he first DENIES that he maligned Dr. Cowan, but then admitted that he did, in a self-humiliation nearly as great as the scene where Sir Robin of Camelot was mocked by his own minstrels, in the film, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

If you want the real science, just stick with Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, Kevin Corbett, Christine Massey, and Mark & Sam Bailey.

My good friend Bobby Kennedy should seriously re-evaluate your association with Hammond, because he’s giving you really bad advice.

Huston, as I have already noted, is a liar, and he is an intellectual coward who doesn’t dare to challenge me on the actual substance of my arguments. To set the record straight:

  • I have never had any companies, organizations, or individuals associated with the pharmaceutical industry as clients and have never been a client of such entities. I have absolutely no ties whatsoever to the pharmaceutical industry or the medical establishment. I rarely do receive payment for freelance work, but for nearly all the content that I labor to produce, I receive no wage, salary, grant, commission, or any other form of monetary compensation. Nobody directs me or steers me in any way. I operate totally independently under my legal entity “Worldview Media, LLC”, of which I am the sole member. I am completely transparent about how I fund my work, which is chiefly through donations from my community of readers, along with book sales, affiliate promotions of products I feel many of my readers might find beneficial (like informational documentaries), and freelance coaching or consulting. But, again, the only funding I receive for the vast majority of my content comes in the form of donations from my readers.
  • I am not now and have not ever been an employee of Children’s Health Defense (CHD). I have never been employed by anyone as an independent journalist, for that matter. I am now and always have been self-employed in this profession. Over the years, I have occasionally provided CHD with content either without compensation or as freelance work. In each instance where CHD has published my content under the latter circumstances, it was I who proposed the content to them and not vice versa. In each instance, I maintained total independence, without any kind of steering whatsoever from CHD as to what angle I should approach the topic from or what conclusions I should draw.   
  • As Bobby Kennedy intimated during the aforementioned interview, he did contact me early during the pandemic to request that I investigate the claims being made about SARS‑CoV‑2 being a bioweapon or having been an escaped product of genetic engineering research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He did not in any way steer me toward any conclusions. In fact, as Bobby could confirm for anyone interested in verifying, I originally reported back my conclusion from my preliminary investigation that the virus was not a product of genetic engineering but may have been created in the lab with serial passaging through cell cultures or some intermediary animal species. My view later changed simply because of the information that later emerged that helped me see the error I had made in my analysis. As I learned more, my conclusion changed to favor the hypothesis that the virus was created as a product of “gain of function” research involving the genetic engineering of coronaviruses. This remains my position today. Specifically, my erroneous initial conclusion was based on my incorrect understanding that there would be clear signs of genetic manipulation in the virus’s genome. I later learned that scientists in fact have methods of manipulating genomes without leaving a trace (they even call it a “no-see-um” method). It also later came to light that there are suspicious nucleotide sequences in the SARS‑CoV‑2 genome, which I won’t get into here because it’s too lengthy a tangent.
  • Huston’s claim that I have been paid by CHD to produce content challenging the “no virus” claim is a lie. I have received no type of monetary compensation from CHD for any of the content I have ever produced on this topic. CHD has never published any of my content on this topic. Nor has Bobby Kennedy or anyone from CHD requested me to produce any of this content. CHD has had precisely nothing to do with any of this content of mine, apart from my having simply shared this content of mine in the private forum mentioned by Cowan in his video.
  • I have not “attacked” Cowan, Kaufman, or other leading propagators of the claim that viruses do not exist. The content I have produced on this topic neither consists of nor contains any ad hominem arguments. I have rather carefully listened to their arguments, researched their claims, and meticulously documented the factual and logical errors of their arguments. Inescapable conclusions logically following from demonstrable facts are not personal attacks or other form of ad hominem argumentation. Note that Huston, by contrast, is attacking me personally, relying entirely on ad hominem argumentation and false claims in a vain attempt to malign my character, which saves him the trouble of having to attempt to identify any factual or logical errors of my own.

Huston’s behavior is unfortunately characteristic of those I’ve encountered from the “no virus” cult. And, yes, the conclusion that this a cult, at least in the sense of “great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work”, with an almost religious fervor, does logically follow from the behavior I have been confronted with all too frequently since I first started correcting false claims used to support their belief system. When I say that Huston is intellectually dishonest and an intellectual coward, those conclusions, too, follow inescapably from how he demonstrably lies and otherwise depends entirely on ad hominem argumentation to sustain his own evident belief in the non-existence of viruses. These are not personal attacks in lieu of valid arguments; they are empirical observations.

I have never received so much hate mail as about this issue, and that’s saying a lot given the hate mail I used to receive, throughout the time my work was focused mainly or largely on the Israel-Palestine conflict, from ardent Zionists who objected to my criticisms of the Israeli government for its perpetual violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people.

There are those among my audience who are simply curious or uncertain what to think about the “no virus” claims and who have communicated with me about it politely, respectfully, and reasonably; but from among the hard-core believers, rational discussion is never forthcoming. It is always substanceless and hateful vitriol that I get from them in my email inbox or on social media, in lieu of anything approaching reasoned discourse. And no matter how many times you point out their factual and logical errors, they persist in repeating those same errors over and over, as though they had never been made aware of how their claims are false or their conclusions fallacious.

Huston’s blog post is a perfect illustration of the cult-like nature of this belief system in which there is no such thing as a particle of genetic information that can utilize the machinery of host cells to replicate itself and communicate that genetic information to the host.

It’s too bad that such firm adherents to “terrain” theory fail to realize the huge mistake they have made in denying the existence of something that—as discussed in my article above—has been so critical for our own evolutionary existence, and that—like the microbiome—we depend upon for the maintenance of good health. There is tragic irony in their failure to realize that the existence of viruses does not challenge but reinforces the idea that it is host factors that largely determine the pathogenesis of disease. It’s really too bad.

In conclusion, Huston’s vain attack on me perfectly illustrates what I meant about there being a cancer in the health freedom movement. Such cultish behavior, hateful divisiveness, and intellectual dishonesty truly have no place in our efforts to combat the system of medical authoritarianism.

Rate This Content:

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

What do you think?

I encourage you to share your thoughts! Please respect the rules.

  • Dr. Jeanette McKee says:

    I think you should remember Jeremy that you are a journalist. Do you realize that the “full sequencing” about which you are basing your whole argument is done by a computer just filling in the blanks? In order to accomplish this they add numerous antibiotics and other chemicals that poison the cell, causing all types of debris and damage to the cell. The isolates left over have been called “viruses” by a very corrupt institution, better known as Big Pharma. For the life of me I don’t understand why you are so quick to believe what this corrupt industry teaches. You should be questioning everything they espouse.

    “It is true that I recently mentioned Cowan in a private forum. Cowan is not a member, so obviously someone who is a member dishonored the group’s understanding that the off-the-record discussions there consist of privileged information that, in keeping with basic journalistic ethics, may not be shared or publicized without permission from the source. I only acknowledge the existence of the group and the discussion here because Cowan has now publicized the information that he evidently obtained from a dishonorable member.” Why would you be concerned about a dishonorable member repeating what you said? Unless it isn’t true.

    “So, as you can see from the context, what I was describing as “a cancer within this movement” was not Tom Cowan personally but (a) the damaging misinformation emanating from within the movement (which is unfortunately not limited to the claim that viruses do not exist) and (b) what I perceive as the general unwillingness of health freedom advocates who know better to criticize other members of the movement for making demonstrably false claims.” I can totally see why Tom felt you were referring to him as the cancer because it is “he and his idea” with which you do not agree. You are demonstrating a general unwillingness to even consider that you might be incorrect. I am willing to entertain the thought that Tom is correct and Big Pharma and the “viral” theory is incorrect. You may find out someday that the whole Viral Theory turns out to be Mis-information. You don’t believe Vaccines are Safe and
    Effective, do you? The same industry that brought you the “safe and effective” mis-information, also brought you the “viral theory.”

    Jeremy, IMHO you have bitten off more than you can chew with this topic. You are now spinning your wheels trying to convince people that you are right and Tom and his followers are wrong. You are a journalist; and when you stay in your lane, what you write is fairly good. It is very likely that one day you will find out that Tom and the other researchers studying this are correct and you are in fact wrong. Tom’s “idea” doesn’t “poison” the reality of what has happened. SARS-CoV-2 is a “toxic substance” that was released upon the world, in order for the “powers-that-shouldn’t-be” to bring forth their genetic therapy. I believe you know that Big Pharma is very corrupt and they do not safety test any of their vaccines. Why do you have such faith in Big Pharma’s claim that they discovered something they call Viruses? Big Pharma’s plans go way back and just perhaps they invented something they call “Viruses” so they could one day perpetrate medical tyranny on the masses through vaccine therapy for these so called viruses. If you are writing for “Children’s Health Defense” then you must understand that you can not trust Big Pharma.

    It would be in your best interest to just either admit that Tom could be correct and we have once again been fed a big fat lie and then just let this go; or sign on to his Challenge where you could present all your thoughts in an organized manner and actually have a real debate back and forth.

    • Andy says:

      I agree Dr McKee, Jeremy has done some magnificent, useful enlightening work, I am not sure why this topic needs to be such a big deal it would be so much more useful if he concentrated on the common ground they share which is vast.

      I think the attribute that has enabled Jeremy to be a truly wonderful investigative reporter is now turning against him so to speak.

      Ignorance is essentially false belief reinforced by mental and emotional programming. By ignorance, it is meant unwillingness to seek greater understanding. This can come from a lack of intellectual application and/or absence of intuition.

      “As a human being, one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with what exists.”

      • Andy,

        I am not sure why this topic needs to be such a big deal

        It is a big deal because of the extraordinary harm it has caused and continues to cause to the health freedom movement.

        Please note that by suggesting I am somehow demonstrating “ignorance” here in the absence of even an attempt to identify even a single factual or logical error in anything I’ve ever written about the topic is a violation of the terms of use of the comments section of this site. Please familiarize yourself with the rules, and if you have a criticism, substantiate it by identifying where it is that you think I have made a factual or logical error in the above article. Gratuitous insults in lieu of logically valid arguments are strictly prohibited.

      • Andy says:

        Jeremy,

        I wasn’t directly suggesting you were demonstrating “ignorance” I just added the 2 quotes to demonstrate that there are things that are really beyond the intellect, that rational thinking and logic just can’t comprehend. I would say the quotes equally apply to Tom Cowan. I genuinely think the work you do is wonderful and have purchased many of your products and found your analysis and information sincerely enlightening. I have found the work of Iain McGilchrist fascinating and how it applies to our current crisis and how we have become “left brain” dominant. The difference between right and left hemispheres has been puzzled over for centuries. Drawing upon a vast body of brain research, the renowned psychiatrist, author, and thinker Iain McGilchrist reveals that the difference between the two sides is profound—two whole, coherent, but incompatible ways of experiencing the world. The detail-oriented left hemisphere prefers mechanisms to living things and is inclined to self-interest, while the right hemisphere has greater breadth, flexibility, and generosity.

        Alan Watts also has a great quote, So you see here again the problem comes out in genetics we do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is. The way the world actually is is an enormously complex interrelated organism. The same problem arises in medicine, because the body is a very complexly interrelated organism.

        Again I offer a sincere apology, the manner in which the quotes were presented probably came across as arrogant, they were merely intended to open a discourse, probably a limitation of my writing and the format of comment sections. I truly believe both yours and Tom’s view can be integrated into a new paradigm. I have given a copy of The War on Informed Consent to a family member and it helped them to see a different perspective.

        Love Your Work
        Andrew

      • Andy,

        Apology accepted, thank you. How do you propose that my view can “be integrated into a new paradigm” with Cowan’s? I do not see how that is logically possible. Facts matter, and truth is incompatible with demonstrable falsehoods.

    • Jeanette,

      I think you should remember Jeremy that you are a journalist.

      How curious of you to suggest that I have forgetten.

      Do you realize that the “full sequencing” about which you are basing your whole argument is done by a computer just filling in the blanks?

      How curious of you to suggest that “my whole argument” here is based on whole genome sequencing when I didn’t even mention sequencing in this article. But since you brought it up, I have to point out how you have been deceived about this technology by Cowan et al. Please see here:

      Correcting Misinformation about SARS-CoV-2 Whole Genome Sequencing
      https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/08/26/misinformation-sars-cov-2-whole-genome-sequencing/

      Tom Cowan’s Misinformation on the Sequencing of SARS-CoV-2
      https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/09/02/tom-cowans-misinformation-on-the-sequencing-of-sars-cov-2/

      For the life of me I don’t understand why you are so quick to believe what this corrupt industry teaches.

      For the life of me I don’t understand why you are so quick to dismiss literally all the relevant scientific literature (not only that deriving from Big Pharma) and to believe people who so grossly mischaracterize their own cited sources in order to support their position.

      Why would you be concerned about a dishonorable member repeating what you said? Unless it isn’t true.

      What a silly question. Why should a violation of the code of ethics not concern me? And did you miss the part about it not being true???

      I can totally see why Tom felt you were referring to him as the cancer…

      But you can see from the context that I did not. Why are you trying to defend his false claim?

      you must understand that you can not trust Big Pharma.

      Of course I do. Nothing I have ever said about this topic is dependent on any kind of trust in my part in the pharmaceutical industry.

      or sign on to his Challenge

      I have already stated the reasons why it would be unethical for me to do that. I invited them to revise the proposal to remove the false claims, but they refused.

      You are demonstrating a general unwillingness to even consider that you might be incorrect.

      How so? How does it demonstrate an unwillingness to consider that I might be incorrect to take such an extraordinary amount of time to listen to their arguments, to check their claims against their own sources, and to report how they consistently make demonstrably false claims including by misrepresenting their own sources?

      It is you who is demonstrating willful ignorance, choosing not to see how they have deceived you despite the facts being laid out right in front of you to see. Your criticisms of me are completely substanceless. It is telling that you haven’t even attempted to identify even a single factual or logical error in anything I’ve ever written on this topic, and your gratuitous insult of suggesting that by covering this topic, I am not acting as a journalist is a violation of the terms of use of the comments section of this website.

      Please familiarize yourself with the rules, including the prohibition of trolling behavior, and if you have a criticism, please add substance to it, i.e., show me where I made a factual or logical error in the above article. If you cannot actually identify any errors on my part, then you have no legitimate criticism.

      • Ben Musclow says:

        Hammond:

        “To be honest, I am greatly disappointed that so few of us within the movement have been willing to take a stand against misinformation coming from within the movement. The only “side” I am on is the side of truth. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. I will not stand with deceivers but will do what I can to hold them accountable for their deceptions. There is a cancer within this movement that needs to be cut out if we are to ever achieve the goal of eliminating the threat of authoritarianism and medical tyranny. I say we get to it.”

        From your own words the “cancer.. that needs to be cut out” could refer to 1) misinformation (“deceptions”), 2) deceivers (people who share such “misinformation) or 3) both of the above. It is perfectly reasonable that Tom Cowan could conclude that whoever wrote the above (he never directly accused you) was referring to ANYONE who believed that pathogenic viruses have never been proven to exist.
        While there will always be someone who will misunderstand, misinterpret or misrepresent any given statement (or paragraph, or book, etc) – you should be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt for commentary about your own posts – especially before calling people deceivers and liars.

      • Ben,

        you should be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt

        First of all, there is a world of difference between a statement like “Tom Cowan is a cancer”, which is what he attributes to me, and what I actually said. Anyone can see that I did not in fact call him personally a cancer. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this is curious to me and suggests bad faith. You can argue that it is possible to misinterpret me as saying so, but, then, the fact remains that he presented this misinterpretation as a fact, which is still wrong.

        And I have already given him the benefit of the doubt by acknowledging that his false claim that I called him a cancer may not have been a willful lie, but that perhaps he was just repeating misinformation he was given and claiming it to be a fact while having failed to verify it for himself. I am happy to add to that the possibility that he was just misinterpreting what I said and presenting his misinterpretation as fact, and all of my points remain.

        As for deception and lies, this is not a mere accusation. I have provided proofs of this behavior, which you are simply choosing to ignore. If you would like to discuss any of those proofs I have provided, you are welcome to pick one out to discuss, but to simply pretend as though I haven’t backed up my words with facts is also a demonstration of bad faith on your part.

  • Anthony says:

    Dear Mr. Hammond

    From your own quoting of Cowan, its clear he was not sure who said it

    “I’m not sure who but I THINK it was Hammond”.

    that means he is not directly accusing you. so to say he Is disingenuous makes me shake my head and realize it Is you who is being disingenuous because you just disproved your own accusation, yet fail to acknowledge your own bias.

    Dr Cowan is well known to choose his words very carefully so that situations like this never occur. But it seems, like the virus story, one can take any statement, and invert it to mean the complete opposite of its original meaning.

    So I THINK it was Hammond becomes it WAS Hammond.

    In another portion of the video, again, Dr Cowan is clear:

    “WHOEVER said that, I THINK it was Hammond

    So the million dollar ? is, if it was not Hammond, then who actually said it?

    So instead of trying to paint Dr Cowan as some duplicitous con man, the right thing to do is respond to the uncertainty stated by Cowan and let the world know that it was not you who said Dr Cowan is a cancer on the movement. That would show your honesty and willingness to be transparent.

    Instead you found an opportunity, to make a false claim that my seem legitimate to those who refuse to let go of germ theory.

    • Anthony, it is now you who is being disingenuous. He falsely claimed that somebody in the forum called him “a cancer” and said he thought it was me. Do you understand that neither I nor anybody else called him a cancer? Do you understand that it was in fact me who used those words, but not to describe him? You are trying to excuse a false claim, period.

  • Paula Muth says:

    Excellent rebuttal to Cowan’s theory of the non-existence of viruses. Instead of admitting he could be wrong about some or all of his arguments, he doubles down. Which makes me want to dismiss anything he says. I used to flip-flop on the issue, but your arguments have convinced me that viruses exist. You have simplified the explanation in a way that makes it easy to understand.

    That fact that he said he thought it was you who called him “a cancer” was no mistake. Saying “I think it was Hammond who said it” has the same effect as saying “Hammond said it”. You don’t throw something like that out into social media w/out expecting an effect. It was an attempt to slander your reputation. That’s what you do when you’re losing a battle for lack of ammunition.

    The painstaking research you do with great attention to detail reminds me of Norman Finkelstein’s work. No one will debate him because they’ll get eviscerated with facts. I would love to see an online debate between you and Cowan.

    • Paula, thank you for your encouraging feedback. I greatly admire Norman Finkelstein’s work, as well, so accept the comparison of attention to detail as a great compliment. I see no point in a verbal debate with Cowan. “They don’t purify the sample before doing cell culture.” “Yes, they do.” “No, they don’t.” “Yes, they do.” Etc., ad nauseum. A verbal debate does not allow for documentation of competing claims as the written medium allows, which documentation in turn allows observers to verify for themselves whether the claims being made are true. I am content to observe in writing how they mischaracterize their own cited sources and continually make the same false claims over and over despite it having been pointed out to them that what they are claiming is untrue. I would change my mind if I saw a modicum of good faith from their side. Instead, you see how he just deals with my (and others’) responses by saying things like that I “make excuses” for why they don’t use controls when doing cell culture when he knows perfectly well that’s a lie, that I have rather pointed out to him personally via email that they do use controls.

  • Jeff Green says:

    Hi Jeremy, I thought you should be made aware of a post where your name is being maligned (quite severely I might add). I made a few comments in your defense, but as always, they go on perpetuating the same nonsense even after being corrected. I too have been attacked and called a ‘Big Pharma’ shill because I say viruses exist but arise in a state of disease by cells in order to dissolve toxicity when toxins are non-bioactive and poison our living cells and microbial cleansers.

    https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/p/jeremy-r-hammonds-hilarious-self

    Jeff Green

    • Hi Jeff,

      Thanks for the heads up. No matter how many times you point out to them that X claim is false, they go on making the same false claims. They are incapable of reason. I was going to leave the topic alone at least for a while, but something came up providing a perfect opportunity to demonstrate incontrovertibly how a certain leading propagator of the “no virus” claim makes statements that he knows to be false.

      • le_berger_des_photons says:

        in my world, it’s up to you to prove that there are inanimate objects with no metabolism, no way to harness any energy which can penetrate the nuclei of living cells. This is a claim you have made and I have been unable to find any basis for the validity of this claim. Instead of simply proving what you “know” to be true by citing the experiments which according to you have proved it to be true, you’re nit-picking what some particular people have said.

        That sure makes it look to me like you are the ones with something to hide.

        I am asking you the above question. You can’t tell me that I’m wrong about anything without proving that you are right.

        Where’s the proof that pathogenic virus particles can invade and reprogram living cells and change radically the output of their reproductive system.

        I expect that I’ll be censored here, because you can’t win this argument, but you have to win this argument.

        You’ll need to cheat, you will cheat.

      • Le Berger Des Photons,

        you’re nit-picking

        No, I am not. It is not “nit-picking” to observe how they habitually make demonstrably false claims to support their belief.

        That sure makes it look to me like you are the ones with something to hide.

        What is it that you are suggesting I have to hide? In what way have I not been totally transparent?

        I expect that I’ll be censored here, because you can’t win this argument, but you have to win this argument. You’ll need to cheat, you will cheat.

        Actually, your comment does violate the terms of use of the comments section of this website. Please see here:

        https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/about/terms-of-use/#Comments

        By offhandedly dismissing my valid arguments demonstrating their factual and logical errors and instead attempting to malign my character, you are violating the rules of this forum.

        I have nevertheless allowed your comment to pass through moderation to give you an opportunity to produce a valid argument, if you have one, or to acknowledge that you cannot identify any factual or logical errors in what I wrote. Please respect the guidelines lest your commenting privileges be revoked.

    • Jeff, I’ve published an update to the above article addressing Huston’s personal attacks and lunatic conspiracy theory that I’m collaborating with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to push Big Pharma’s agenda:

      https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/10/07/tom-cowan-dishonesty/#Response_to_Bill_Hustons_Conspiracy_Theory_about_Me

      My initial reaction was that it wasn’t worth responding to, but I realized it was a perfect example of what I meant when I said there is a cancer in the health freedom movement, plus I had to set the record straight about my relationship with Kennedy and Children’s Health Defense.

      Thanks again for bringing this to my attention.

      • Jeff Green says:

        Thanks, Jeremy.

        You did a wonderful job addressing this topic. I particularly appreciated your ending statements on the tragic irony of being so die-hard against the idea that viruses exist, even in light of all of the scientific evidence to show their existence. Instead of working within this reality and doing the hard legwork to correct misconceptions about disease, the ‘no-virus’ gang has decided to create their own false reality by which they become the ‘saviors’ and purveyors of ‘truth’.
        One of their favorite topics to use now is genomic sequencing. In this way, they can mystify their audience and sway them due to the complexities involved in sequencing, which they themselves do not truly understand.

        As I was reading your response, I realized that we have had very similar experiences with vicious attacks via email and comments. I have experienced such attacks for nearly three years now, likely a few months before you began to receive yours. No matter how well you present your side, there is an absurd lack of willingness to understand by many of those that adhere to the ‘viruses don’t exist’ belief.

        We must also understand that just because others are not 100% in agreement on every topic in existence, does not make them a ‘paid shill’ for Big Pharma. I have been called a paid shill, in part, because Steve Kirsch posted my article ‘Challenge to Christine Massey’ (seen below) in one of his own articles. This is merely an attack method by which the lower rung of ‘no-virus’ team members are using to try to delegitimize those who legitimately assess the scientific fallacies being made by their leaders.

        I have written about this topic quite extensively. For example, my interactions with Christine Massey (I know you have also had email exchanges with her as well) led to my writing of my article where I later debated her in the comment section. Her flippant responses are on display for all to see. – https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/challenge-to-christine-massey

        She later wrote a response to me here, where she belligerently and mockingly addressed my simple questions posed to her and her group. – https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-jeff-green/

        Their unwillingness to understand the complexities of science shows that many of them do not have true scientific minds or understanding. Their unwillingness to correct any errors is also telling. As researchers, we do change our minds when gaining more knowledge, which is a good thing. But those in the ‘no-virus’ gang have not once corrected errors, at least that I have seen. For example, their claim that exosomes are a replacement for viruses has never been corrected, even after a number of them left that theory in favor of the (false) idea that exosomes simply do not exist. Seen here: https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/02/mission-control-the-exosome-escape-clause/

        When time permits, I encourage you to read my comments below the article. Beginning here: https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/02/mission-control-the-exosome-escape-clause/#comment-3780).

        In the end, there are major problems in this ‘cult’, as you call them, and it seems to be growing and becoming more wild and ambitious. They are continually fostering the idea that major parts of science are not real—now claiming such nonsense that cell walls do not exist, or that cells have never been seen from the body, or that genes do not exist, and so much more, all of which I have disproved in my articles and lectures time and time again.
        They encourage an overtly anti-science mindset, and thus, lose their ability to see that which is truly mistaken in parts of science. In other words, if everything is a lie, nothing can be true.

      • Hi Jeff,

        Thanks for sharing your own experiences trying to reason with others. I appreciate your point about 100% purity not being possible and not being necessary to prove the presence of a virus since after I pointed out to Cowan that they do centrifuge the sample prior to cell culture, his argument shifted to, well, okay, yes, they do centrifuge it, but they don’t achieve 100% purification. Now he’s back to just claiming that they don’t purify the sample first.

        I also appreciate your point about the distinction between “purification” and “isolation”, which they so habitually conflate as though synonymous, as I have also observed in my discussion with Cowan and in my writings.

        As for Massey, indeed I have had my own email exchange with her. She actually published it, evidently thinking that this would embarrass me, but I’d have been happy to have published it if she hadn’t done so out of spite. She seems to think it shows me being somehow unreasonable, but you can see how in fact I was simply insisting that she acknowledge an easily verifiable fact, which frustrated her because she did not want to acknowledge it and failed to deflect my focus away from my insistent request for an acknowledgment. I actually linked to that page of her website above in my comment “And no matter how many times you point out their factual and logical errors, they persist in repeating those same errors over and over, as though they had never been made aware of how their claims are false or their conclusions fallacious.” Here is the link:

        https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/6055-2/

        Their unwillingness to correct any errors is also telling. As researchers, we do change our minds when gaining more knowledge, which is a good thing.

        Indeed. An example of how I changed my view on the lab origin hypothesis is also incidentally provided above.

        Regarding exosomes, I have also pointed out the self-contradiction between saying that they haven’t proven viruses exist because viruses cannot be separated from exosomes by centrifugation, but then they maintain that exosomes exist and that what people call “viruses” are just exosomes.

      • Jeff Green says:

        One glaring error many of them make is in their statements on viruses being hard to differentiate between exosomes. This is only true with enveloped viruses, which the study you covered in your video addressing the ‘no-virus’ ‘Statement on Isolation’ is referring to. When the study writes ‘viruses’, I ask those using such studies to support their claims: Ok, what viruses? All viruses, or specific ones? In this case, the study (and most all studies using this language) write of ‘defective’ or incomplete viruses, which are merely viruses that did not fully form in the cytoplasm, thus making them vesicles/containers that carry viral genetic information and parts. Those vesicles can then bud off and deliver their cargo to other cells.

        The reason enveloped viruses and exosomes (vesicles) are difficult to tell apart (but not impossible) is because enveloped, as well as ‘defective’ incomplete viruses, both contain a lipid bilayer. This makes it more difficult to determine between them. However, this is not the case with something such as non-enveloped viruses like a bacteriophage or adenovirus, both of which contain readily visible cohesive and intelligent forms in their structure, especially their capsids; they are easily distinguishable from vesicles.

        The ‘no-virus’ gang is completely missing this fact when reading the studies that claim this. When the studies say ‘viruses’, it does not mean all viruses. In fact, the opening statements of one study on this topic set the stage for the rest of the study by referring to retroviruses, which are enveloped. It is key language like this that goes directly over the head of these folks. Context is everything.

        Finally, bacteriophages are easily proven to be viruses because of their structure. Cowan, as you stated, has had to claim that bacteriophages are not viruses for a few different reasons. One reason is that Stefan Lanka wrote a number of years ago that he had purified and isolated bacteriophages when he was a virologist, and thus admitted their existence. But Cowan and friends have realized that if one virus exists, there is a high possibility that other cell types outside of prokaryotic bacterial cells must also create their own viruses as well. This is one reason they have had to say that bacteriophages are NOT viruses.

        They should consider this: Bacteriophages come from prokaryotic cells and contain an isometric (icosahedral) capsid with 20 faces. Adenoviruses come from eukaryotic cells and contain an isometric capsid as well. As such, what is the possibility that two different viruses, coming from two entirely different cells, contain the same intelligent structure of their capsids if they are not both intelligent structures created by cells?
        Such an occurrence could never be mere cell debris, as they like to claim. Cell debris has no real structure or form that appears as such, nor do vesicles. The idea that these structures are mere cell debris or ‘spores’, or what have you, is to deny the reality itself.

        Another important fact: Isometric viral design is the easiest for the cell to produce, requiring the least amount of energy, and serves as a resilient structure that can resist both toxins and chemicals, including during the culture or purification stages of the particles outside an organism.

      • Ben Musclow says:

        I actually agree that Huston’s article offered nothing substantive and his behaviour was reprehensible. His efforts are hardly representative of the “movement”, which you falsely label a cult. Virology has had its critics from the very beginning. A deep dive into the history of virology would help you understand the critics and their concerns much better.

      • I do not need to dive deeper into the history of virology to see that the claims they make to support their belief system are demonstrably false.

        Also, the definition of “cult” I provided fits.

    • Ben Musclow says:

      You do know that your definition of virus has nothing in common with virology? In fact, substitute extracellular vesicle for virus in your statement and you just joined “team no-virus.”

      • Ben,

        You do know that your definition of virus has nothing in common with virology? In fact, substitute extracellular vesicle for virus in your statement and you just joined “team no-virus.”

        Please provide this definition for us so we can see what you are talking about.

      • Ben Musclow says:

        I was responding to Jeff Green’s first post. Sorry for the confusion.

      • I understood that. The reason for my question is that I do not see that Jeff stated a definition of “virus”. Hence my confusion.

      • Jeff Green says:

        There is an obsession with the ‘no-virus’ definition of a virus, which states that viruses are obligate parasites. Of course, viruses are not alive and cannot consume, so such a definition must be understood for what it is, and ‘obligate’ is a keyword in that understanding. Viruses that appear as obligate parasites only occur during the disease state when cells produce and highly multiply viruses during cellular survival when toxins poison living cellular cleansers. Such a state requires cells to produce their own enzymatic solvent structures that operate on an mRNA lock-and-key system using glycoproteins that bind with compatible surface receptors of the cell wall to turn on viral enzymatic hydrolysis.

        Instead of understanding the nature of viruses, those in the ‘no-virus’ gang have decided none of it exists, and have disregarded the needs of the ‘terrain’ as a result. An obligate parasite is a parasite that depends entirely on its host for survival and reproduction. Of course, a virus cannot be said to survive since it has no nucleus/brain activity to make survival decisions, thus, they have no survival instinct.

        Since viruses must be produced and be regulated by cells, then they are ‘obligate’ in nature. However, using such a definition as THE only definition is also disingenuous since there are multiple definitions for viruses, many of which describe the structure of viruses much more accurately. The ‘obligate parasite’ definition the ‘no-virus’ group uses is very limited and archaic. Keep this in mind the next time you are presented with this definition, which is what they have all agreed to use because it fits their claims better.

        Science now admits that viruses are dissolvers of toxins and toxic cells. This is why oncolytic viruses are sometimes used in clinical settings in an attempt to help dissolve cancerous tumor cells whilst sparing healthy cells. Science also admits that those who develop influenza while having cancer, for example, have seen a rapid regression of their cancer. Science also openly admits that viruses increase when exposed to higher levels of toxins, such as exposure to industrial pollution, wildfire smoke, smoking, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and so forth.
        Science also admits that we have close to 300+ trillion viruses (many of which are bacteriophages) coexisting harmoniously within and outside the body at all times. Therefore, the definition of ‘obligate parasite’ is incredibly limited in its scope regarding the true nature of viruses and is entirely contextual.

        I provide the studies to prove my assertions here: https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/science-confirms-my-writings-on-viruses

  • >
    Share via
    Copy link