Reading Progress:

Answering Tom Cowan’s ‘Five Simple Questions for Virologists’

by Oct 17, 2022Health Freedom115 comments

An electron microscopy image of SARS-CoV-2 from a study published in Nature in February 2020.
To support his belief that viruses don’t exist, Tom Cowan persists in making claims that he knows to be untrue.

Reading Time: ( Word Count: )

()

Introduction

If you understand that viruses exist and you’ve ever tried to reason with someone who has been convinced by the prominent propagators of the claim that they do not, then you know how the discussion goes something like this:

Virus Denier: Scientists have never proven the existence of a virus by isolating it from a host sample!

You: Yes, they have. See this study, for example, describing the isolation of SARS‑CoV‑2, or this study describing the isolation of a SARS-like coronavirus.

Virus Denier: That wasn’t isolation because they didn’t purify the sample before doing cell culture!

You: Yes, they did. For the study on SARS‑CoV‑2, see the authors’ first endnote. As noted in the referenced study, the patient sample was purified by centrifugation prior to inoculation in cell culture. For the study on the SARS-like coronavirus, note that they do describe having centrifuged the sample prior to inoculation of the supernatant in cell culture.

Virus Denier: But they didn’t prove isolation of a virus with cell culture because they failed to use a control where the identical steps were taken but without inoculation with the alleged virus!

You: Wrong again. Looking again at the first example study, they do describe having used an uninoculated control and even provided electron microscopy images comparing an uninoculated control with infected cultures. Looking at the second example study, they also do describe having used both a positive and negative control (the one using a cell line that does not express ACE2, which is the cell receptor SARS-like coronaviruses use to gain cell entry, and the other being an uninfected culture using the same cell line as the other infected cultures).

And then, the next thing you know, there goes the virus denier starting the whole conversation all over again by publicly claiming that scientists have never isolated the virus, don’t purify patient samples prior to inoculation in cell culture, don’t use uninfected controls when doing cell culture, etc. Around and around it goes, ad nauseam.

I have had such a circular exchange with Tom Cowan, who is among the leading propagators of the claim that SARS‑CoV‑2 and other viruses do not exist. We’ve exchanged arguments both via email and via our published content. The above fictional illustration is obviously a simplification of how the conversations with virus deniers go, but it accurately boils the experience down to its essence. (I have had similar exchanges countless times with people via email or on social media who were convinced by the arguments made by Cowan et al.)

To demonstrate the validity of my fictional example, here is something I actually wrote to Cowan during an email exchange we had back in July 2022, in response to his having claimed that scientists never purify patient samples before doing cell culture (bold emphasis added for my purposes here):

In your “Statement on Virus Isolation”, you state that the “proper” way to isolate a virus involves centrifugation to purify the specimen. Thus, when you tell your audience that scientists never purify specimens prior to doing cell culture, you know that they will misinterpret that to mean that they don’t do centrifugation. It is dishonest of you to propagate the false claim that scientists never purify viruses prior to doing cell culture when you know that centrifugation is done for the purpose of purification. It would be one thing for you to argue that such centrifugation is insufficient as a method of purification, but to simply claim that they don’t have any purification process as though they don’t do centrifugation is willful deception.

Cowan acknowledged at the time that in the specific study we were looking at as an example, they did centrifuge the sample, which is in fact a purification process, as Cowan knows perfectly well (again, he describes centrifugation as a purification process himself in his “Statement on Virus Isolation”).

Nevertheless, in his latest blog post, published on October 13, 2022, there he is once again claiming that scientists never purify the sample before doing cell culture. The post is titled “Five Simple Questions For Virologists”. While I’m no virologist, his questions are easy enough to answer, so let’s take a look.

Question 1: Can you provide a study in which a virus was isolated?

Cowan’s first question is a demand for a reference in which scientists isolated a virus, by which he means to “separate it from its environment so we have it in pure form”. He asks:

Can you give us a reference in which this step has been done for any pathogenic virus, and, if this reference doesn’t exist, explain why not?

The answer is easy:

Yes. I have provided two such references above, the one describing the isolation of SARS‑CoV‑2 and the other the isolation of a SARS-like coronavirus.

I specifically chose those two studies because I know that Cowan is familiar with both of them. He has cited the first one himself, and we discussed the second during our email exchange back in July.

Now, Cowan will deny that those references show the isolation of a virus. He will do so by means illustrated with his next question, so let’s proceed right to it.

Question 2: Can you define “isolation”?

Cowan prefaces his next question by claiming that the process that “is called ‘isolation’ of the virus” involves taking “an unpurified sample” and inoculating it in cell culture. Then he asks:

Can you define what the term ‘isolation’ means to you, and whether you agree that the above process is a scientifically based isolation procedure?

Thus, he prefaces his question with a false premise. It is untrue that they do not purify the sample prior to inoculation in cell culture, as I have already pointed out to Cowan, who has already acknowledged (only to later seemingly suffer amnesia about it) that they do in fact put the sample through a purification process, which in the studies I’ve seen has typically been centrifugation (although filtration is an alternative method sometimes used).

The implication of his question is thus that it isn’t “isolation” in any meaningful sense because the virus was not separated from the rest of the stuff in the sample, including the cellular debris from the patient. However, the question is easily enough answered as follows:

The premise of your question is false. Scientists do purify the sample before doing cell culture. And, yes, we can define what virus “isolation” means to scientists: it means to separate the virus from the host in a way that enables scientists to characterize and identify the virus. The “gold standard” method for doing this is the cell culture.

Now, Cowan will persist that this use of cell culture, in which scientists observe for cytopathic effects and viral replication, still does not prove the presence of a virus, which he will do so again by means illustrated with his next question, and so we proceed.

Question 3: Can you provide a study in which scientists used an uninfected control when doing cell culture?

To deny that the use of cell culture proves the presence of a virus, Cowan claims that they never use “a control experiment” in which the “identical steps” are taken “except no virus would be added to the culture.” Thus, he asks:

Can you point us to a study in which this clear experiment has been done? If it doesn’t exist, please explain why. If the reason is that you can’t find the purified virus in any fluid of any sick plant, animal, or human, then are you willing to acknowledge that the only experiment one could do to prove the existence of these viruses simply can’t be done? If you agree that this experiment can’t be done, could you please refer us to a paper that shows how a ‘viral culture’ is experimentally validated with proper controls at every step of the experiment?

The answer to the question is again easy:

Yes, we can point to studies in which scientists isolated viruses in cell culture using uninfected controls. I have already provided two references showing how an uninoculated control was used during the process of culturing SARS-CoV‑2 and a SARS-like coronavirus, respectively.

And that’s that. Scientists have isolated SARS‑CoV‑2 by taking samples from sick patients, purifying the sample, and then using the resulting virus-containing supernatant for inoculation in cell culture alongside uninfected controls otherwise provided the same treatment. Thus, according to his own stated criteria, SARS‑CoV‑2 has been isolated.

It’s a bit superfluous to continue at this point, but Cowan is not yet done with his questions, so for the sake of thoroughness, let’s continue.

Question 4: Why aren’t numerous additional viruses also observed to grow in cell culture?

Cowan prefaces his next question by writing, “It is often claimed by doctors and scientists that every nook and cranny of our bodies is teeming with viruses. These viruses, it is claimed, make up what is called a ‘virome.’ Some claim there are 10 to the 48th number of viruses in our bodies.”

Then he asks:

If this is true, when you inoculate unpurified lung samples onto cell cultures, presumably containing gazillions of these viruses, why is the only virus that “grows” the one you’re looking for, i.e., SARS-CoV-2? Why aren’t these other viruses seen, photographed, and found in the broken-down cell culture?

And here is the answer to the question:

The premises of your question are false. It isn’t true that we should expect a respiratory or lung sample to contain all the “gazillions” of viruses that inhabit the human body; scientists do purify patient samples prior to inoculation in cell culture; and it isn’t true that we should expect each of those “gazillions” of other virus to also grow in whatever cell line is chosen for the cell culture experiment.

To elaborate, it is true that, as described by Science Focus magazine, the “virome” refers to “the sum of all the viruses within our body, found in every tissue from our blood to our brains, and even interwoven into the genetic code within our cells.”

The article interestingly notes that what scientists once called “junk DNA” out of their own ignorance is now “thought to be derived from previous virus insertions”, and scientists now recognize that this so-called “junk DNA” is in fact “highly important for regulating the transcription of other genes.”

One could fairly say that, as with the microbiome, we depend on the virome for our very existence. Most of these viruses are not pathogenic. They do not cause disease. They can, on the contrary, be beneficial. We need them. We live in symbiosis with these particles of genetic information.

As the Science Focus article eloquently puts it:

In its entirety, the human virome is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’—it is simply an ancient part of us. Viruses share a deep evolutionary relationship with animals and plants. Every cell in your body is part of an unbroken chain of life that has extended over 3.8 billion years. Viruses have been an important part of that evolutionary waltz from the very start.

The more we learn about the virome, the more we come to see how some aspects are essential for a healthy life. So, expect a coming revolution in how we conceive of viruses.

Remember, we used to view all bacteria as dangerous ‘germs’, until we eventually gained a more nuanced understanding of how they underpin our health: disruption of the bacterial microbiome is now implicated in a wide range of diseases, such as Crohn’s disease, irritable bowel syndrome, type 2 diabetes and even mental health disorders such as depression.

We are walking ecosystems – chimeras of animal cells, viruses, bacteria, fungi and others, and maintaining the balance of these ecosystems is vital to our wellbeing.

Scientists have estimated that there are over 380 trillion viruses inhabiting us. However, one fact that Cowan misleadingly fails to explain to his readers in prefacing his question is that a very large proportion of these viruses are bacteriophages, which are viruses that infect bacteria. They do not reside in our own cells but within the bacteria that make up our microbiome, including the important community of bacteria that resides in our guts.

Obviously, we would not expect to find viruses that reside in our gut in samples taken from the respiratory tract or the lungs. Also, bacteriophages would not replicate inside of any cell lines used to culture pathogenic human or animal viruses. Their hosts are bacterial cells, not human or animal cells.

But what about the viruses that do use human cells as hosts, that do reside in the respiratory tract or the lungs, and that might, like exosomes, be difficult to separate from SARS‑CoV‑2 using centrifugation due to having  similar dimensions? Surely, we would expect to see many of those viruses growing in cell culture alongside SARS‑CoV‑2, right?

Well, no, for the reason I have already stated. It simply isn’t true that the Vero cell line, for example, is an appropriate host line for the culturing of every virus. Different viruses replicate in different types of cells. They are not all replication-competent in every type of cell, and they are not all able to be isolated using cell culture.

As noted in a paper titled “Metagenomics and future perspectives in virus discovery”, published in Current Opinion in Virology in 2012, “Traditionally, virus discovery required propagation of the virus in cell culture, a proven technique responsible for the identification of the vast majority of viruses known to date. However, many viruses cannot be easily propagated in cell culture, thus limiting our knowledge of viruses.” (Bold emphasis added.)

As I have previously explained, scientists can use metagenomic sequencing to identify viruses irrespective of their ability to isolate the viruses using cell culture. Metagenomic sequencing of the whole genomes of many viruses at once directly from the patient or environmental sample, without first isolating each virus, is independent proof of the existence of those viruses.

As I pointed out in my article “Tom Cowan’s Sources Contradict His Claims about SARS-CoV-2’s Nonexistence”, for example, Cowan has cited a CDC study as having proven that SARS‑CoV‑2 does not infect human cells, only monkey cells, which is a reference to the Vero monkey kidney cell line used in that study. (Note that his acknowledgment that the virus was observed to infect monkey kidney cells contradicts his claim that viruses don’t exist.) As I explained:

The study findings do not support the conclusion that SARS‑CoV‑2 cannot infect human cells. Rather, the findings simply demonstrate that certain commercially available cell lines are unsuitable for the purpose of culturing SARS‑CoV‑2.

Other studies have in fact cultured SARS‑CoV‑2 using human cell lines. For example, commercially available human airway epithelial cells have been used to isolate SARS‑CoV‑2 from COVID‑19 patient samples.

One of the reasons why Vero cell lines work so well for this purpose is because these cells exhibit high expression of the ACE2 receptor, which is the cell receptor with which the SARS‑CoV‑2 spike protein binds in order to gain access into the cell. Cell lines that do not express or have low expression of ACE2 are generally unsuitable for the purpose simply due to the nature of the mechanism by which the virus infects cells. An explanation for why the A549 lung epithelial cell line, for example, is poorly suited for culturing the virus is their lack of ACE2 expression. Another study by CDC researchers published in Emerging Infectious Diseases described expression of ACE2 as “a critical determinant” in the susceptibility and species specificity of various cell lines.

Thus, Cowan’s fourth question is premised on false claims and illustrates his lack of understanding of virology. (I certainly do not claim to be any kind of expert in virology myself, but in the process of having over the course of over two years considered and deeply investigated the claims made by Cowan et al., I have learned quite a lot—a sufficient amount of knowledge to be able to demonstrate how their claims are false.)

It’s superfluous, but again for the sake of thoroughness, let’s have a look at that fifth and final question.

Question 5: How can you claim a virus exists based solely on the finding of pieces of the alleged virus?

Without prefacing it in any additional way, Cowan presents his final question:

Finally, can you offer other examples of “things” that are claimed to exist solely through the finding of pieces of that thing? To be clear, if no records of a purified virus such as SARS-CoV-2 exists, by what logic or scientific principles can one claim to prove that any piece, such as an antigen or genome, has come from that “thing?”

And here is the answer:

The premises of your question are false. It isn’t true that scientists claim that SARS‑CoV‑2 exists “solely” based on “the finding of pieces” of the virus. It is not true that they never purify the sample prior to inoculation in cell culture. It is not true that they have only sequenced pieces of the SARS‑CoV‑2 genome. They have sequenced its whole genome, which independently from the isolation of the virus in cell culture is proof of the virus’s existence.

For more on how Tom Cowan misinforms his audience about whole genome sequencing, see my article “Correcting Misinformation about SARS-CoV-2 Whole Genome Sequencing” and my video “Tom Cowan’s Misinformation on the Sequencing of SARS-CoV-2”.

Tom Cowan is at least aware of that article. He talked about it in one of his videos, attempting to rebut it despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read it. That prompted my creation of the video to address his repetition of the very same claims I had already addressed and shown to be false in the article.

This further goes to show how he completely ignores counterarguments that are presented to him only to continually make the same false claims already sufficiently addressed with those counterarguments. Other times, instead of choosing to willfully ignore evidence contradicting his claims, he acknowledges the counterarguments but instead chooses to deliberately mischaracterize those counterarguments—the fallacy of “strawman” argumentation.

As an example of a deliberate strawman argument from Cowan, consider how during that email exchange of ours back in July, I pointed out to him how his claim that they do not purify samples before doing cell culture is false, and how he acknowledged that they do centrifuge samples; yet there he is in his latest blog post making the same false claim, just he did also in a video he published on October 5, in which he further claimed that the only answer that I and others have to his claim that they don’t purify samples is to “make excuses” for why scientists don’t do this.

Cowan knows that is a lie. He knows that I do not “make excuses” for why scientists don’t purify the sample. He knows that I rather point out that they do purify the sample. He also knows how deceptive it is to continually claim that they never purify the sample. I know he knows this because I directly explained to him during our email exchange precisely why this is so deceptive. He is consequently deceiving people willfully.

And around and around it goes, ad nauseam.

Rate This Content:

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

What do you think?

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

  • Andy says:

    6 Things Jeremy Hammond and Tom Cowan Agree On

    1. Vaccines have a detrimental effect on children’s immune system.
    (See Tom Cowans book Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the changing Nature of Childhood Illness)

    2. Vaccines can cause Myocarditis

    3. The Public Health Establishment are corrupt

    4. SARS-CoV-2 is not an airborne virus.

    5. Vaccine mandates are not about public health

    6. There has been an assault on our rights and policies are driven by dogma

    • Yes, we agree on much, but unfortunately the strategy of confronting the threat to our health and liberty by denying the existence of viruses is harmfully counterproductive. Also, I do not maintain that Omicron and its subvariants are not airborne. The transmissibility of the virus has changed as it has evolved. As the WHO rightly maintained at the time, the original strain and early variants were not efficiently transmitted via aerosols as opposed to larger droplets, but that appears to have changed. While I haven’t seen any studies specifically on the airborne transmissibility of Omicron, my guess is that it does spread efficiently via aerosols. Much more so than the original strain, at least.

      • Jeremy M says:

        Except for the data pretty obviously bears out that there is nothing you can do to mitigate against this so-called virus that doesn’t result in net harm. So it’s hard to see where the harm is in denying its existence. (I’m virus agnostic, btw.)

        I’d love to see data to the contrary – if it exists. And then hear an argument based on that as to why you want to spend your time fighting Cowan instead of focusing on promoting interventions that would actually improves mortality, longevity, and overall health among the global population.

      • Jeremy M,

        Except for the data pretty obviously bears out that there is nothing you can do to mitigate against this so-called virus that doesn’t result in net harm. So it’s hard to see where the harm is in denying its existence.

        That argument makes no sense. It doesn’t follow from the fact that the “lockdown” measures were ineffective, which is what I assume you are referring to when you speak of ineffective mitigation efforts, that therefore there is no harm in propagating the false claims used to uphold the belief that viruses do not exist. The harm caused to the health freedom movement by propagating these false claims is obvious. It undermines the credibility of the whole movement and undercuts effective arguments against the medical tyranny.

        I’d love to see data to the contrary – if it exists. And then hear an argument based on that as to why you want to spend your time fighting Cowan instead of focusing on promoting interventions that would actually improves mortality, longevity, and overall health among the global population.

        Again, it does not follow from the fact that the claimed benefits of the lockdown measures never manifested in the data that therefore there is no harm in propagating the false claims upholding the belief in the virus’s nonexistence. Also, this comment just reveals your total unawareness of my body of work since the beginning of the pandemic speaking out against the lockdowns, exposing the official lies about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, and explaining what else might have been done reduce mortality and to promote good health and longevity. Your ignorance of my work is not an argument in favor of propagating falsehoods.

      • Jeremy M says:

        “Your ignorance of my work is not an argument in favor of propagating falsehoods.” I never said I was in favor of propagating falsehoods. I am arguing that the propagating of these <> of conclusions that you are somehow construing to be indisputable truths, is irrelevant, inefficient, a waste of time. It is most likely that the belief in the existence of a SARS-CoV2, the resulting fear that was stoked, and the ineffective, and most importantly, lethal mitigation efforts, have resulted in more harm than good.

        You don’t believe that, had we remained ignorant (as opposed to the virus hunting, then fear-mongering and regulatory manipulation that followed), doctors would not have continued to practice medicine the best way they knew how, unimpeded by politics and undue regulatory hamstringing and found effective therapies and produced better outcomes?

        What good does it do to believe in the virus? Why fight to win hearts and minds towards belief in it? And spend emotional capital directing animus toward those that question the validity of the claims for its existence? What clinical relevance does it have?

        Also, why would the questioning of one aspect of your arguments have to be qualified by the entirety of your work? Because one is validated in most of one’s work, one is validated in every argument? That’s an awfully special privilege.

      • Jeremy M says:

        Correction of the first paragraph:

        “Your ignorance of my work is not an argument in favor of propagating falsehoods.” I never said I was in favor of propagating falsehoods. I am arguing that waging war on the propagation of these *challenges to the validity* of conclusions that you are somehow construing to be indisputable truths, is irrelevant, inefficient, a waste of time. It is most likely that the belief in the existence of a SARS-CoV2, the resulting fear that was stoked, and the ineffective, and most importantly, lethal mitigation efforts, have resulted in more harm than good.

      • Jeremy M,

        I am arguing that waging war on the propagation of these *challenges to the validity* of conclusions that you are somehow construing to be indisputable truths, is irrelevant, inefficient, a waste of time.

        How is it a waste of time to correct demonstrable falsehoods and properly inform people?

        Why are you pretending as though I had not identified verifiably false claims in my above article?

        You are not arguing in good faith.

        Please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging the fact that in this study, they did (1) purify the sample with centrifugation and (2) use controls when doing cell culture.

        If you refuse acknowledge these easily verifiable facts, you will have proven your bad faith argumentation (i.e., trolling).

        https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12711

      • Jeremy M. says:

        The real point is: Virology doesn’t do anyone any good. It’s pseudoscience and the clinical application is mostly quackery. The world needs to know this. Whether Cowan is right or wrong, the scientific rigor (lack thereof) found in virology papers would never be tolerated in other fields. I like that Cowan et al. are bringing up the questions. We need Virology to come out to have a debate and defend itself. This will only be done when a critical mass is reached. Stories of invisible particles that hijack your body and kill you so they can propagate and the fear these generate are too much for people to handle. And allow for mass harm, as has occurred, not just with these products, but with many others before them.

        The only thing allopathy can do for viral diseases is vaccinate and treat symptoms, test different drugs for efficacy and guess at the mechanisms. And the data only suggests that *maybe* a beneficial specific effect can be measured for live vaccines, but most of the developed world now refuses to use them. All others are net negatives, insofar as there is actual safety data available to review. Do without the virology, do without vaccines, let docs treat symptoms and repurpose relatively safe drugs in the search for better outcomes. That does seem to help. (And let it all be documented and shared with the scientific, as previous accords dictated should be done)

        If viruses are real and exist in a manner similar to what it theorized, then they are a part of LIFE. A part of the grand symbiotic environment we refer to as nature, playing their (probably uber-important) part. And if their purpose was to kill us all off, we’d be gone. But we’re not, so it’s obviously not their purpose.

        The arrogance of the scientific community. There is so much we don’t understand. Real scientists know this. White-collar, quasi-bureaucrat, self-appointed, often-mistaken, gatekeepers of truth with doctorates… well, they’re playing some other game. And it involves a lot of money.

        Another interesting question for those who believe in viruses is: why did none of the interventions work, at all? Bayesian analyses clearly show none of them did anything to flatten those curves, anywhere. If it is a virus as the theory holds, they should have done something. But no, the health authorities and parroting “educated” puppets got the world to make fools of themselves, destroy economies and send untold millions deeper into poverty and starvation. All because of these guesses that shouldn’t even be allowed to be given any credibility until direct observation of the mechanisms is plausible.

      • Jeff Green says:

        You’re contradicting yourself in some aspects, and your argument is convoluted. Do you think just because Cowan asks questions, those questions are being answered by Cowan in a legitimate way? They’re not, and that’s one of the main points. You won’t find the truth by mischaracterizing and ignoring information. Instead of countering what science claims with well-thought-out theories, those in the ‘no-virus’ gang deny anything exists because they claim it’s all a conspiracy, etc. If everything is a lie, nothing can be true.

        There is no ‘virology’ entity that can defend itself. Science is made up of many different people and cannot be called a ‘thing’. What you describe is mainly mainstream media science, which is not science. It has already been proven that Cowan and friends would not be satisfied by what any virologist says, such as how they isolate, how they purify, and how they do all of the things they do. Cowan, Kaufman, Massey—none of them would be satisfied, period. All of this information is publicly available, therefore, science doesn’t need to defend itself per se. The ‘no-virus’ gang needs to deeply educate themselves, which takes years of work.

        The arrogance of the ‘nothing exists’ group is just about as bad as those who claim vaccines are beneficial to man. Neither side are interested in anything outside their box. Again, there are errors in science, which can be concluded in various ways through your existence as a person and your observations therein, which do not occur in static lab environments. But just because parts of science are in error, does not mean viruses themselves do not exist or that researchers are completely inept in every regard. Cowan and friends have ignored this and have made a multitude of contradictions along the way that discredit their positions. They have their own motives and agendas to uphold.

        Note: Virology and vaccinology are two separate fields.

        Your point is no different really than a flat-earther claiming NASA are complete liars. There MAY be a shred of tangible truth there, but that doesn’t make the earth flat. And you can verify that through your own observations of nature and using science to do so.

      • Jeremy M. says:

        Except one cannot observe the things that “science” is claiming. Where are the host-host transmission studies, Jeff? Nowhere. It’s unobservable (fact), that’s most likely why they aren’t published. Happy to be proved wrong.

        Controlled host-host transmission studies where a sick host (animal or human) gets another sick with the same symptomatology, and we verify the presence of the same particles in both hosts is the NEXT STEP that is needed in order start showing “virus-theory” may actually represent what is happening in reality.

        I agree that Cowan goes a step too far, technically. He shouldn’t claim they don’t exist. The more truthful “claim” (really “challenge” or “dispute of a claim”) is that the pathogenic properties of the particles called “viruses” as observed by EM cannot be established by existing evidence. (nor by current technologies)

        But we all do the same thing with the tooth-fairy and unicorns. Where are the peer-reviewed articles showing they absolutely don’t exist? Just because someone started a hypothesis a hundred or so years ago and many other learned folk think it’s a good hypothesis, doesn’t make it true. Just look at the Alzheimer’s research scandal. So I don’t fault him. It’s better than saying they do exist and do such and such, when the evidence, in quality, just doesn’t support such a *conclusion.* It’s a hypothesis. And there might be a correlation with the presence of the particles (but that’s not even conclusive – in fact, there is much evidence against it, namely “asymptomatic cases” which = the virus didn’t cause disease)

      • Jeremy M

        I agree that Cowan goes a step too far, technically. He shouldn’t claim they don’t exist. The more truthful “claim” (really “challenge” or “dispute of a claim”) is that the pathogenic properties of the particles called “viruses” as observed by EM cannot be established by existing evidence. (nor by current technologies)

        Are you arguing that viruses exist but that none have ever been shown to cause disease? There is no point in discussing the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of disease if you deny that viruses exist in the first place, so please clarify your position.

        First, though, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that in this study, the researchers:

        1) Purified the sample with centrifugation prior to doing cell culture, and

        2) Used controls when doing cell culture.

        You can verify those facts for yourself here:

        https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12711

      • Jeremy M says:

        Clarifying my position: There is not sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that the particles observed by EM and labeled virus (which particles obviously exist, because they can be seen) are pathogenic in nature nor capable of transmission from one host to another. Because that science has not been done. I don’t have to prove a negative. This simply hasn’t been established. It is an unproven hypothesis.

      • Shall I interpret that as an acknowledgment of the existence of viruses?

        Your belief that the pathogenicity of, e.g., SARS-CoV-2, has never been proven is incorrect, but that is not the purpose of the discussion here. The purpose here is to show how the belief that viruses have never been proven to exist is supported by demonstrably false claims designed to obfuscate the fact that they have.

        Now, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that in the following study, the researchers: 1) Purified the sample with centrifugation prior to doing cell culture, and 2) Used controls when doing cell culture.

        https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12711

      • Jeremy M

        The real point is: Virology doesn’t do anyone any good. It’s pseudoscience and the clinical application is mostly quackery. The world needs to know this. Whether Cowan is right or wrong, the scientific rigor (lack thereof) found in virology papers would never be tolerated in other fields.

        Your argument here is a petitio principii fallacy. You are begging the question. You dismiss my article by suggesting that it doesn’t matter whether Cowan is right or wrong because the pseudoscience of virology needs to be exposed, but that presumes the proposition to be proven, which is that Cowan is right that virology is pseudoscience. I have shown you how he is wrong, and therefore why his conclusion that virology is pseudoscience is invalid. You are not addressing my arguments.

        To demonstrate good faith, please acknowledge that in this study, the researchers:

        1) Purified the sample with centrifugation, and

        2) Used controls during the cell culture experiment

        I remind you that bad faith argumentation, or trolling, is prohibited under the terms of use. Here is the link where you can go verify these facts for yourself and then please acknowledge them here:

        https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12711

      • Jeremy M says:

        “We attempted isolation from SL-CoV PCR-positive samples. Using an optimized protocol and Vero E6 cells, we obtained one isolate which caused cytopathic effect during the second blind passage. Purified virions displayed typical coronavirus morphology under electron microscopy”

        PURIFICATION:
        Sure, they purified particles present in the Vero cell culture (which is the PROCESS that prominent virus-deniers often dispute), which they call virions. Which is not isolation directly from the host. Those particles were never in a person or animal. Whose nature could be coincidental or correlative to the disease. Fire > Firemen > doesn’t mean they started it. After several days of being ill, you get a blood test, find some nutrients depleted > not enough to conclude that is was the depleted nutrients that caused the illness.**Please acknowledge this point to show good faith and comply with your own website’s terms.**

        Also, why do the “purified virions” vary WILDLY in size in the EM image? What could explain such a simple genome expressing itself so differently?

        That really deserves an answer. As failure to present one represents a lack of understanding of the nature and possibly behavior of such particles, which is my core argument.

        CONTROLS:
        The controls used in this study are mentioned but not well described. As you know the purpose of a control is to isolate a single variable (ideally) or minimize variables that could effect the outcome. I do not notice mention of the methods used to account for other variables with respect to the control wells. Did they also add the antibiotics and culture medium, at the same quantities? Who knows, they don’t say. Doesn’t sound very scientific to me. I think my 4th-grade science fair judges would have wanted to know everything I put in the control wells if I was making such an incredible claim. Also, how many of the infected wells displayed CPE vs control wells? %s? Even as much information as this study includes on the control, which isn’t much, isn’t usually mentioned in isolation studies and certainly weren’t for the papers on SARS-CoV2’s isolation. Also please note that Daszak and the WIV are not exactly being praised for their honesty now. So I think it’s pretty naive to discount scientific fraud here. Or do you disagree? Do you have examples of controls used in isolation studies that actually mention the complete method used to control for the ONE variable – viral presence?

        So all other ingredients would need to be equal. Two tissue or fluid samples: one SICK/ILL/DISEASED, one NOT. Same cell lines. This would be the ONLY true way to isolate the variable.

        There you have it. There were controls in the experiment, according to the authors. Could a peer know from reading it that everything possible was done to isolate the one variable that matters most? Nope. Is it a proper control then? Who knows, they forgot to tell us.

        If this is not FACTUAL, please explain what I am missing here.

        Why would whether “virology is a pseudoscience” depend on positive proofs when the disputes against it, that if true would qualify it as such, are that evidence is insufficient or not of good quality? – Especially when those disputing its validity have described with specificity which evidence is lacking and why so, supporting their position with logic and based on the ability, or lack thereof, to observe the actual phenomena or subjects in question by current technological means?

        Please respond to this last question as a show of good faith as it is, essentially, the nature of Cowan’s challenge.

        Also, please mention specific examples with high-quality evidence, with controls, whether as RCT or natural control experiments, where the learnings within the field of virology have made a net positive difference in the lives of human beings. Because if such evidence doesn’t exist, then the validity of virology is clearly in question. It appears that when the (disputable-see above) “findings” of this field are applied for the purpose of improving human health, they only do the opposite. Which does beg the question: why defend it? Why NOT oppose it? It would be a fraud. A scam. One that, at a minimum, picks the pockets of suckers. And at worst, maims and kills children.

        I’ll leave it to your discretion to respond to this last point. I don’t think you will find the evidence.

        Again, I am virus agnostic. They may be. They may not. The nature and quality of existing evidence is INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE THAT CLAIM. Cowan goes a step further and asserts something he doesn’t know. Because it’s currently unknowable.

        We usually consider it fraudulent to present such things as facts or realities, when they remain unproven hypotheses. We usually say that “it doesn’t exist” or “that’s not true” even though sometimes we don’t have solid positive proof that it’s untrue or doesn’t exist. Technically incorrect, but more likely to be true.

        Remember cholesterol? Dietary fat?

        Here, this is about the size of it for SARS-CoV2 (or insert any other virus):

        Is there evidence for their ability to CAUSE disease? Not very good evidence. At best a correlation. Host-host transmission studies for each claimed virus are needed.

        Does it make a lot of sense that there are non-living, metabolism-less, particles capable of replicating so abundantly and rapidly as to be able to destroy millions of human lives (and haven’t done it already)? Trends toward no.

        Do people that are in the same places as one another often get sick with similar symptoms? Yes. Are those same people also exposed to the same stressors? Obviously. Are the placebo and nocebo effects real phenomena? The data trends strongly toward yes. Do some people escape without any trace of the illness despite extended and even mucosal contact with sick persons? Yep. What does all of that mean? Who knows, evidence isn’t conclusive despite what Ph.D.’s may write in their papers’ conclusions.

        Do I want the medical establishment to come forward with better evidence or at least engage in debate on the topic of the existence of disease-causing viruses? Absolutely. Because whether they exist or not, a lot of people are being hurt in the name of virus-hunting.

        I believe it’s a hypothesis that should be on the table. Maybe it is correct. Simply: More, better studies would need to be done. And WE ALL need to stop letting the establishment off the hook for crap science. Or fraud, whatever it is.

        If Cowan/Kaufman/Bailey and others dispute it, and more folks get curious and question it, we may just be able to force them to do that. And we’ll start taking steps toward real medical freedom, by getting to the root cause of things. Hopefully, even the root causes of poor health and bad outcomes.

        I am not trolling. I am investing this time speaking with an educated person who has done some study of these topics in order to get answers to my questions and doubts. I don’t want to hear from you that “I’m right” or “you’re stumped”. I want the answers to the questions, which you seem to be avoiding.

        Please answer these questions. Many people share them.

        And until you or someone else does we will keep going round and round.

        I look forward to your responses to my controls and purification points above, at the least. As a show of good faith.

        Thanks,
        Jeremy

      • Jeremy M,

        I asked you to demonstrate a modicum of good faith by simply acknowledging:

        1) Yes, they purified the sample with centrifugation before doing cell culture.

        2) Yes, they used controls when doing cell culture.

        Instead, you have attempted to obfuscate the truth of both of those statements. You say:

        Sure, they purified particles present in the Vero cell culture (which is the PROCESS that prominent virus-deniers often dispute), which they call virions. Which is not isolation directly from the host. Those particles were never in a person or animal.

        False. Also easily verifiable by anyone is the fact that they obtained the sample that they purified from horseshoe bats. Why would you make up such a ridiculous lie as to claim that the particles in that sample were not from the bats?

        “The species origin of all positive samples was … R. sinicus…”

        By lying, you have proven your bad faith.

        …not enough to conclude that is was the depleted nutrients that caused the illness

        You are deflecting from the point. This question we ae concerned with here is whether the claims made by Cowan et al. are true that they never purify the sample and never use controls when doing cell culture. You can see for yourself that these claims are false

        Also, why do the “purified virions” vary WILDLY in size in the EM image?

        They don’t.

        The controls used in this study are mentioned but not well described. … Did they also add the antibiotics and culture medium, at the same quantities?

        Of course they did. That is what a control is: the same treatment other than for the one variable. In the negative control, the one variable was that the cell line used for culture did not express ACE2, and so cytopathic effects would be expected not to be observed in the virus-exposed cells in this experiment. In the positive control, the one variable was that the control culture was not infected with the virus.

        It is not necessary for the authors to explain what a control is; the fact that they describe having used both negative and positive controls is sufficient proof that the claim that they did not use controls is false. Your refusal to acknowledge this simple point of logic once again proves your bad faith.

        Why would whether “virology is a pseudoscience” depend on positive proofs when the disputes against it, that if true would qualify it as such, are that evidence is insufficient or not of good quality? Especially when those disputing its validity have described with specificity which evidence is lacking and why so, supporting their position with logic and based on the ability, or lack thereof, to observe the actual phenomena or subjects in question by current technological means?

        Once again, your questions are invalid since the rest on the false premise that Cowan et al. do not support their claims by making demonstrably false claims. As I have already pointed out to you, which you refuse to acknowledge, your argument here is a petitio principii fallacy. You are begging the question. You dismissed my article by suggesting that it doesn’t matter whether Cowan is right or wrong because the pseudoscience of virology needs to be exposed, but that presumes the proposition to be proven, which is that Cowan is right that virology is pseudoscience. I have shown you how he is wrong, and therefore why his conclusion that virology is pseudoscience is invalid. You are not addressing my arguments. You have refused to demonstrate good faith by simply acknowledging, rather than trying to obfuscate, the facts that they did purify the sample and they did use controls.

        I have given you numerous opportunities to demonstrate a modicum of good faith, and you have consistently refused, and, instead of acknowledging that Cowan’s claims are false, as anyone can easily verify for themselves, you have tried to obfuscate and even pile your own lie on top of his (i.e., falsely claiming that they did not obtain the particle-containing samples from bats when anyone can easily verify for themselves that they did).

        You have therefore repeatedly proven your bad faith.

      • Jeremy M

        “Your ignorance of my work is not an argument in favor of propagating falsehoods.” I never said I was in favor of propagating falsehoods.

        Are you not arguing that there is nothing wrong with propagating the claim that viruses? Are you not arguing that, in fact, it is a pointless waste of time to acknowledge that viruses exist?

        Because as far as I can see, that is your whole purpose.

  • John says:

    To me it appears Cowan is gaslighting you which provides fodder for his flock of followers. The upside is that you’ve clarified your understanding of virology to a level you previously didn’t have. And that is a good thing for you and those of us who are tagging along and trying to keep up.

    • It is just unfortunate that there is an opportunity cost to my having spent so much time investigating this issue when I really should have been able to stay focused on other issues (that is, I shouldn’t have to spend my time correcting misinformation coming from within the health freedom movement).

  • I perused the study you say shows the virus was isolated. You have to assume all the things they did are 100% effective and the photos are correctly displaying the SARS-COV2. Getting a couple of dozen highly paid scientists with cushy jobs, to say anything, especially based on “opinion” is obviously easy, as the determinations on the use of Ivermectin showed, despite over 75 studies showing it was effective. How do you isolate something that cannot survive for very long outside a living cell and there are literally millions of viruses many of them very similar is size and appearance? I’m starting to believe as Royal Rife stated under oath, that a virus is to a bacteria, as an egg is to a chicken. It is not unusual for organisms, small and large to put/inject their offspring into other organisms, like the living cells of humans, bats, monkeys, birds, bovine and swine. I understand that bacteria can double their colonies in about 20 to 30 minutes. How do they really know how long they can actually survive outside the cell? The PCR Tests are also highly inaccurate. They didn’t say how many times they amplified.

  • JH says: “For the study on SARS‑CoV‑2, see the authors’ first endnote. As noted in the referenced study, the patient sample was purified by centrifugation prior to inoculation in cell culture.”

    The study listed in the endnote used swabs from 1 man, starting on day 4 of his illness (“The initial respiratory specimens… obtained from this patient on day 4 of his illness”), whereas the Harcourt/CDC study that referenced it states “Nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens were collected on day 3 post symptom onset”. So these studies do not even appear to involve the same swabs.

    Further, from the referenced study listed in the endnote:
    “SPECIMEN COLLECTION … Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab specimens were collected with synthetic fiber swabs; each swab was inserted into a separate sterile tube containing 2 to 3 ml of viral transport medium.”

    The use of viral transport medium is also noted in the Harcourt/CDC study (which does not mention any centrifugation prior to their meaningless, fake “isolation” procedure):
    “Nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens were collected on day 3 postsymptom onset, placed in 2–3 mL of viral transport medium, used for molecular diagnosis, and frozen. Confirmed PCR-positive specimens were aliquoted and refrozen until virus isolation was initiated.”

    The CDC’s recipe in SOP#: DSR-052-05 for viral transport medium (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Viral-Transport-Medium.pdf) includes fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, so the clinical samples in both studies were already contaminated/adulterated with/by genetic material, etc. prior to any lab work even commencing – because virology is not a science.

    Back to the day 4 study listed in the endnote:
    “Serum was collected in a serum separator tube and then centrifuged in accordance with CDC guidelines.”

    So what? Running the soup of day 4 clinical sample + cow material + toxic drugs through a centrifuge does not tell us that the day 3 clinical sample + cow material + toxic drug soup used by Harcourt et al was even centrifuged, let alone that centrifugation resulted in purified particles. There is no EM image demonstrating purification in either paper.

    And as usual, there is no indication in the Harcourt study that valid controls were implemented. The authors do not indicate that they ran the same procedures using clinical samples from healthy people or from people with other health conditions as controls, let alone that their procedures were fully controlled (exactly the same minus the alleged virus – which is impossible without purification).

    My colleagues and I have 2 ridiculous FOIA responses from the CDC on the topic of the “mock controls” used by Harcourt et al, made public here: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-virologists-perform-valid-control-experiments-is-virology-a-science/

    And of course, we know that no one on the planet has any record of anyone ever purifying the alleged “virus” from any bodily fluid/tissue/excrement… again because virology is not a science, based on hundreds of FOI responses (including 8 responses from the CDC on that topic).

    Freedom of Information Responses reveal that health/science institutions around the world (211 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 (the alleged convid virus) isolation/purification, anywhere, ever:
    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

    FOIs reveal that health/science institutions have no record of any “virus” having been found in a host and isolated/purified. Because virology isn’t a science:
    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-have-no-record-of-any-virus-having-been-isolated-purified-virology-isnt-a-science/

    Do virologists perform valid control experiments? Is virology a science?
    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-virologists-perform-valid-control-experiments-is-virology-a-science/

    • Christine Massey, you say:

      The study listed in the endnote used swabs from 1 man, starting on day 4 of his illness (“The initial respiratory specimens… obtained from this patient on day 4 of his illness”), whereas the Harcourt/CDC study that referenced it states “Nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens were collected on day 3 post symptom onset”. So these studies do not even appear to involve the same swabs.

      The study describes samples being taken on multiple days post symptom. The simplest explanation is that Harcourt et al. simply erred in saying day 3 instead of day 4. In fact, they can’t have obtained a sample on day 3 post-symptom onset since it wasn’t until day 4 of symptoms that he presented to the clinic, and samples were taken that day. So, this is clearly a minor error.

      Back to the day 4 study listed in the endnote: “Serum was collected in a serum separator tube and then centrifuged in accordance with CDC guidelines.” So what? Running the soup of day 4 clinical sample + cow material + toxic drugs through a centrifuge does not tell us that the day 3 clinical sample + cow material + toxic drug soup used by Harcourt et al was even centrifuged

      But if we recognize that they meant day 4 and not day 3, the answer to your question “So what?” is that they did centrifuge the sample.

      There is no EM image demonstrating purification in either paper.

      There is also no electron microscopy image demonstrating purification of bacteriophages after centrifugation to separate phages from cellular debris and prior to growth of phages in bacterial culture, and this is the study Cowan et al. cite as demonstrating “the proper way” to isolate viruses, so this is a moot objection.

      And as usual, there is no indication in the Harcourt study that valid controls were implemented.

      That is false. They clearly describe the use of mock-infected cells, and “mock-infected” means an uninfected control. That is the definition of the term.

      The authors do not indicate that they ran the same procedures using clinical samples from healthy people or from people with other health conditions as controls…

      So what? They didn’t need to do this. The claim that they did not use a control when doing cell culture is false. They did.

      And of course, we know that no one on the planet has any record of anyone ever purifying the alleged “virus” from any bodily fluid/tissue/excremen…. Freedom of Information Responses reveal that health/science institutions around the world (211 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 (the alleged convid virus) isolation/purification, anywhere, ever….

      Christine, your FOI requests are a deliberate hoax. Naturally, when you request the isolation of of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods that scientists use to isolate viruses, you will return no results. You specifically word your requests to return no results. Documentation of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 is not hidden away in some secret institutional archives. It is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

      • Jeremy, the Harcourt study makes no mention of day 4 whatsoever. It says “day 3” in 2 places. You seem to be assuming that the 2 studies are referencing the same swabs. Do you know for a fact that the same swabs were used, or are you just assuming? If you know, how do you know?

        We are not discussing Tom Cowan or another paper on bacteriophages, we are discussing the studies that you cited and that fact that there is no EM image demonstrating purification means that you are simply assuming, rather than knowing, that purification of 1 type of particle occurred. Science is not about makes (more) assumptions.

        Further, Harcourt et al specifically stated that they added CLINICAL SAMPLES, not purified particles, to the cell lines:

        “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.comExternal Link). We used both NP and OP SWAB SPECIMENS for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of CLINCIAL SPECIMENS into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10). When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

        “Mock infected” is not defined by the authors, and the fact that no controls of any sort were even mentioned in the Methods section speaks volumes (and is typical of the so-called “virus isolation and sequencing” papers).

        “Mock infected” quite possibly means that they neglected to add any clinical sample at all, which would make the paper even more ridiculous. It’s bad enough that they didn’t first obtain purified particles so that a fully controlled experiment could be carried out. Utterly ridiculous to fail to even use clinical samples from “uninfected” people as controls.

        Contrary to your assertion that this is “no biggie”, logic and scientific method say otherwise. So does Guillaume Croville, IHAP Virology Laboratory, National Veterinary School of Toulouse (UMR ENVT-INRAE), who confessed to a colleague in May that such controls are necessary and that they hadn’t done them:
        https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Guillaume-Croville-ENVT-France-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf

        Jeremy, CEASE AND DESIST your slanderous (and frankly idiotic) “hoax” comments. My FOIs show that no one has any record of “the virus” being purified from patient samples, by anyone, anywhere, ever, and that you have been blowing hot air for the last 3 years. My FOIs are worded to weed out the pseudoscience that you endorse (which results in nothing being isolated/purified), and nothing more.

      • Christine,

        Jeremy, the Harcourt study makes no mention of day 4 whatsoever.

        I have already reasonably addressed that. It is an obvious minor error since the patient didn’t even go to the clinic until day 4. Shall we try to contact the authors to alert them to the discrepancy and verify that it’s just a minor error?

        You seem to be assuming that the 2 studies are referencing the same swabs.

        My explanation is perfectly reasonable. It is you who seems to be unreasonably assuming that the 2 studies are referencing different samples despite Harcourt et al. explicitly stating otherwise.

        We are not discussing Tom Cowan or another paper on bacteriophages…

        Well, yes, we are.

        we are discussing the studies that you cited and that fact that there is no EM image demonstrating purification means…

        It means nothing. I have already reasonably addressed this, and you hae simply dismissed what I said.

        Harcourt et al specifically stated that they added CLINICAL SAMPLES, not purified particles, to the cell line

        A distinction without relevance. You can see that they centrifuged the sample in the separate study describing that part of the process. It is unreasonable of you to assume that that is describing a different sample when the “day 3” thing is such an obvious minor error.

        “Mock infected” is not defined by the authors…

        Irrelevant. “Mock infected” means an uninfected control.

        the fact that no controls of any sort were even mentioned

        But they do mention the use of a control! That’s what a “mock infected” culture is, by definition.

        Jeremy, CEASE AND DESIST your slanderous (and frankly idiotic) “hoax” comments.

        But they are a hoax. Naturally, when you request the isolation of of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods that scientists use to isolate viruses, you will return no results. You specifically word your requests to return no results. Documentation of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 is not hidden away in some secret institutional archives. It is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You are trying to trick people into believing that all these institutions have reported that they have no record of SARS-CoV-2 ever having been isolated [“have no record of SARS-COV-2 (the alleged convid virus) isolation/purification” to quote your specific claim here], but that is false, as you know. The CDC told you that it had isolated the virus, so you are willfully lying when you claim that they told you that they had no record of this having been done. Here is the CDC’s response in which they told you SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated and provided you with published studies describing the isolation:

        https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-March-1-2021-SARS-COV-2-Isolation-Response-Redacted.pdf

      • Yes Jeremy, you ought to contact the authors to alert them to the discrepancy and verify that it’s just a minor error, since you’re the one assuming and insisting that this is the case.

        Where do Harcourt et al. explicit state that they are using the same swabs as in the other study?

        No Jeremy, we are not discussing Tom Cowan or another paper on bacteriophages. Go back and reread everything if you need to. And no you have not reasonably addressed the fact that there are no EM images to demonstrate purification.

        CLINICAL SAMPLES are not the same thing as purified particles. Even if Harcourt et al had centrifuged and purified prior to the cell culture (which they do not say or demonstrate), they explicitly state that they added CLINICAL SAMPLES / SWAB SPECIMENS to the monkey kidney cells. There is a huge difference.

        ““Mock infected” means an uninfected control”… in other words, for all you know they added no clinical sample at all, which is not remotely a VALID control for a study where CLINICAL SAMPLES (plus fetal bovine serum, etc. from the virus transport medium) were added in the experimental group.

        I was 100% correct in stating that no controls are mentioned in the Methods section. Of course when you leave part of my sentence out you can make it sound like I wrote something incorrect.

        Jeremy, we all know that virologists mean “creating a monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi/toxic drugs soup where the monkey cells break down” when they say “isolation”.

        My earlier FOIs used the word “isolation” and defined that in the everyday sense of the word (because that is what scientific method and logic require). Most of the FOIs used the word “purification” instead. There is no hoax (which implies a deliberate attempt to deceive). I am showing the world that no one has any record of the alleged virus being PURIFIED from a sick person, as required by logic and reason, so that an independent variable would be available for study with controlled experiments. No one has done it or knows of anyone who has.

      • Jeff Green says:

        Christine, viruses are simply not isolated in the same manner as you worded your FOI request. That is why they returned no information in every case. You did the same not only with SARS but with other viruses as well. The repeating trend is that you are improperly wording your request, therefore leading to no records.

        Samples are many times combined with other cells to culture a virus. As such, they will return no records. Especially when you require that there be NO source of other genetic material, which can mean any genetic material from the host itself, which is an impossible criterion to meet.

        Furthermore, your definition of isolation is not applicable. The isolation definition you used, per your FOI request, is far too broad and does not take into account the size of submicroscopic entities and the limitations therein.

      • Yes Jeremy, you ought to contact the authors to alert them to the discrepancy and verify that it’s just a minor error, since you’re the one assuming and insisting that this is the case.

        Naw. You are the one claiming that they lied, so since you’re the one insisting that this is the case, you contact them.

        Where do Harcourt et al. explicit state that they are using the same swabs as in the other study?

        Right where they cite the other study, of course.

        No Jeremy, we are not discussing Tom Cowan or another paper on bacteriophages.

        Well, yes, we are.

        CLINICAL SAMPLES are not the same thing as purified particles.

        A distinction without relevance. You can see that they centrifuged the sample in the separate study describing that part of the process. It is unreasonable of you to assume that that is describing a different sample when the “day 3” thing is such an obvious minor error.

        You are arguing in circles. If you persist in this type of trolling behavior, your commenting privileges will be revoked.

        ““Mock infected” means an uninfected control”… in other words, for all you know they added no clinical sample at all…

        That makes no sense. Why would they add the clinical sample to cell culture? That is not a control. A control is a culture that is given the same treatment EXCEPT inoculation with the supernatant potentially containing a virus.

        I was 100% correct in stating that no controls are mentioned in the Methods section.

        The study authors described having used a control, as you now know.

        There is no hoax (which implies a deliberate attempt to deceive).

        Yes, there is a hoax. Your FOI requests are a hoax because you are trying to trick people into believing that the CDC et al. have replied to say that they have no record of SARS-CoV-2 ever having been isolated when in fact, e.g., the CDC replied to say that they had isolated SARS-CoV-2. Your requests are deliberately worded to return no results.

        Here you go again proving my point by falsely claiming “I am showing the world that no one has any record of the alleged virus being PURIFIED from a sick person…”

        Again, the scientific literature is replete with documentation of the purification and isolation of viruses, and the CDC et al. did not tell you otherwise, as you perfectly well know.

      • Jeff Green says:

        “Naturally, when you request the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods that scientists use to isolate viruses, you will return no results.”

        Correct, and I told her that months ago. It would be like requesting police information on someone but using the wrong name they have on file. Of course, they will return no information as a result. It basically does not prove anything. Also, it is not slander if it is the truth. They throw the term “slander” around repeatedly to try to scare others into staying silent. The fact is, the FOI requests prove nothing since the studies themselves exist. Those are the records. It is unreal that Massey and her colleagues do not know this. If her colleagues do know it, they are intentionally misleading her with flattery into thinking she is doing something productive in this regard.

        Use a little common sense, Christine.

        Question for ‘no-virus’ group: Why not use a virus other than SARS-CoV-2 that is more established in the scientific literature? They could use bacteriophages as an example to try to prove viruses are not real. But since they now claim bacteriophages are not viruses, they have already shown that they are willing to make up their own definitions on the fly for what is, and is not, a virus—all while hypocritically accusing me of doing the same thing.

      • Still confused I see, Jeffrey. The onus is on the people making a claim that a pathogenic particle does exist to prove it.

      • Jeff Green says:

        How many times do I have to tell you people that pathogenicity and purification are separate processes in isolation? Do you have to prove the pathogenicity of a blood cell to prove it exists? That is exactly what you are saying. Proving pathogeny and proving existence itself are two separate fields, period. Many constituents of the body are not classed as ‘pathogenic’, and you do not have to prove ‘pathogeny’ to prove they exist. Proving a virus exists has everything to do with identifying structure, related nucleic acids and their biomarkers, as well as purification that filters out a viral particle based upon its size, weight, and density in relation to everything else around it.

        You keep repeating the same thing, even after I correct you. Quite telling. How do they prove exosomes exist? Exosomes are not classed as ‘pathogenic’. What about ‘defective’ incomplete viruses? And so on and so forth. Your requirement for pathogenicity in order to prove something exists is a misnomer.

        What do you have to say about that now?

      • I’ve been perfectly clear: no one has shown that the alleged particle even exists, let alone shown that it causes anything. No one has the alleged particle to use in any controlled experiment in order to show pathogenicity.

        And no valid controls are used in the procedures used to fake-“isolate” (show cytopathic effect in monkey cells), or fake-“sequence” (which is really assembling in silico sequences into a longer sequence, rather than discovering a genome in the physical realm).

        I don’t know if “exosomes” do exist, and have not been researching “exosomes”.

        There’s no onus on my to say or prove or do anything. You’re insisting that “viruses” like SARS-COV-2 exist but can’t even show a paper where the alleged genome was found.

      • And no valid controls are used…

        Why do you continually make this false claim even after being shown that it is false with references from the scientific literature in which uninfected controls are described as being used during cell culture?

        You are proving the whole point of my above article.

      • Jeff Green says:

        A few things. One, sequencing is not what you claim it to be. It cannot create something out of thin air. In-silico sequencing fills in blanks in a logical pattern. It throws out minor errors and constructs a sequence based on logical flow. Regardless, it is irrelevant to this discussion of the actual existence of viruses as a whole.

        Secondly, I have said before that you all focus on SARS-CoV-2 as THE virus to try to prove your case that all other viruses do not exist. Why not use a more established virus, such as a phage? You state that even the particles themselves do not exist. You commented on one of my articles directed at you and your group by responding “What structures?”—as if to say that no viral structures exist. You did the same in your response to me on your website concerning adenovirus, which has a clearly defined structure that cannot be denied. And you have claimed such intelligent structuring is caused by manmade causes, which is impossible.

        “I don’t know if “exosomes” do exist, and have not been researching “exosomes”.”

        Well, perhaps you should. Putting exosomes in quotations gives a hint of your true belief. It is vitally important to understand exosomes to prove your ‘point’, and to verify your beliefs. After all, many of your colleagues claimed at one point in the past that exosomes are replacements for viruses. Therefore, it would behoove you to truly understand their nature and purpose in the body.

        Mike Stone, a member of your group to which you correspond, now states that exosomes are an “escape clause” for virology to fall back on, which is absolutely absurd and shows the depth of what you all are willing to claim and put out there. To state that exosomes do not exist is to state that cells themselves do not exist, which is something many who follow those like Cowan are now falsely claiming as well. Cowan himself has basically said this in not so many words, which is where many of these erroneous ideas stem from.

        Such a statement, if true, would mean that the body cannot recycle cellular waste and package up utilizable debris for use in future cells, thus rendering the body completely inefficient, leading to death. It also means that cellular duplication itself cannot occur, such as mitosis, which means you would not be here writing your comment because you wouldn’t exist as a person on this earth.

        The onus is on YOU to prove that viruses do not exist, and come up with a better reason for what causes symptoms classically associated with viral illness. I have done that in my research, while you all have sat by the wayside and tried to delegitimize the power of such an argument.

      • They have. Willful ignorance of the scientific literature is not an argument.

      • Sanjoy Mahajan says:

        To avoid writing a giant and unreadable comment, I will look at just one issue from the thread: “mock infected.” On that issue, wWho has written correct statements? Who has not? And, as a bonus, who gaslights?

        Christine Massey writes: ” “Mock infected” is not defined by the authors, and the fact that no controls of any sort were even mentioned in the Methods section speaks volumes (and is typical of the so-called “virus isolation and sequencing” papers).”

        From the above, Hammond extracts the following: “the fact that no controls of any sort were even mentioned” and then comments: “But they do mention the use of a control! That’s what a “mock infected” culture is, by definition.”

        As can be checked by going to the Harcourt paper, “mock infected” appears just once in the paper, in the Results section. Its full appearance: “CPE was not observed in mock infected cells (Figure 1, panel A).”

        Thus, “mock infected” is not defined by the authors, even via a citation. They also do not describe their mock-infection procedure. (Such a description would belong in the Methods section, but it wasn’t there or anywhere else.)

        So, Christine Massey’s statement is correct. And Hammond materially misquoted it by omitting “in the Methods section” and then “refuted” the misquotation by citing the mention in a different section (the Results section).

        And the misquoting and alleged refutation results in yet another bald assertion, that “mock infected” is a control. But it’s highly doubtful. A control experiment changes only one variable. Meanwhile, the procedure to which the snot sample were subjected is long and involved. What in the procedure was kept the same? Hopefully every single step, and only a different sample was used, one from someone not infected with the alleged virus. But we have no idea, because no description was provided (and none was provided when the CDC was asked repeatedly under FOIA).

        So, Hammond twists words and then uses fake refutations as an excuse to repeat his accusations and claims that “the virus has been isolated.” It’s just gaslighting.

      • Thus, “mock infected” is not defined by the authors, even via a citation…. So, Christine Massey’s statement is correct…. So, Hammond twists words…

        Wrong. This is a non sequitur fallacy. It does not follow from the fact that the study authors did not provide the definition of “mock infected” that the term does not mean an uninfected control. “Mock infected” means “A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus.”

        https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected

        Therefore, I am right, you are wrong, and Christine Massey is wrong.

      • Sanjoy Mahajan says:

        What exactly in the quoted two lines (three snippets) is “wrong”?

        On the first snippet (about “mock infected”), Christine Massey and I both said, `”mock infected” is not defined by the authors’ (I added “even via a citation” to give them wiggle room). If you think that statement is incorrect, please point to their definition (the “defined by the authors”). But obviously they didn’t give one, so the statement is correct, or you wouldn’t have had to resort to digging out a definition from genscript.com’s glossary.

        On the second snippet (“Christine Massey’s statement”): See the preceding paragraph for why her statement is correct.

        On the third snippet (“Hammond twists words”), as you are trying to claim that the first two snippets are incorrect, you are twisting words. As you are doing when you add “it does not follow … that the term does not mean an uninfected control.” You made up that alleged conclusion (really, straw man), which you try to refute. I didn’t define “mock infected”; I only pointed out that the authors do not describe what they did (see above).

        The questions are: What does “uninfected” mean to the authors? And what is the description of their alleged control? Neither question is answered in the papers, nor is it answered in the FOIA responses asking for precisely those records.

        Therefore, you could be more careful in your reading.

      • Jeff Green says:

        Sometimes, terms are assumed to be already understood by the reader. For example, when researchers write of culture, everything is not necessarily spelled out as if speaking to a child, but instead, the writer many times assumes the reader already knows that most cultures are done in the same vial in the same medium now. As such, the writer(s) likely assume the reader already understands what ‘mock infection’ entails. Other terms are like this as well.

        Imagine how much longer studies would be if the writers had to teach the reader each time about the minutia of the smallest things. Such a thing is impractical.

        One relevant example: A study claims viruses and exosomes are hard to separate, but the study states in the opening paragraph that the study shall focus on enveloped viruses, like retroviruses, as well as other enveloped viruses. This sets the context for the rest of the study. Thus, the study does not mean all viruses, but only specific viruses. Therefore, whenever the word ‘virus’ appears thereafter, the reader assumes the correct meaning, unless otherwise noted.
        Someone who reads the study haphazardly could then falsely assume that the study is referring to all viruses, especially if they start on page 2 without having read the intent of the study itself.

        Because of misreadings like this, Tom Cowan has falsely claimed that exosomes and viruses are difficult to separate. The reality, however, is that it is not all viruses that are difficult to separate from exosomes, but only some enveloped viruses.

      • Sanjoy, you are fundamentally missing the point here. Massey was trying to maintain that they did not use a control. I therefore pointed out that they did, described in the study as “mock infected” cells. Massey nevertheless refused to acknowledge that they used a control.

        I am right, and Massey is wrong. They did use a control. You said Massey was right and I was wrong, and therefore you were also wrong. Hence my observation of your fallacy and provision of the definition of “mock infected”.

      • Sanjoy Mahajan says:

        No, I am not missing the point. You are twisting other people’s words by (1) misquoting, when you use direct quotes, and by (2) materially false summaries. As an example of case (1), which I gave in my previous comment: You omitted the very relevant “in the Methods section” from a direct quote!

        As an example of case (2), you write: “Massey was trying to maintain that they did not use a control.” This summary is materially false because you are using “control” to mean a bare mention of “mock infected” anywhere in a document. And then you “refute” your false summary by saying, “But they spoke the magic words “mock infected” right here, so you are wrong!”

        What actually happened is that Christine pointed out that the authors didn’t describe the mock-infection procedure at all (its only mention is a figure callout in the Results section, not in the Methods section). So, we have no idea if they used a (valid) control (a control would change only one variable but we have no idea how many variables were changed). She also pointed out that they provided no description of any control procedure, even with a direct FOIA request (so we reasonably wonder whether they did any control at all).

        So, no, there’s no evidence that they used a (valid) control and plenty of evidence that they used no (valid) control. But sure, it’s theoretically possible that they did use a (valid) control and just didn’t report it.

        The burden of proof is on them and their friends (if they want anyone to believe their conclusion, that is). A bare mention of “mock infected” in the Results section is way below meeting that burden. But if you have evidence about their control that I have overlooked, please bring it forward.

      • No, I am not missing the point. You are twisting other people’s words…

        Yes, you are missing the point, and it is you who is twisting everything around to obfuscate that point. Pay attention, and I will explain it to you one more time. Once again, the question being asked here is whether they did or did not use a control when doing cell culture. I said they did, Massey insisted that they did not. I observed that they do in fact describe using “mock infected” cells, which means a control.

        Massey then attempted to persist in her claim that they did not use a control by saying that the authors did not define “mock infected” and did not mention this procedure in the Methods section. So, I responded to point out that the fact they did not provide the definition of “mock infected” is irrelevant since “mock infected” literally means an uninfected control. To conclude from the fact that they didn’t explain what this term means to readers that therefore they didn’t do it is profoundly irrational. I further responded to communicate the point that it doesn’t matter where in the document they described using “mock infected” cells, what mattered is that they did in fact include that detail in the study, thus falsifying her claim that they did not use a control.

        Now, I would like to further point out how you, too, are proving the point of my above article that people making false claims such as that they don’t use controls when doing cell culture refuse to acknowledge the clear proofs that their claims are wrong. To illustrate, you added this:

        So, no, there’s no evidence that they used a (valid) control and plenty of evidence that they used no (valid) control.

        How many times do I have to prove to you that your statement is false? By ignoring my clear proofs, you are engaging in behavior that could reasonably be described as trolling, which is behavior that violates the terms of use of the comments section and may result in revocation of commenting privileges. However, I will offer you another opportunity to engage reasonably with me. To demonstrate good faith, please:

        1) Acknowledge that the study authors described comparing “mock infected” with infected cells and observing cytopathic effects only in the infected cells.
        https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

        2) Acknowledge that “mock infected” means: ” A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus.”
        https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected

        If you are willing to demonstrate good faith by acknowledging these basic facts, easily verifiable by anyone at the links, then we can proceed to discuss this further.

      • Sanjoy Mahajan says:

        You are just gaslighting by repeating your refuted points with more words surrounding them each time. But you can demonstrate some good faith by acknowledging that you materially misquoted Christine Massey by deleting “in the Methods section” from what she wrote.

        You seem keen to promote the belief in the Convid virus. But your arguments are not convincing. If you would like to convince people who disagree with you about, for example, the issue of control experiments in virology, which leads to the larger question of whether virology is a science or pseudoscience, then those people need the details of the alleged control experiments so that they can form their own judgment.

        Thus, at the risk of telling you how to do your job, you could bring forth a full description of Harcourt et al.’s so-called control. What exactly did they do? Where is it described? (Being mentioned in the Results section doesn’t count as a description of a procedure.) Their lab notes on this point would make a good start. Somehow these notes are not being released despite multiple FOIA requests, perhaps because they don’t exist or because they reveal that the controls were nothing of the sort.

        I am by no means telling you what to do. It’s up to you. Ban me from commenting, don’t ban me, it doesn’t matter to me. But don’t be surprised if your claims that “they used a control” are not believed — except by people who already believed them.

      • Jeff Green says:

        This is really not about SARS-CoV-2. This has everything to do with integrity. This is about the ‘no-virus’ gang egregiously mischaracterizing studies, no matter the entity. Even after Massey has been corrected, she continues to claim her FOI requests are legitimate, even though she has been shown that researchers do not isolate viruses in the way she requests, therefore no results will be returned.
        Now, I see you are also repeating this as well. You cannot use her FOI requests as an answer because they are not worded properly in accordance with standard operating procedures of isolation, and are therefore null and void.

        “Thus, at the risk of telling you how to do your job, you could bring forth a full description of Harcourt et al.’s so-called control. What exactly did they do?”

        Mock infection controls are normally defined to mean that the main culture has a virus, while the control culture omits the virus. There are SARS-CoV-2 studies that mention much more information on the mock controls they use. For example, here’s one that mentions “mock” 38 times – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24521-x

      • Sanjoy, inasmuch as you have refused to demonstrate even just a modicum of good faith by acknowledging the easily verifiable facts that (1) the study authors did describe using “mock infected” cells when doing cell culture and (2) that “mock infected” means an uninfected control, and inasmuch as you have thereby proven your unwillingness to reason, a violation of the terms of use of this site, instead engaging in this ridiculous trolling behavior of offhandedly dismissing those easily verifiable facts as having been “refuted” and otherwise attempting to obfuscate the key point that Massey’s claim that they did not use a control is therefore false, your commenting privilege is revoked.

      • Valid controls are needed, Jeremy. Controlling for some things but not others is not sufficient or scientific. This is simple logic, and you are all over pointing out logical fallacies when it suits you. Yet you consistently overlook the logical fallacies that are inherent to virology.
        We know for a fact that valid controls for making conclusions about “a virus” were not done because the only way to control for all other factors would be to have everything the exact same in both groups, except the experimental group also gets the particles that are alleged to be “the virus”. This would require purification of those particles, which has never been done – as evidenced by the FOI response from 211 institutions in over 35 countries (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/). No one, including the CDC, has any record of that ever being done.
        And, no study explicitly states that they even controlled by using swabs from healthy people or from people with other health conditions.
        Further, the FOIs and emails to study authors that have been done thus far on that specific topic have yielded zero evidence that it has ever been done (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-virologists-perform-valid-control-experiments-is-virology-a-science/).
        See if you can obtain written explicit evidence that even that much has been done, investigative reporter.
        Did you enquire about the day 3/day 4 swabs yet?
        And do you know for a fact that the swabs in the 2 studies are even from the same person? (I’m not saying that they aren’t, I don’t know if they are or aren’t).

      • Valid controls are needed, Jeremy.

        Valid controls were used, Christine, as I have already shown you. If you would like to continue to exercise the privilege of participating in the comments section of this website, in accordance with the terms of use, please demonstrate good faith by:

        1) Acknowledging that the study authors described comparing “mock infected” with infected cells and observing cytopathic effects only in the infected cells.
        https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

        2) Acknowledging that “mock infected” means: ” A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus.”
        https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected

        If you are willing to demonstrate good faith by acknowledging these basic facts, easily verifiable by anyone at the links, then we can proceed to discuss this further.

      • Oh, if you can find a website that says that Jeremy, then it must be correct, right?! No need to verify your assumption with the authors (while you’re verifying your earlier assumptions about day 3 vs. day 4 swabs)!!

      • Oh, if you can find a website that says that Jeremy, then it must be correct, right?! No need to verify your assumption with the authors…

        Christine, thank you very much indeed for this wonderful illustration of how you true believers choose to willfully ignore clear proofs that your claims are false.

        It is not just “a website”. It is a dictionary of biology terms. You were questioning the definition of “mock infected”. I provided you with the definition. Yet you persist in refusing to acknowledge the fact that “mock infected” is defined as an uninfected control and then, as though this definition did not exist, attribute my understanding that it means an uninfected control to some “assumption” on my part.

        As for “day 3 vs. day 4”, as I already explained to you, this is an obvious minor error since the patient did not even show up at the clinic until day 4. For you to persist in this irrational belief that this somehow proves that the two papers are talking about two different samples simply demonstrates your disingenuousness.

        Really, Christine, by all means, please do keep this up. You are helping me greatly to illustrate what I mean when I say that you true believers absolutely refuse to be reasoned with, choosing willful ignorance and to persist in deliberately deceiving others by making claims that you have repeatedly been shown to be false. If you would like to continue exercising the privilege of participating in the comments section of this website, in according with the terms of use, please demonstrate good faith by acknowledging:

        1) Acknowledge that the study authors described comparing “mock infected” with infected cells and observing cytopathic effects only in the infected cells.
        https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

        2) Acknowledge that “mock infected” means: ” A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus.”
        https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected

        If you are willing to demonstrate good faith by acknowledging these basic facts, easily verifiable by anyone at the links, then we can proceed to discuss this further.

      • Jeff Green says:

        To add to what you’ve written. I have observed this ever-expanding group since mid-2020, and my own informed opinion tells of something that is blatantly intended to mislead. Early on, I was contacted by Kaufman, including others in the group, in order to interview me. Once they found out I was not in agreement that exosomes are a replacement for viruses, or that 5G was and is the cause of viral outbreaks, they would not have any further contact with me.

        They cannot have someone claiming viruses are real and extolling the benefits of viruses.

        In my opinion, they have turned this all into a very lucrative business model. This is more than merely selling a book or supplements. This is selling things like thousand-dollar shower heads that promise to ‘structure’ tap water, expensive crystal ‘structuring’ wands, orgone therapy, sound fork body tuning, and on and on. That is why they are calling it the New Biology. It all deals with New Age practices, which are deceptive. They have become the ‘purveyors of truth’ by propagating every pseudoscience under the sun, all whilst claiming you, me, and everyone who claims viruses are real, are promoting ‘pseudoscience’, when it is them that are doing so.

        For crying out loud, Tom Cowan claims to be able to talk to water and have it talk back to him. He claims many things do not exist that have indeed been proven to exist. He guides his mostly ignorant audience into believing such falsehoods.

        As well, they maintain relations with people like David Icke, who promotes all manner of conspiratorial misinformation. Many of the programs they have produced are done in correspondence with Icke and hosted on Icke’s own media channel, Ikonic.

        They have individuals spread out on the internet to do their leg work for them. This is obvious. They show up any time someone so much as mentions viruses being real. Study the Poornima Wagh incident and you will see that this is indeed a closely-knit group. When you try to guide them to the truth, they ignore, deflect, and circle back to their already disproved statement and try to bring the conversation down to their level. Then, they repeat it again somewhere else as if the previous conversation never happened, all while mischaracterizing past conversations.
        Huston’s article about you is a prime example. Completely fabricated, made up of what appears to be paranoid schizophrenic writing. They have done the same to me.

        Massey today repeated to everyone here that her FOI requests are proof of her claims, even after we both told her that her FOI requests were of no import because they were improperly worded in regard to isolation practices. After correcting her, she goes on to repeat the same thing a mere day later, as if by default. She has either convinced herself that her FOI requests are more than they are, or she has had a lot of disingenuous flattery given to her by her colleagues in the ‘no-virus’ group, that she now believes it without pause. They all seemingly hold Massey’s FOI requests in high regard.

        It is my educated opinion, based on evidence, that this group is attempting to destroy legitimate opposing voices, while making themselves appear to be the purveyors of ‘truth’, and expanding their reach by promulgating mischaracterizations and outright lies about others. Meanwhile, a few at the top are making thousands upon thousands of dollars by first getting others drawn into their false system of beliefs, then funneling them into their products, etc.

        I am also of the opinion that others are funding them, at least insofar as giving them many donations. In the end, they are misleading thousands upon thousands of people into false beliefs that are not grounded in truth, but at first, appear to be believable. This much is known. As such, they take a truism, then stretch it out infinitely to complete absurdity, and gradually indoctrinate their audience into their belief system and into supporting their cause.

        Exactly what motivation does this group have in imparting the truth to their audience when they have hundreds of thousands of followers, and thus, are making thousands of dollars every time they do a webinar or host an event? To claim viruses are real now would be completely out of their realm of thinking. That’s the sad reality. And this is why you cannot change their mind. However, we can help guide others to the truth so that they are not misled.

        To see the effect these things have had on people, just read this comment left on Mike Stone’s blog, viroLIEgy.com. This comment was ‘liked’ by Stone himself.

        “Viruses don’t exist. They are a fabrication, a scam, a lie.”
        “There is no DNA and no proteins. In reality, all chemistry and all so-called molecular biology are just colossal scams.”

        This is the result false information has on those that are ignorant of science and reality. And there are many more just like him that are followers of the ‘no-virus’ gang.

      • Jeff, your observations accord perfectly with my own experiences dealing with this issue.

      • Jeff Green says:

        One of the main arguments those in the ‘no-virus’ group use is to claim that artificial cultures must be used to isolate all viruses. This is patently incorrect on their part. Viruses can in fact be purified and isolated directly from host organisms without artificial lab culture. Most plant and insect viruses have no such requirement for static culture. They can be grown, infected, and allowed to die while the virus remains intact. Then, the sample may simply be purified and viewed under microscopy. With most lower organisms, their own body is the natural culture by which the virus can be extracted and purified.
        For whatever reason, those like Cowan have failed to mention this to their audience, either because they do not know about it, or, because they are omitting it to support the (false) idea that viruses are not real. All it takes is the proof of one virus to prove their entire position wrong.

        Something else the ‘no-virus’ gang has claimed, is that they believe samples must be purified in a separate process. The reality is that researchers can now culture and centrifuge/purify a sample in the same vial without transporting the sample between mediums. This saves both time and money by eliminating unnecessary procedures. Many times now, a sample is added to a medium (culture), then allowed to incubate for hours to days. The sample is then centrifuged, all taking place in the same vial. Then, the sample is further purified through filtration thereafter (sometimes multiple times, if applicable). The ‘no-virus’ gang will claim this causes problems because of genetic contamination, but centrifugation and filtration do a fine job of removing these contaminates. And after all, a natural sample taken from a host is a genetic soup by nature anyway. The medium solution itself is very benign.

        Note: Yes, bovine calf serum can be a source of genetic contamination, but in regard to purification, plays little to no role in its success. Even in sequencing, things are still understood enough to circumvent such possible contaminates and their effects. They pretend as if researchers are completely daft in every regard.

        There are multiple ways by which to purify a viral particle. Different viruses require different purification methods. For example, enveloped viruses are much more prone to damage because of their more fragile lipid bilayer coat, as opposed to a non-enveloped virus which does not contain such a coat, and is, therefore, more impervious to damage from over-purification. On the other hand, the purification of enveloped viruses normally requires a more gentle approach or integrity can be diminished.
        Cowan and friends will claim that 100% purity is needed to conclude a virus particle is a virus, but this is also false. There exists no such thing as 100% purity with any organic component coming from the body. Nothing in the body exists in a vacuum, and if it did, it would render the particle structurally unsound and compromised, which would then lead the ‘no-virus’ gang to conclude that “See, they are damaging the sample! It is invalid!”.

        Why are Cowan and his associates not focusing on the established science that viruses are beneficial in nature and beginning to do the hard work (as I have tried to do) in bringing this information to their audience? It is an insult to those trying to understand the nature of health and disease. They merely cross their arms and claim none of it is real (including so much more), and I find that all highly suspicious and suspect. Further, they have no legitimate science to take its place or to counter mainstream views. Therefore, it will go absolutely nowhere. There must be a theory of tangibility to take its place.

        You may not believe they have an agenda per se, as you alluded to in your previous article, but I am sure that, in time, you will begin to see that they do indeed have ulterior motives. Anyone that blatantly and willingly ignores well-reasoned arguments, and proceeds to mischaracterize them, is not operating within the realm of truth. They seem to be counting on emotional appeal alone to ‘win’ their case.
        For example, just look at how Huston and Massey have approached this. No matter what one may present, they ignore, deflect, misdirect, and attack, no matter how well presented. That alone gives away that they have an ulterior motive. Remember, many of the leaders of this ‘movement’ have hundreds of thousands of followers. If they tell them that viruses do not exist, they are also telling them falsehoods about other biological agents of the body, thereby leading to the complete denial of common sense, logic, distrust in science as a whole, and other people around them, including their own senses. I consider it incredibly misleading because it funnels their followers into a cul-de-sac, wherein the leaders of the ‘no-virus’ gang become the purveyors of ‘truth’.

        I think it is important that you stay focused on this matter while also focusing on other topics. There are very few of us that are willing to do the necessary work to understand these complexities. In fact, you could count on one hand the people that are actively involved to this degree. Whether people know it or not, it is an incredibly important topic to get right in understanding human biology. As such, I consider this a topic that can be used to learn a great deal of information from and it should not be treated lightly or as a temporary thing.

  • Alan says:

    I have read all the arguments/counter-arguments that you and Tom Cowan et al. have presented and I find (if I was a court of law) that the balance of truth lies with you. However, I do think that you have wasted enough of your and my time, with people (many with apparently a good understanding of the complexities and nuances of evidence-based scientific study) on this subject of virus denialism and I implore you to move on and devout your research to more pressing subjects.

    • Alan,

      I appreciate you taking the time to weigh the evidence and express your conclusion. I also appreciate your suggestion that I should focus on other pressing subjects. I do intend to move on and do just that. However, I wish to again stress the importance of correcting the false claims that have been circulating virally for too long and causing such great harm to the health freedom movement. This is among the pressing issues warranting my time and attention.

  • Bobby Clemente says:

    I agree with Dr. Cowan, along w/ Dr. Andrew Kaufman. Virology is one of the biggest $$$cience $cam$ around. There were many claims about isolation of the Covjuice one, but it was all gaslighting, as was claims about the isolation of rabies and polio. Look up what noted virologist Dr. Judy Mikovits said about the supposed isolation of the C-19 virus, she plainly admits the virus was NOT truly isolated and that genetic material was a part of the so-called isolation. If that’s your definition of true isolation then you can have it. They also NEVER proved causation. Koch’s Postulates have gone out the window with the $$$cience.

  • Marcy says:

    How do you explain this article? Computers fill in based on human assumptions as only remnant of viruses are found and as I understand the questions on viruses it is not the denial of their existence but questions on what they are. I have only found studies of the contagious nature of viruses that did not prove contagious so maybe they exist but not as we have been fed to believe? Rumors of their capabilities certainly garner plenty of money while many of the symptoms mimic toxins in our environment. There is a long history of being poisoned by the same people who own pharma mafia so there’s that too.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/youve-never-really-seen-a-virus-until-you-see-this/?fbclid=IwAR3_gQmZ2RPkMq3tmRkb8e5d0ThXsyjcFPqh13sX53ORCe8TYnLDBSzdqOw

    • Computers fill in based on human assumptions as only remnant of viruses are found…

      That is incorrect. If only remnants of the virus are found, they will have an impartial sequence. They don’t fabricate the rest of the sequence with assumptions and call that the sequencing of a whole genome. They can sequence the whole genome precisely because the whole virus was found, not remnants only.

      You’ll have to explain what you mean by asking how the Sci Am blog can be explained. What is it you feel requires an explanation?

  • JK says:

    I do appreciate all the work everyone has done on this subject. I don’t believe anyone is operating maliciously here – that is, Massey, Cowan, Kaufman, et al are truly basing their arguments on their scientific observations and understandings, and the same applies to Kirsch, Lyons-Weiler, Hammond, et al.

    I, for one, would like to see more of the kind of back-and-forth between Massey and Hammond above, only without Ad hominem attacks on anyone’s character, beliefs or understandings. If someone doesn’t understand, then try to lead them further according to your own understanding (not just keep pointing at the same things – that’s probably why the course of these arguments appear to circulate back to the beginning.)

    Lastly, it might be a good idea to delve deeper into those virological techniques and try to explain in simplest terms why we’re so confident in them. Do we really understand what’s going on? Or is there some faith or belief involved? Cowan’s arguments make sense because he explains things in terms that are easy to understand. Like me, most people probably can’t easily grasp the intricacies of virology so quickly. If it were possible to understand such things, perhaps we could finally conclude this impasse.

    • only without Ad hominem attacks on anyone’s character, beliefs or understandings

      To what are you referring? You certainly did not see me engaging in any ad hominem argumentation. All of my arguments are logically valid, and my conclusions are sound.

      Cowan’s arguments make sense…

      No, they do not. It does not make sense to support your position by making demonstrably false claims and habitually mischaracterizing the sources you cite. I’ve already given you examples of how he makes false claims above. Here is more on how he habitually mischaracterizes his cited sources:

      https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/09/29/tom-cowans-sources-contradict-claims-sars-cov-2/

    • I tried communicating about this with Jeremy back in 2020, discussing the exact same CDC study (Harcourt et al.). You can see for yourself how he relied on an alleged but nonexistent “scientific consensus” that viruses exist: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/6055-2/

      • Why are you lying that I “relied on an alleged but nonexistent ‘scientific consensus’ that viruses exist” during our email exchange back in 2020?

        Thank you, at least, for providing the link for people here to go and see how you are putting words in my mouth by falsely attributing such a statement to me.

        You are warned that this type of malicious strawman argumentation is a violation of the terms of use of this website.

  • Chris says:

    Lay person here. Questions:

    With so much science already seeming to establish the existence of viruses, what is to be gained by someone in saying that a specific virus does not exist let alone making the leap to say no viruses exist?

    And what is a study such as this one actually demonstrating if not exactly what it says?

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

    As for me I consider viruses to be part of a natural order, serving Life and evolutionary progress in symbiotic ways, perhaps not considered by most scientists.

    I agree with others who suggest moving on from this argument. You used the old adage yourself: You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink. Continuing to engage focuses energy into an argument that then becomes a distraction that may be best left to die of its own lack of substance. In any case what is true will eventually be what remains, from either point of view.

    I sympathize with the frustration of dealing with circular arguments. Not to poke a different bear, here, but for two years I have followed Ian Miller and others on the data regarding the effectiveness of masks…actually zero to negative effectiveness. All exchanges with those taking a pro-mask position begin with the insistence that “masks save lives” and end the same way, no matter how long the discussion or how much real-world data or logic is presented in-between. Little penetrates firmly-held beliefs or ego-bound positions in any discussion, and eventually arguing becomes a black hole of energy-sucking pointlessness.

    • Hi Chris,

      Thanks for your comment. You asked:

      With so much science already seeming to establish the existence of viruses, what is to be gained by someone in saying that a specific virus does not exist let alone making the leap to say no viruses exist?

      I do not know what those propagating this claim hope to gain from it, but as I have often observed, it has been counterproductive for the goal of gaining the freedom to make our own informed choices about our health.

      And what is a study such as this one actually demonstrating if not exactly what it says?

      I take that question as being rhetorical. Indeed, you are illustrating how it is not just virology that they are questioning, but every other relevant field of science, as well, including epidemiology and immunology.

      As for me I consider viruses to be part of a natural order, serving Life and evolutionary progress in symbiotic ways, perhaps not considered by most scientists.

      I share that view.

      I agree with others who suggest moving on from this argument. You used the old adage yourself: You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

      Appreciated, but it is not my purpose to persuade those who truly believe in and propagate the false claim that the virus has never been isolated. Rather, my purpose is to help those who are confused about this whole issue to understand the nature of the debate, and to help intellectually honest people who may have been misled into the belief to see how they were deceived.

      Continuing to engage focuses energy into an argument that then becomes a distraction that may be best left to die of its own lack of substance.

      Experience has shown the opposite to be true. It is precisely because we remained too silent for too long that these false claims have been virally propagated to deceive so many people who could otherwise be making positive contributions, effective arguments against the medical tyranny.

  • Jeremy M. says:

    I am not sure if it is ignorance of the other side’s arguments or if I sense a bit of gaslighting here.

    Cowan and Kaufman very often – maybe every time I have seen them discuss this point – claim that the most important part of this isolation process would be the isolation done DIRECTLY from the human sample, so as to verify the subsequently cultured product.

    This direct human (or animal) sample we could (sort of) call an “uncultured” sample of the viral particles. I say sort of because according to the virus theory, our lungs, blood, and other cells are “cell cultures” and, when infected, are overflowing with virions. Thus it shouldn’t be too hard to find the actual “wild” virions to compare them.

    But since NO ONE does that (please show me a paper, I’ve been dying to see one for a couple years now), and apparently some claim its impossible to do… then there is NO WAY to verify that the immortal-diseased-cell-culture-manufactured particles that you and the virologists say are “isolated” are indeed the *same particles* found in sick patients and so thus could be established to have a *CORRELATIVE RELATIONSHIP* WITH THE DISEASE (as causation would require much, much more steps)

    That is the first question you need to answer to satisfy the audience that cares about this question. Not a made-up version of it where we are “isolating” a psuedo-man-made particle that may or may not be found in a human host.

    As I do with many “pro-virus” (for lack of a better term) docs or scientists, I will now offer you the opportunity to hold a live and/or recorded interview with myself, where we prepare and then engage in a collaborative interview or fact-finding setting to honestly and thoroughly address the REAL questions the virus-deniers have (that your article and everyone else who has thus tried, cannot seem to answer in a satisfactory manner) and then discuss, maybe debate, what can truly be concluded by the science, or lack thereof, that touches upon those questions. We discuss the studies, their limitations, logic and maybe even the potential utility of the learnings in an open and non-combative manner. We remain friends at the end. The audience understands the science behind certain claims and how sound it is or isn’t.

    It always seems to me that pro-virus folks never quite get a good handle on the way that those have doubts about them think. I don’t know what it is. That’s why I think a forum of this type would be most helpful.

    • Jeremy M,

      Cowan and Kaufman very often – maybe every time I have seen them discuss this point – claim that the most important part of this isolation process would be the isolation done DIRECTLY from the human sample, so as to verify the subsequently cultured product.

      Since the culturing of virus in cells is the isolation of the virus, I can only assume that by “isolation” here you mean “purification”, which, again, is not synomyous with isolation. Again, purification is a step in the process of isolation, and you seem also to have somehow missed the key point that scientists do purify samples taken directly from the patient prior to doing cell culture.

      This direct human (or animal) sample we could (sort of) call an “uncultured” sample of the viral particles. I say sort of because according to the virus theory, our lungs, blood, and other cells are “cell cultures” and, when infected, are overflowing with virions. Thus it shouldn’t be too hard to find the actual “wild” virions to compare them.

      This makes no sense. How do you propose that scientists observe these virions to be able to characterize and identify the virus without isolating the virus from the patient by taking a sample from the patient, purifying it, and inoculating the potentially virus-containing supernatent in cell culture to observe for cytopathic effects and viral replication, and then observing cultured virions with electron microscopy and sequencing the whole genome to identify the virus and map it on the phylogenic tree?

      to honestly and thoroughly address the REAL questions the virus-deniers have (that your article and everyone else who has thus tried, cannot seem to answer in a satisfactory manner)

      This is an absurd statement. I have provided you with Cowan’s “REAL questions” reproduced verbatim, and I have provided you with reasonable answers to those questions, grounded in fact and logic.

      Please note that offhandedly dismissing arguments without making any attempt to actually identify any factual or logical errors in those arguments constitutes trolling behavior that is prohibited under the terms of use. If you think I have erred on some point of fact or logic in my above article, you are welcome to point it out to me. I will give you one more opportunity to demonstrate a modicum of good faith by attempting to do so.

      • Jeremy M. says:

        I am not violating the terms of use as there is much thought and data analysis that are behind my words. But I did get the feeling that you offhandedly dismissed my above comment about the lack of benefits that exist for arguing FOR the existence of this virus with no factual or logical counterpoints to be seen. In any case, my skin is not thin.

        Please understand: I do not mean to be offensive, merely clinical, perhaps surgical, for the sake of efficiency.

        Let me put in the form of a question and maybe this will help to make the point clear.

        Can you verify that what comes out of the cell culture is indeed indistinct from what is found in the patient? How can one do that with NO MEANS of doing so through a direct observation (hoping the meaning of DIRECT is understood here, as opposed to INDIRECT).

        To be clear, I am calling into question the validity of the INDIRECT method used to detect circular (allegedly viral) particles under static image EM whose behavior CANNOT be directly observed, especially not in a natural setting. As does Cowan in multiple videos. As does Sam Bailey. Since she has put together an orderly document on this matter, I will cite from it. If you have doubt of her meaning, I suggest watching her Odysee channel’s videos or emailing her and asking, which is probably quickest.

        Given your background and expertise, I would bet that I have spent comparable, probably much more, time studying THESE arguments, and the iterations of them that have developed over time, than you, who dismisses them.

        “Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any *tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal*.” (Asterisks mine)
        Source: “SETTLING THE VIRUS DEBATE” https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

        I hope you do not believe she is unaware of the “isolation” done via cell culture, which she also addresses in many of her videos. She is not saying that’s never been done. She’s saying direct isolation from the tissues or fluids of a sick host, meaning without culture.

        The humans are the culture. We are told that a sick human with COVID19 is allegedly housing very large numbers of the virus, because our bodies are ideal places for their propagation = culture.

        I also hope that you understand that the “virus-deniers” aren’t arguing WITHIN the confines of what are considered to be the established rules of virology. They are arguing against the validity of the “science” behind the establishment of those rules, in this case, as it pertains to “isolation.” For example, you say that isolation is only done through cell culture. They dispute (they really do) and claim that particles of this size may be isolated directly from human sample, without culture.

        Which would obviously, logically, be of use in verifying the validity of the claim that these particles exist in the person. Of course, then one would have to go on establishing causation of the non-specific (shared among other diseases) symptomatology that is called COVID19. Which is extremely difficult.

        If you disagree or question any of this, please point out the exact point and provide specific factual or logical counterpoints so that this may be of use, at least to myself, if not to many thousands who indeed hold the same doubts and questions. Thanks.

      • Jeff Green says:

        With higher organisms, such as humans, you must extract the fluid deep from tissue, like the lungs for example, wherein viral replication is taking place to get whole viruses. Viruses are replicated in the tissues of each area of disease, such as the liver, lungs, heart, stomach, spine, and so on. Because of this, you can not normally get adequate sample sizes from mucus alone. Thus, it is impractical to extract human samples in such a way each time to get a proper sample amount each time a virus needs to be studied. This is why PCR testing is used for more basic testing.

        With lower organisms, like insects and plants, you can grow plants, or place small insects into a jar. Once they are dead, the virus persists, and you can then harvest virus samples by simply purifying the virus directly from the hosts—no artificial culture required. Obviously, you’re not going to be able to do that with humans. As such, you need an artificial culture to grow viruses in those animal cells in such cases. And some viruses are not able to be cultured at all because of their makeup, and this also must be noted.

        It is true that full viral behavior cannot be seen in static environments. But this is the case for almost everything in regard to electron microscopy. However, EM allows the ability to take snapshot images that can inform of the structure and makeup of the particle and can tell us that it indeed does exist, among many other things.

      • Jeremy M. says:

        I appreciate your adding to this, Jeff.

        “Thus, it is impractical to extract human samples in such a way each time to get a proper sample amount each time a virus needs to be studied.”

        Can’t find it if you’re looking for it with highly sensitive instruments… but it’s enough to steamroll over or tip-toe past our innate immune system and infect several people at once via aerosol (which is carrying deep tissue particles???). And for one variant, Omicron, to have infected almost the entire world in just a few months? Sounds quite incredible. And since this has never been directly observed by human beings, as logic-defying as it is… sorry, it’s a lot to swallow when you really take it apart.

        But, kindly, I request references to paper(s) that document the observations in controlled settings that allow for a conclusion that this is even possible. Also, one that observes the mechanism by which a non-living particle with no metabolism accomplishes such an energetic feat of replication by the billions, as is theorized. Maybe if the contagious particles were some kind of passive seed or spore that contained the genetic code to build a living or active replicator, this may make some kind of sense. So, again, it defies logic. Unless you believe the story they made up without being able to actually observe the phenomena directly and document its logic-defying characteristics.

        Even if that could be established… we’d still be far from having enough evidence to conclude that the presence of the particles, whose existence I don’t deny is possible (just that their nature/behavior is likely not what we are guessing it to be) does not prove causation of a disease, especially as non-specific of a disease as “COVID19” is. It may suggest a correlative relation, just as fires may be seen to have firemen attending them but that doesn’t mean that the firemen started the fire. And bacteria and fungi can be found at the site of a decaying dead animal, but that does not mean they caused its death. Even if in both cases those subjects were present prior to the fire or death, it still wouldn’t show causation.

        I don’t know why anyone acts like the causation argument is settled here. It is extremely difficult to demonstrate causation (for benefit or harm – just look at nutrition science) for factors that don’t cause acute symptoms or death in a majority of the cases. When you get symptoms (shared with other common diseases) in the minority of people infected, coupled with IFRs in the ballpark of or less than .5% in a real-world, non-controlled setting, it is a tall task to establish causation by a practically invisible particle. And there is not enough evidence that it was the culprit. But maybe enough to suggest some correlation.

      • Jeff Green says:

        The so-called transmission of viruses themselves does not have to be true for the particles to exist. Viruses, insofar as the particles, are real. My work is in documenting my research in health and nutrition. One of those areas of concern is the need for cellular enzyme solvents, known as viruses. I do not believe in transmission because all of my observations, personal experience, and study in the field of health have dictated to me that ‘transmission’ is illusory. I state that viruses are solvents manufactured by cells during cellular survival, and I document this through logical reasoning of the biology of the body and its inner workings, in part. Many researchers and scientists have also agreed with my assertions in this matter.

        You may find more information on my website: https://virusesarenotcontagious.com

        I also document how and why viruses at first appear to be pathogenic and transmittable in the population, but that it is entirely due to causative factors, both externally and internally, such as cyclical atmospheric conditions that inform cellular behavior like toxin dumping, and internal stresses caused by toxin accumulation—from both natural and manmade origin. This is one reason why science now says that pollution is a major cause of coronaviruses.

        However, to say that these particles simply do not exist at all is false and is damaging to those that are truly attempting to understand the complex nature of disease and its modes of expression. Viruses are vitally important to life and to the preservation of life, as are bacteria and parasites, and so forth.

        I have written about the topic of so-called transmission at great length. Just because you observe what I call the ‘Illusion of Viral Activity’, does not mean a virus is transmitting. What it means is that the cells in a host are being confronted with foreign debris that it recognizes as not belonging to the cell or the body (in the case of culture or vaccination).
        Depending on the toxicity, the cell then produces similar protein solvent constructs in order to cleanse the body of that foreign debris by analyzing the genetic information of the tissue. I have concluded that viruses created by cells can impart information to other cells to help them further synthesize viruses, but viruses are created in a cohesive way from beginning to end by cells, and cells maintain all authority.

        When foreign tissue is bound with metallic adjuvants, as in vaccination, viruses may be produced by cells to cleanse because those compounds can poison cellular life, leading to cellular survival modes.

        Example: Bolts come in many different sizes, but you must have the proper wrench to fit each size. If the wrench doesn’t fit, you must design one that does fit in order to remove the bolt. The bolt is the toxic tissue, and the wrench is the virus created by the intelligent cell. The cell uses its genomic protein blueprints to minutely change its viral proteins to suit the needs of the cell—viral types, subtypes, and variants therein.

        In cell culture, cells do not have a microbiome to regulate their functions. As such, the only thing cells can do in those environments is produce their own solvents to cleanse themselves of foreign tissue. There are no excretion pathways in static cultures as there are in the whole of the body that moves toxins away from cells. In that case, you see viral colonies spreading out larger than the cells themselves, to the point of being able to be seen with the naked eye. If it was mere cell debris, as Cowan and Lanka claim, you would not see the growth of viral colonies manifesting larger than the cells themselves. This indicates cells are producing energy by taking nutrients from the medium and using it to produce more material (virus) until cell death. This is merely one piece of evidence.

        And one can know that these are not mere cell debris by studying the structure of many viruses and how they appear under EM, like TEM and SEM.

        Note: To claim something is pathogenic, and to claim existence, are two totally different things.

        In one way, one can infer viruses by deduction. For example. If a cell is confronted with industrial toxins, like plastic, preservatives, and chemicals—these things cannot be easily broken down by cells, if at all, nor turned water-soluble by cells, bacteria, or any other living microbe. They poison all cellular life that they come into contact with, leading to cellular death and mutation throughout the body.

        In a disease state where you have extensive toxin accumulation of many non-organic compounds, special non-living solvents are multiplied by cells to dissolve these compounds discriminately utilizing mRNA keys that turn on and off their solvent activity through adhesion to receptive bonds.
        Only viruses are replicated to the amount necessary to fractionate such toxins. They are specific and discriminate enzymes. Without viruses, we would all be dead because non-bioactive toxins from modern-day industry would accumulate and would be unable to be cleansed in any amount. That goes for animals and plants as well.

      • Jeremy M says:

        Yes! Thank you for responding to my comments. I’m sincerely looking forward to reading your work, Jeff.

        I agree that the presence of the particles we’re looking at under EM is not in dispute. It’s their nature and behavior. Something like a cellular solvent theory is the only explanation so far that the existing clinical evidence and unites it with what is observed with laboratory testing (though indirect) IF… their prevalence is truly being detected accurately.

        Until now, I had not been able to find anyone in the interwebs with material on this.

        I can’t find a better explanation for all of the following: why more-vaccinated (all vaxs) populations experience chronic disease at significantly higher rates than unvaxxed. It also fits why some people with very poor health may present severe illness or even death from a flu or cold-like illness that only inconveniences relatively healthy people. It also explains why we are still here instead of having been torn apart from fast-mutating “immune-evading” self-replicating parasites. It also explains why I feel like a new person after getting a cold or flu. (I don’t suppress fever or take paracetamol, NSAIDs, or antibiotics). It explains why some people don’t get sick at all. And why when I worked in school, staff wasn’t constantly sick despite being in closed quarters with a plethora of microbes and their hosts.

        Of course, the application of such a theory is really the same as if we denied it’s existence. Let nature and our amazing bodies do what they were designed to do. Though I will make one admission, we could find correlations that may suggest ways to support their activity, do it with more efficiency, at less harm to those in poor health. But since the entire paradigm of the medical establishment is of a completely different mind, I say ignorance is bliss. I think that if Cowan and Co. are successful in making a fuss, it will allow more opportunity for the truth to emerge as both sides defend themselves the holes in both theories will become obvious. That’s why, while I don’t 100% agree with Cowan’s claiming they don’t exist… I rather someone does that than the establishment get away with what they are claiming now which is much more egregious. If it’s not the vaccines causing the 15% excess all-cause mortality in high-vaxed countries, then in one way or another that death is due to the story people were told and the fear that stoked. So I hope the debate will eventually happen. Maybe I’m wrong about how it would work out. But it is my opinion.

        I’m tired. Off to bed. Thank you for writing this last reply.

        I’ll be looking into your work. Let me know if there’s a better place to start.

      • Jeff,

        However, to say that these particles simply do not exist at all is false and is damaging to those that are truly attempting to understand the complex nature of disease and its modes of expression. Viruses are vitally important to life and to the preservation of life, as are bacteria and parasites, and so forth.

        Appreciated.

      • Steven Avery says:

        “Viruses are replicated in the tissues of each area of disease, such as the liver, lungs, heart, stomach, spine, and so on. Because of this, you can not normally get adequate sample sizes from mucus alone.“

        These viruses are supposed to be reproducing in massive numbers, destroying host cells. So getting the tissue culture right a handful of experimental times should be trivially easy, if the theory matches the facts on the ground.

        And isn’t it rather curious that the SARS-Cov-2 virus is supposed to have the ‘intelligence’ to hijacK the cell replication function of such a wide group of divergent organ cells?

      • Steven,

        So getting the tissue culture right a handful of experimental times should be trivially easy, if the theory matches the facts on the ground.

        What do you mean? They do get the cell culture right, constantly, and the “theory” does match the facts on the ground.

        And isn’t it rather curious that the SARS-Cov-2 virus is supposed to have the ‘intelligence’ to hijacK the cell replication function of such a wide group of divergent organ cells?

        Whomever claimed that viruses are intelligent organisms? They are arguably not even living. Setting that strawman, no, it isn’t curious at all that SARS-CoV-2 hijacks the cell machinery to replicate itself. That’s what viruses do.

      • Jeremy M,

        I am not violating the terms of use as there is much thought and data analysis that are behind my words.

        Whether or not the terms of use have been violated does not depend on whether you put much thought or analysis into your comments. It depends on whether or not you engaged in any of the prohibited behaviors, which you have demonstrably done.

        Your comments have delved into lengthy obfuscations and irrelevant tangents, like trying to shift the focus of discussion away from the demonstrable falsehoods underpinning the claim that viruses have not been proven to exist to whether these particles are pathogenic, which as I pointed out to you is not the topic of discussion here, and which discussion obviously can only be reasonably with a person who acknowledges that viruses exist.

        You have dismissed the substance of my article without even attempting to identify any factual or logical errors on my part. You have repeatedly refused to demonstrate a modicum of good faith by simply acknowledging that in the study provided on the SARS-like coronavirus, the scientists did purify the sample before doing cell culture and did use controls during cell culture, i.e., acknowledging that Cowan’s claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. In addition to trying vainly to defend those lies with your purposeful obfuscation, you have yourself made the false claim that the particle-containing sample did not originate from a human or animal despite it being clearly described how the samples were obtained from horseshoe bats.

        You have repeatedly proven your bad faith argumentation by violating the terms of use in this manner.

  • Sage says:

    ok… i’m just gonna say this because i don’t have time to tear apart this whole article of logical fallacies… the “study” you posted that allegedly isolated sars-cov2 is full of assumptions and non-science in it’s claims… taking snot from a sick person and adding it to a Vero Cell culture and then using PCR in NO WAY proves a virus exists… first, if it’s in a vero cell culture (ie toxic soup) then it CANNOT be isolated, isolated means alone, all by itself… second, how can PCR be used to isolate a virus??? That’s not what PCR does; PCR makes copies of proteins, it doesn’t isolate viruses, it doesn’t diagnose viruses… on top of that, how can there be PCR for something that’s never been isolated before?? If this study is isolating covid for the first time, how is there PCR test for it already??? BIG red flag there… all your article has done is further the logical fallacies around sars-cov2… stop supporting the problem… learn what it means to be isolated; if you were isolated from society, what would that mean??? would there be other people there? or would you be alone??? next, learn what logical fallacies are because this article is proof that you don’t understand.

    • ok… i’m just gonna say this because i don’t have time to tear apart this whole article of logical fallacies

      It is a violation of the terms of use of the comments section of this website to dismiss an article offhandedly as consisting of logical fallacies while refusing to even attempt to actually identify any of the alleged logical fallacies.

      If you would like to retain the privilege of commenting on this site, rather than attempting to obfuscate, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging these two facts about the following study:

      1) They did purify the sample by centrifugation.
      2) They did use an uninfected control during cell culture.

      Here is where you can verify these facts for yourself:
      https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12711

      Please acknowledge. A “yes and yes” will do.

  • John Blaid says:

    Jeremy Hammond, you said: “Scientists have isolated SARS‑CoV‑2 by taking samples from sick patients, purifying the sample, and then using the resulting virus-containing supernatant for inoculation in cell culture alongside uninfected controls otherwise provided the same treatment. Thus, according to his own stated criteria, SARS‑CoV‑2 has been isolated.”

    That is false. Yes, scientists use various filtering methods prior to a tissue culture experiment but they never ever verify the existence of the alleged “virus” in the filtered sample or ensure that the alleged “virus” is the only thing that exists BEFORE they attempt to do any tissue culture experiment hence our statement of no isolated and purified “virus”. Now logic and common sense tells us that we first need to establish the existence of something before we can even attempt to do experiments with it, as an example, we can’t very well do experiments with unicorns unless we have first shown them to exist now can we through direct observations of them in nature, not via various indirect methods. The scientific method also demands that we have what we claim to have isolated ie separated from everything else or the experiment fall short because of too many confounding variables.

    Should be noted here that when we are asking for the isolation and purification of an alleged “virus” directly from the fluids of a sick host then we have even got a reply from a person at the CDC stating: “the request is outside of what is possible in virology”. Why is it not possible one may ask? Because we cannot isolate something that we have never found. Even “virologists” when challenged, which I and many others have done, admit that they haven’t found a “virus” directly from the fluids of a sick host so on what basis are you on anyone else working on then when even the “virologists” are refuting your claim of isolation?

    FOIA request to the US CDC regarding documentation of isolation of SARS-CoV-2
    “the request is outside of what is possible in virology”.
    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-March-1-2021-SARS-COV-2-Isolation-Response-Redacted.pdf

    When it comes to the claims of control studies then I think here we need to be clear about what we mean when we say no controls, we mean the lack of valid/proper controls. There is no detailed description in the actual “isolation” studies of how the controls was set up, it’s just assumed that they are identical by claiming “mock-infected” without actual confirming that this is so. What ingredients were used? What levels were the various ingredients in? For how long were the control run? Were the controls using the same cell line? Were the controls using the exact same ingredients in the same exact same levels for the exact same period of time as the main tissue culture experiment? These are not questions where we can just assume the answer, we need these things answered in the studies themselves and none of these things are answered in the studies themselves.

    When various questions regarding controls have been made to the various authors of the studies then what has resulted are either complete refusal to share the information of how they were set up or that the controls was not set up in the way they should have been which is identical with the only difference of being the sample having no alleged “virus” which you again assume by referring to the definition of mock-infected. A good example of this is the documented measles trial with Dr Stefan Lanka where he won because none of the 6 studies that got presented had proper controls and why is this important? Because the whole foundation of modern “virology” is based on the Enders paper from 1954 that was refuted by the expert witness because of a lack of proper controls. Even in the Enders paper from 1954 with a limited control it showed that the same cytopathic effect could not be distinguished from the one with the sample of the alleged measles “virus”. In other words, the effect “virologists” falsely attribute to a “virus” is actually caused by the experimental procedure itself and has nothing to do with any alleged “virus”.

    During the measles trials Dr Lanka also contacted 2 independent laboratories and asked them to do the proper controls that “virologists” have failed to do since 1954 where the head of one of these laboratories summarized it:

    “Depending on the non-viral and non-infectious substances added, changes in cell morphology could be observed at different times, which since 1954 is always equated with the “isolation” of the “measles virus”. Particularly after the addition of high concentrations of penicillin/streptomycin (20%) or cultivation under deficiency conditions (1% FCS), changes in the cell morphology were found that were microscopically identical to the syncytia formation described as the measles virus.

    The studies have clearly shown that syncytia formation is not specific for measles infection. Thus, the forgotten observations of both Enders & Peebles as well as Bech & von Magnus have confirmed that Enders & Peebles and successors proving the existence of a virus with this technique was only assumption.”.

    “The measles control experiment told by the head of an independent laboratory in Germany”
    https://truthseeker.se/measles-control-experiment-told-by-the-head-of-an-independent-laboratory-in-germany/

    We can argue as much as we want about the tissue culture experiments, they are not the core issue here as far as I am concerned. The core issue is that in order for an experiment to even be an experiment we first need to have what we claim to exist in our hands. If I want to do experiments with fairies and unicorns I first need to prove their existence by observation of them in nature and then have them isolated before I attempt to do experiments with them. So first we need to establish the existence of “viruses” by direct observation in nature meaning BEFORE any experimentation or combination with other genetic material like a tissue culture/viral transport medium. Then we need to isolate and purify the alleged “viruses” and have this step actually verified and not just assumed, then and only then can we attempt to do experiments with them none of which has ever been done.

    • John Blaid,

      That is false.

      No, it is not. Every word of the following paragraph of mine is true:

      “Scientists have isolated SARS‑CoV‑2 by taking samples from sick patients, purifying the sample, and then using the resulting virus-containing supernatant for inoculation in cell culture alongside uninfected controls otherwise provided the same treatment. Thus, according to his own stated criteria, SARS‑CoV‑2 has been isolated.”

      Please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that in the following study:

      1) They did purify the sample with centrifugation prior to doing cell culture.
      2) They did use an uninfected control when doing cell culture.

      You can verify these facts here:

      https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12711

      We can discuss the nuances and limitations of those procedures, if you wish, once you have proven good faith by acknowledging these facts.

      Beyond that, you are simply rejecting what scientists mean by “isolation” in this context, which is not “complete separation from everything else”. They mean that they isolate the virus from a sample in a way that preserves the virus for characterization and identification.

      You are furthermore citing the hoax FOI requests of Massey’s. In the same one you mention, to the CDC, you can see that the CDC in fact explained to Massey, contrary to her willfully false claim that they admitted having no record of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2, that the CDC explained to her that the virus had been isolated, and that cell culture is used for this since viruses require host cells for replication.

      Again, please acknowledge the above-stated facts to demonstrate good faith. A simply “yes and yes” will do.

      • John Blaid says:

        You said: “They did purify the sample with centrifugation prior to doing cell culture.”

        Using any filtering method does not automatically prove that the “virus” is in the sample anymore than using a spade is proof that there is a body buried somewhere in your backyard. Yes, various filtering methods may be a part of the process of isolating and purifying an alleged “virus” but the use of any filtering method in itself is not evidence of a “virus”. So the question then becomes, how do anyone know instead of assuming that the final filtered sample actually contains an alleged “virus” BEFORE any tissue culture experiment takes place if they never verify this? They can’t know if they’ve never validated this step which they never do and instead just assume it’s there.

        You said: “They did use an uninfected control when doing cell culture.”

        To your answer about controls, I think you missed my previous point that I was trying to make in my initial comment which is that the controls they do are not valid/proper and they never describe in detail how they are set up which is essential in order to be able to replicate the findings by other scientists. Once again you just assume that they did everything the same without an uninfected sample but how do you know that? If you refer to the definition of what a “mock-control” means then that is not evidence of anything because how do we know that it’s exactly what the authors meant by claiming “mock-control” or “control”? This is another unproven assumption and when authors of various studies have been asked they either refuse to share the details of the controls or admit that it was not set up in the same way.

        You said: “the CDC explained to her that the virus had been isolated, and that cell culture is used for this since viruses require host cells for replication”.

        Yes we all know this, what the CDC meant by isolation is the use of a tissue culture which is what all “virologists” mean by isolation since this was established as the central method 1954 by Enders which is the opposite of isolation. It’s the mix of things to get a desired result where the “virologists” falsely believe the effect/result of the pseudo-scientific experiment is “evidence” AND isolation of a “virus”. Now referring to the effects/results as evidence for the existence and isolation of something is not how we prove the existence and isolation of anything. I mean that would be like claiming having evidence and isolation of Santa Claus because I found presents under the Christmas tree. It’s a fallacious argument where they try and use an effect to prove cause.

        I think a good question everyone should ponder about is HOW we would prove their existence in the first place BEFORE any experiment takes place. The first thing we can agree on is that we would first have to find them directly in nature where we can observe them in their natural habitat. Then after observation we would need to isolate and purify them to be able to do scientific experiments with them which demands isolated and purified particles since the scientific method demands an independent variable.

        But when it comes to the observation of these alleged “viruses” in nature then why is it that when “virologists” are challenged they most of the time claim that the reason they can’t find them is because there are too few of them which is an odd statement to make because that is like claiming that there are too few unicorns to find. If we can’t find something directly in nature that we think exists but that we have never actually shown to exist, then we can’t claim there are too few of them to find, in order for something to be too few of, they would first have to be shown to exist.

        Now if “virologists” admit that they haven’t found them directly in nature and always reference tissue culture experiments then how can they have possibly isolated and purified the “viruses” BEFORE any experiment takes place then? It’s like first saying that I can’t find unicorns in nature but I sure have isolated them, that is contradiction.

        I hope you and others can see the assumptions and the problems with those assumptions that are being made here which are:

        1. The use of centrifugation does not automatically prove that there is an alleged “virus” in the sample, the alleged “virus” in the filtered sample has to be shown to exist BEFORE any attempt of experimentation. Can’t very well do experiments with things we haven’t shown to exist before the experiment takes place, it’s like conducting experiments with unicorns, how could we ever set up that kind of experiment when we have no evidence of their existence?

        2. The use of controls does not automatically prove that the controls are set up in the proper way or in the way we ASSUME, they need to be explained in detail so other scientists can validate the study properly and replicate the study if wanted.

      • John,

        Using any filtering method does not automatically prove that the “virus” is in the sample…

        Of course it doesn’t. Also, filtration and centrifugation are not the same thing. Once again, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by simply acknowledging the following inarguable fact:

        They did purify the sample by centrifugation prior to doing cell culture.

        the controls they do are not valid/proper

        You have produced no evidence to support that claim. Again, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging the following inarguable fact:

        They did report having used uninfected controls when doing cell culture.

        Yes we all know this

        Good. Then you know that Massey’s claim that the CDC reported no record of ever having isolated SARS-CoV-2 is false. You know that her FOI requests are deliberately worded to return no results and are therefore a hoax.

        I do not want to proceed with you merely having implied acknowledgment of the above two bolded statements of fact. To demonstrate good faith, please explicitly acknowledge those facts, such as:

        “Yes, they did use the purification method of centrifugation prior to doing cell culture.”

        “Yes, they did describe having used uninfected controls during cell culture.”

      • John Blaid says:

        This will be my last comment.

        Yes, filtering and purification is not the same thing so I worded it a bit wrong in my previous comment but the same argument can be made for purification as well, any method of purification is NOT automatically evidence of the “virus” being in the purified sample any more than using a spade is evidence of a body being buried in your backyard.

        They need to verify these steps by the use of EM on the original purified sample to ensure that:

        1. The alleged “virus” is actually in there instead of just assuming it’s there.
        2. To verify the level of purity of the alleged “virus” to ensure it’s the only thing in there.

        They never do these things before adding the sample to the tissue culture.

        Now to address a few misconceptions here, lets start with this one:

        “Virions from a 10-ml culture were collected, fixed and concentrated/purified by sucrose gradient centrifugation”

        Notice the word culture here which highlight the fact that they took the sample from the tissue culture, they did NOT mean that the sample was taken directly from a sick host. So they did a purification on that sample taken after the tissue culture experiment but that step is meaningless if they have never verified that the alleged “virus” was in the original sample BEFORE the tissue culture experiment took place. We can’t just assume that the particles we see as a result of an experiment are caused by the same kind of particles and that they were there at the beginning, we need to confirm this which they never do.

        Later in the study it says: “Vero E6 cell monolayers were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS. PCR-positive samples (in 200 μl buffer) were gradient centrifuged at 3,000–12,000g, and supernatant were diluted 1:10 in DMEM before being added to Vero E6 cells.”

        If you refer to this passage as evidence of the purification of the sample before adding it to the tissue culture then yes they may have attempted to purify the sample but neither the PCR result or the gradient centrifugation is automatically evidence of the alleged purified “virus” being in the sample. They need to confirm this by the use of EM to ensure the purity of the alleged “virus” and that the alleged “virus” actually is in there and nothing else and not just assuming it’s there and nothing else.

        I mean what else may be in there? Nobody knows because they never verified what was in the purified sample hence why I and many others are making the statement that they have never purified the “virus” because there is no verification of that, it’s just assumed. Ask any “virologist” if they have found a “virus” directly from the fluids of a sick host without the sample first being combined with other genetic material like a tissue culture and they admit that they have never found one so why then are anyone claiming that this is so?

        If we reference a PCR result then that also brings in the validity of the PCR as a test which everyone should know by now is not a test, it’s a method of amplification of genetic material that itself has a whole range of issues. This also demands that we go back to the original papers in regards to the alleged “virus” which of course hold no evidence of any “virus” and are like every other paper in “virology”, they are full of unproven assumptions and a lack of proper controls.

        Last but not least, a tip for the future. If you or anyone else want to try and make a case for the existence of any alleged “virus” then please use the original papers since all other papers are based on the original ones. This means that if the original papers are wrong then so are all the rest. In this case you are not referencing an original paper which makes this paper even more problematic because we would have to consider all of the assumptions that have been made starting from the original papers and forward where each assumption on the way build on to the next to the next to the next and so forth until you have essentially a house of cards without a foundation.

      • John,

        any method of purification is NOT automatically evidence of the “virus” being in the purified sample

        Naturally. Hence the subsequent step of inoculating the supernatent in cell culture along with an uninfected control.

        They need to verify these steps by the use of EM…

        No, that is not necessary.

        Notice the word culture here which highlight the fact that they took the sample from the tissue culture, they did NOT mean that the sample was taken directly from a sick host.

        Yes, they did electron microscopy after doing cell culture.

        In this case you are not referencing an original paper…

        That statement makes no sense. Of course it is an original paper. I linked directly to the primary source.

  • jo waller says:

    Yes from the beginning is was assumed that what couldn’t be seen was causing the disease.

    If they want to use CPE as evidence clearly they have to do appropriate controls, even the ones they do use are not treated in the same way. An adequate control would be a sample from sick patients with the same severity of symptoms, hopefully containing a similar amount of biologically active substances, though not thought to be sick from ‘what couldn’t be seen’. Cells are constantly signalling and altering each others gene expression. It’s a whole big thing.

    Even if only ‘what couldn’t be seen’ caused CPE it still wound’t mean it was a virus. It would have to be correlated with all others with ‘what couldn’t be seen’ and not occur in healthy people with ‘what couldn’t be seen’. Experiments on transmission of both ‘what couldn’t be seen’ and also disease symptoms would also have to be shown between ‘hosts’ and then from them to other hosts.

    Jo

    • Jo,

      If they want to use CPE as evidence clearly they have to do appropriate controls, even the ones they do use are not treated in the same way.

      That is incorrect. As has already been pointed out to you on this page ad nauseam, they do use appropriate controls. Here, for example, once again, you can see that they compared infected cell cultures with “mock infected” cells:

      https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2606.200516

      Once again, “mock infected” is literally defined as “A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus”:

      https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected

      And here again is a study in which they used an uninfected control:

      https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12711

      Please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that:

      1) They did purify the sample with centrifugation.
      2) They did use of an uninfected control when doing cell culture.

      • tomdalton62 says:

        Hello Jeremy (first name terms already. lol.)

        I am very new to this, and my knowledge of virology etc is not great at the moment. So please forgive me if I say anything that is particularly dopey. But there are a couple of things I would like to bring up.

        (1) There is an October 27 comment by John Blaid, three comments above this comment, which you have not replied to yet. I would be very interested in what you have to say about that comment.

        (2) I have heard of something called the “Settling The Virus Debate” challenge, which is here:

        https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

        It seems that it proposes a series of blinded experiments which would be a step towards settling the virus/no-virus debate once and for all. I would be intetested to know whether or not you would support this challenge.

        Looking forward to your reply.

        Tom.

      • Hi Tom,

        There is an October 27 comment by John Blaid, three comments above this comment, which you have not replied to yet. I would be very interested in what you have to say about that comment.

        My reply is here:

        https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/10/17/answering-tom-cowans-five-simple-questions-for-virologists/#comments/400992

        I would be intetested to know whether or not you would support this challenge.

        No, I do not, for reasons elucidated in great detail here:

        https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/09/29/tom-cowans-sources-contradict-claims-sars-cov-2/#Cowans_Mischaracterization_of_Our_Email_Exchange

        (That is a bookmarked link to the most relevant section, but I urge you to read the whole article for context.)

      • tomdalton62 says:

        Hi Jeremy,

        Thank you for replying. It’s great that you do reply, because some people I attempt to talk to on the internet do not reply at all. And I am always polite.

        I read everything in those two links you posted. It was very interesting. And I think I may have uncovered a couple of small points in your virology/genomics conversation with Tom Cowan which I don’t think were clear between both of you.

        However, my points are quite complicated, and I am old and I can’t type very quickly. So I will make another post when I have finished typing it out.

        By the way, I read your book “The FDA, COVID-19 Vaccines, and Scientific Fraud”, and I think you did a great job of exposing the massive corruption regarding the Government, Big Pharma and vaccines etc. However, personally, I think the corruption goes beyond even the massive corruption you described in your book. Maybe we can get into that later.

        Anyway, for now, I am going to get on with my typing.

        Best regards,

        Tom.

      • Tom,

        However, personally, I think the corruption goes beyond even the massive corruption you described in your book.

        Indeed, it does. My book was intended to provide a close look at one aspect of the corruption, but the corruption goes well beyond the FDA’s role. The entire “public health” establishment is thoroughly corrupt.

      • tomdalton62 says:

        Hi Jeremy,

        Your book was excellent and i enjoyed reading it. However, I am posting now for a different reason. In my previous post, I wrote: “I think I may have uncovered a couple of small points in your virology/genomics conversation with Tom Cowan which I don’t think were clear between both of you.”

        But that is not strictly true. The ‘uncovered points’ I am referring to were actually given to me my my friend, Mark, who is a retired Analytical Chemist, who I have been staying with for the last couple of weeks. I thought I could explain them to you, but I quickly discovered that I didn’t have the knowledge to do it properly. Also, by the way, the points I meant were in your video here:

        https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/09/02/tom-cowans-misinformation-on-the-sequencing-of-sars-cov-2/

        They were not in an actual conversation between you and Tom Cowan.

        Anyway, I was wondering if it would be OK for my friend, Mark, to make my next post for me? As his explanations will be exact, whereas mine would not.

        Best regards,

        Tom.

      • I suggest you invite Mark to come here and speak his own thoughts.

  • Gerrit says:

    Transmission of disease never happened in experiments for any so called contagious disease, EVER. I.e. the Rosenau 1918 Flu experiments.

    So what virus that would transmit disease would exist?

    • Transmission of disease never happened in experiments for any so called contagious disease, EVER.

      Your comment is off-topic. The topic here is whether viruses have been proven to exist. Their role in the pathogenesis of disease is a different topic, and a discussion that can only be reasonably had with people who first acknowledge that viruses exist.

      Your claim is also false. Here, for example, is a transmission study showing transmissibility of influenza virus:

      Efficient human-to-human transmission is a critical feature of pandemic influenza viruses. To assess the transmissibility of CA04, naïve ferrets in perforated cages were placed next to ferrets inoculated with 106 PFU of CA04 (see `Methods’ section for detailed procedures). This experimental setting allows for aerosol transmission, i.e., the exchange of respiratory droplets between the inoculated and non-inoculated ferrets, but prevents transmission by direct and indirect contact. All three contact ferrets were positive for CA04 virus on days 3 and 5 pi (Supplementary Table 4). This transmission pattern is comparable to those of two human control influenza viruses that are known to transmit among ferrets, KUTK-4 and A/Victoria/3/75 (H3N2).

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748827/

      If you wish to exercise the privilege of using the comments, please stay on topic, and kindly refrain from making false claims again.

      • Gerrit says:

        My comment is not off topic. Viruses are defined by the ability to cause or transmit disease and as that is never proven to be the case, just like their existence is not proven.

        In the study you linked, they are talking about particles, suspected to cause disease but are never proven to exist in the first place or to cause disease.
        It is not about diseased animals making other animals diseased, but particles, exosomes which are isolated (purified) and photographed and they think are parts of viruses. Correlation is not causation and they have never found an whole intact ‘virus’.

        Some people think viruses are not contagious, but I think we should not call them viruses then, but exosomes as there is no viral/contagious particle.
        https://virusesarenotcontagious.com/ is factual and logical. We just disagree in words.

        They never did control experiments in virology. Stefan Lanka has done these and even with a clean sample, he could find any so called virus we was looking for after the process virology calls isolation, which is not purification but contamination with several genetic material.

      • Gerrit,

        My comment is not off topic.

        Yes, it is. Once again, the topic under discussion here is not whether SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 but whether SARS-CoV-2 exists.

        Viruses are defined by the ability to cause or transmit disease…

        No! They are most certainly not. We live in symbiosis with many viruses that do not cause disease. Not all viruses are pathogenic.

        For the second time, please keep your comments relevant. To demonstrate good faith, please acknowledge that:

        1) Scientists have purified samples by centrifugation prior to inoculation in cell culture, and;
        2) Scientists have used uninfected controls when doing cell culture.

      • Gerrit says:

        Please share me your definition of virus which is not an infectious agent causing disease.
        In the pre 1953(?) definition, virus was defined as a toxin and virology was dead until they invented genetic viruses.

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virus

        “viruses
        1
        a: any of a large group of submicroscopic infectious agents that are usually regarded as nonliving extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, animals, and plants
        also : filterable virus
        b: a disease or illness caused by a virus
        c: the causative agent of an infectious disease”
        _
        It clearly states infectious agent, so if a ‘virus’ is not able to infect anything, it is not a ‘virus’.

        @ 1) “Scientists have purified samples by centrifugation prior to inoculation in cell culture,”

        The ‘cell culture’ is part of what virologist call isolation, but is contaminating their sample with monkey kidney cell and other genetic material, antibiotics, then their stave the cells from food, so they brake down, and they think they have found pieces of viruses.

        The is no picture of any ‘virus’ after the centrifugation and before the cell culture.

        They tell us there is not enough virus in there to be seen, not even after taking a million samples. (!!!)
        They need to isolate (contaminate !!!) before they can find parts of ‘viruses’ they are looking for and have never found a virus like sars-cov2 in 1 piece.

        They create the genetic ‘virus’ pieces, they find later, while doing the ‘cell culture’.

        100% correct explanation of the isolation / cell culture and about the 1st phase of the control experiment:
        https://www.bitchute.com/video/NBVwo40uZBdi/ (banned on Odysee!)
        _
        _
        @ “2) Scientists have used uninfected controls when doing cell culture.”
        _
        As far as I know Stefan Lanka was the first after he found out they were never done correct and made public.
        _
        DR STEFAN LANKA’S LATEST CONTROL EXPERIMENTS ON THE CYTOPATHIC EFFECT REFUTE VIRUSES (1ST PHASE)
        https://bitchute.com/video/cRT95DpkQece/
        _
        In the second phase Dr. Lanka showed that what virologists call a “viral genetic material” in reality comes from a healthy human tissue.
        More details about the 2nd phase you can find here:
        https://odysee.com/@katie.su:7/kateinterviewsstefan3:a
        _
        Third phase- The control tests, which Dr. Stefan Lanka commissioned in a laboratory, confirm that the claimed cytopatic effect, which is regarded by all virologists as evidence for SARS-CoV-2, is refuted.
        The laboratory confirmed that this effect is not VIRUS-SPECIFIC and therefore cannot and must not be claimed as evidence of a disease-causing virus.
        The central effect, the death of tissue cells in the test tube, is achieved in the same way without any infected material.”
        https://www.bitchute.com/video/cRT95DpkQece/
        _
        _
        Viruses are a mental construct, an idea, no part of reality, just like unicorns and ghosts https://www.bitchute.com/video/FOB8Ck1kInNa/

      • Gerrit,

        Please share me your definition of virus which is not an infectious agent causing disease…. It clearly states infectious agent, so if a ‘virus’ is not able to infect anything, it is not a ‘virus’.

        You are demonstrating bad faith by engaging in this strawman argumentation. I have never argued that viruses are not defined as an infectious agent. I have rather maintained, as anyone can see, that viruses are defined as a submicroscopic agent that requires host cells for replication.

        What I rather pointed out is that not all viruses cause disease, and among those that are pathogenic, viral infection also does not necessarily cause disease. The idea that a virus is something that causes disease is archaic. While the “public health” establishment is still stuck in the past, scientific knowledge has moved beyond this ignorant paradigm.

        Beyond that, again, as shown by the very study that Cowan et al. cite to support their characterization of the “proper” method of virus isolation, electron microscopy is not required between the purification of the sample and inoculation in cell culture alongide an uninfected control. Lanka is welcome to publish his experiment, but it is irrelevant since, contrary to Cowan’s false claim, scientists do in fact used uninfected controls when doing cell culture.

        Continually repeating the same fallacies over and over after the fallacies have been identified also demonstrates bad faith argumentation. You also refused to demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that scientists do use uninfected controls, the proof of which has already been provided to you.

      • Jeff Green says:

        And to just further your point—Lanka did not show any intelligent structure in his micrographs. What he showed was mere cell breakdown, which is multi-varied and does not have any cohesive structure as viruses do. If Lanka had shown an intelligent structure, as has been photographed by researchers since the 1930s, there would be something there he could proclaim to be significant. His claim seemingly is that any type of virus can be created by cells when cells are starved outside the body, no matter the circumstances per se.
        Yes, cells break down in the absence of the microbiome and can produce and excrete viruses during cellular survival. But the type of virus that manifests is entirely dependent it seems on the tissue being placed in the presence of the cell, the type of cell that is involved, and perhaps any chemicals used therein.

        What they argue is, in hindsight, problematic on a few different fronts. One is that they should realize that monkey cells (Vero), or HeLa cells, are both still cells, and if those cells can produce viruses under duress, then other cells can do likewise. Therefore, it is basically irrelevant what cells are used in actually proving the existence of viruses as a whole.

        The fact is, cells are producing structures of intelligent design that can not be produced entirely by man. Yes, the practices of man can cause the degeneration of cells that leads to viral creation by cells. As well, some of the structure of the virus can be damaged IF improperly done, such as through heavy-handed staining or EM. However, you can most times still determine a burned-down house was indeed a house because the walls are still standing. As such, intelligent structures, even in the most unlikely circumstances, can still be determined as having been purposefully created by cells—not solely having been created by man and his actions. What man would create through his chemicals would be aberrations and mutations—not something like a bacteriophage or an adenovirus, for example.

        In short, procedures can produce viruses but cannot create the viral structure itself. The latter is entirely at the behest of the cell itself. This is why Lanka is only partially correct in his assertions about cell breakdown. To call viruses mere cell debris is wrong. Cell debris is made of vesicles of many different shapes and sizes that do not have the makeup that viral structures have whatsoever.
        The only time a vesicle may appear as a virus is if a virus is ‘defective’ (incomplete), or, is an enveloped virus that somewhat disguises the virus to the observer, making it appear at first like a vesicle since it contains a lipid bilayer obtained from the cell or the cell wall.

      • Jeff Green says:

        “The is no picture of any ‘virus’ after the centrifugation and before the cell culture.”

        This is incorrect. All pictures you have ever seen of viruses are taken after filtration/purification/centrifugation. And most have been taken after cell culture, having been purified once again from the lab culture itself. However, the culture process is not needed for most insect or plant viruses, since the culture is the organism’s body itself.

        Either way, cells are still producing viruses in all cases, even if it is a lab culture or not. There are a few ways to determine this without ever seeing the virus itself under microscopy. One key factor is that true viral colonies grow in order of magnitude larger than the cells themselves. This indicates the cell is outputting energy by utilizing cell medium nutrients to produce material (virus) like a factory. Mere cell debris does not grow to such levels.

        Lastly, the definitions you provide of viruses are archaic and limited by the times in which they were written. You cannot use mere definitions to suit every minutia of a biological entity. That is akin to trying to define what a human being is. Definitions may get you partly there, but in the cases of complex entities like cells or viruses, they are broad and limited and this should be understood.

  • Citizen says:

    The gist of all: “And, yes, we can define what virus “isolation” means to scientists: it means to separate the virus from the host in a way that enables scientists to characterize and identify the virus. The “gold standard” method for doing this is the cell culture.”
    That made it all clear, collecting a sample of bodily fluids from a RT-PCR positively identified patient means “isolation” to scientists.
    Thanks for nailing it!
    No worries, this is for your eyes only, I don’t expect publication!

    • That made it all clear, collecting a sample of bodily fluids from a RT-PCR positively identified patient means “isolation” to scientists.

      No, that is incorrect and not at all what I said. PCR tests only detect RNA fragments and do not prove the presence of whole viable virus. Scientists use cell culture and/or whole genome sequencing to verify the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the sample.

  • Aimee says:

    Wow! Thanks for informing me about the work of Dr Kauffman and Dr Cowan! They are amazing!

  • Sam K says:

    As a non biologist, I am curious about one aspect of virology. How is trans species transmissibility and viral infection determined? It would appear that rabies virus is transmissible from dog to human (and indeed from multiple wild animals) but that regular flu and cold virus are not? I’ve never heard of pets being sick with covid or other corona viruses.

    What is the biological mechanism by which one virus is transmissible and another is not?

    Thank you
    Sam

    • Hi Sam,

      Taking the example of SARS-CoV-2, it depends on whether the species’ cells have the ACE2 receptor that the virus uses to gain entry through the cell membrane. Animals that are capable of being infected, to my knowledge, include cats and mink, although I’m not sure about dogs. Different viruses infect different types of cells, so it depends on the virus and the species.

  • Jonathan Gold says:

    Well done deconstruction of the very fallacies Dr. Cowan spreads as facts, to the public.

  • Erin says:

    Hello! I heard an interview with Tom Cowan where he said he did an experiment to prove viruses don’t exist. Using all the same methods that go into isolating a virus, but without anything that would actually have any viruses (no human blood), miraculously, all kinds of viruses were found in the end result of the experiment. He said that the dead fragments they call viruses came from the bases, cultures and all the methods that go into isolating viruses. That what people think are viruses are the byproducts that come from looking for them. How is that possible?

  • >
    Share via
    Copy link