I recently joined Liev Dalton on his podcast Beyond Terrain to discuss the question of whether viruses have been scientifically proven to exist. While Liev seems convinced that they do not, I explained how we know that they do and addressed numerous false claims that are commonly propagated to support the belief in the nonexistence of these particles of genetic material often described as “intracellular parasites”.
Specific topics we covered include:
- My concise impromptu answer to Liev’s question, “What is ‘health’”?
- Why SARS‑CoV‑2 infection is a necessary but insufficient factor in the pathogenesis of COVID‑19. (It’s not “germ theory” vs. “terrain theory”, it’s both.)
- How during the COVID‑19 lockdown madness, every time I came across a new claim about viruses not existing, I investigated it, including by consulting with the cited sources, and came away with the conclusion that, in each case, the claim was demonstrably false—and contradicted by the source cited.
- How replication in cell culture is considered the “gold standard” of virus isolation but is by no means the only method scientists have at their disposal to characterize and identify viruses.
- How, contrary to one false claim, scientists can do metagenomic sequencing to identify viruses without first isolating each one individually. (In other words, whole genome sequencing is proof of the existence of a virus independent from virus purification of a patient sample and isolation in cell culture.)
- Why it isn’t true that whole genome sequencing involves arbitrarily assembling genetic sequences to produce the result.
- Why it makes no sense to reject the outcome of whole genome sequencing when the results are replicated continually by scientists all over the world.
- How, contrary to false claims, scientists do purify patient samples prior to inoculation in cell culture. (And contrary to popular conflagration, isolation and purification are two different things, not synonymous.)
- How, contrary to false claims, scientists do use uninfected controls when doing cell culture experiments.
- Why the claim that Stefan Lanka has done an experiment disproving the validity of cell culture experiments cannot possibly be true.
- Why it is both a false premise and a non sequitur fallacy to argue that if scientists don’t explain what they mean by “mock infection” in papers on virus isolation, therefore it could mean anything and indicates that they aren’t using proper controls when doing cell culture experiments.
- How literally all of the scientific literature supports the conclusions that (a) viruses exist and (b) some of them can cause disease in humans, and people who have convinced themselves that viruses do not exist are incapable of proposing an alternative hypothesis that better explains the totality of available evidence.
- The utility of electron microscopy and why the claim that scientists can’t distinguish between alleged viruses and exosomes is false.
- The role of antibodies and the importance of cellular versus humoral (antibody) immunity in the context of the lockdown endgame of coerced mass vaccination with experimental mRNA COVID‑19 vaccines.
- How PCR tests were used to perpetrate systematic scientific fraud in the diagnosis and counting of “COVID‑19 cases”.
- How Koch’s postulates, in the modern understanding of the term as the postulates have evolved as scientific knowledge advanced, have been fulfilled for SARS‑CoV‑2 with animal challenge studies (and one human challenge study).
- Liev’s and my mutual appreciation about disagreeing respectfully about the existence of viruses while having found many points of agreement.
Here’s a short excerpt from the interview where I summarize the bottom line of my point of view:
Here is a whole collection of articles I have written exposing the many false claims made by leading proponents of the belief that viruses do not exist:
Here is an article I wrote about how PCR tests were used to perpetrate systematic scientific fraud in the counting of “COVID‑19 cases”:
Here are two articles I wrote about the SARS‑CoV‑2 human challenge study (from which two separate papers were produced):
Saying that since almost all of the scientific literature supports the idea that virus’s exist is proof that they do, is a bit much. The people that claim global warming is caused by human activity and we gotta do something about it or else planet earth will reach a tipping point of no return, claim that almost all of the earth’s climate scientist’s are in agreement on this and the point is settled. In their mind there is no debate on the issue like the virus proponent’s who are confident their right. You might read Dr Mark Baileys – Farewell to Virology on Odysee.com before you get too convinced by the virus promoters. Worldwide viruses are a source of windfall profits for the medical community which undermines their credibility, so I for one will remain a skeptic.
No, it isn’t.
That is very true, and I take your point. But there is a very important difference that renders this analogy irrelevant. I could also point out that we are told that “science” says that vaccines are “safe and effective”, period, and yet you and I can go into the medical literature and see for ourselves all the controversy about that assertion. You and I can go into the scientific literature and see for ourselves all the controversy about the extent to which human activity affects the Earth’s climate.
But you cannot go into the scientific literature and see any controversy about the existence of viruses. When I say that all of the scientific literature supports the conclusion that viruses exist, I mean that literally. This is the exact opposite of the situation with people claiming that “the science” says everyone should get all recommended vaccines or that “the science” says that we should support government interventions into our economy ostensibly aimed at saving us from catastrophic global warming.
You would do well to recognize how Bailey mischaracterizes his own cited sources before you get too convinced by the virus deniers:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/09/29/tom-cowans-sources-contradict-claims-sars-cov-2/#mark-baileys-similar-mischaracterization-of-cited-sources
Mark and Sam Bailey would both say they are scientists, and they very much disagree with the scientific literature that says virus’s are real, and there is no controversy. I don’t doubt that “all” of the scientific literature that is funded by Bill Gates , Anthony Fauci or the WHO director Tedros is in lockstep agreement with the concept of virus’s because it is in their financial best interest to do so. Currently Mark and Sam Bailey are both in a video on Odysee.com called – The Final Pandemic which is a followup book to ” Virus Mania”. Mark Bailey is one of the best looking adult males on the planet earth, then look at those other three men I mentioned earlier, not so hot. I think the way a person looks has something to do whether or not their believe able. But you could go to a modeling agency in a big city, and see a lot of great looking males and females that don’t know anything about the two topics I mentioned earlier, so looks alone doesn’t prove much. I grew up on a dairy farm with tons of cow manure around, since viruses are supposed to come from animal fecal waste, I should have been killed off a long time ago. Iv’e never really had a cold or flu in 70 years, maybe I should try eating a really bad diet and go out to the cow lot and roll around in the manure to see if viruses are all their hyped up to be.
Yes, they dismiss all of the relevant scientific literature in favor of their belief system. They have no science, precisely zero studies, supporting their position. None.
Not all the relevant literature consists of studies funded by such actors. When I say literally all the literature, I mean literally all of it. Every single relevant study every published.
The bottom line is that nobody who believes in the nonexistence of viruses can produce an alternative hypothesis that better explains the totality of evidence in the scientific literature. Literally all the evidence supports the conclusion that viruses being real. There is no question about it. They are observable particles with distinguishing characteristics.
Furthermore, the main arguments used to support the belief in the nonexistence of viruses are demonstrably false, as I’ve documented at great length in my above-linked collection of articles debunking the false claims of Cowan et al.
Are you just pulling my leg, or are you really saying that you tend to believe what Mark Bailey says because you think he is hot? Assuming you are being serious, I have to point out that it is a logical fallacy to accredit someone with trustworthiness on account of an attractive physical appearance. To be specific, it is a non sequitur fallacy: it does not follow from the fact that a person has an unappealing appearance that therefore they don’t know what they are talking about, and it does not follow from the fact someone is good looking that therefore they can be trusted as a source for information. I should hardly have to point this out to you!
Bailey is demonstrably untrustworthy, as I showed here by proving how he grossly mischaracterizes his own cited sources:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/09/29/tom-cowans-sources-contradict-claims-sars-cov-2/#mark-baileys-similar-mischaracterization-of-cited-sources
On the contrary, because you would have been exposed to pathogens all the time, you would have developed a strong and functional immune system. Kids who grow up on farms have less incidence of allergies, for example. You may have heard this concept referred to as the “hygiene hypothesis”.
I can’t tell you how delighted I am to read this! It seems that everywhere one turns today, there are claims that viruses don’t exist. One of the favorite assertions is “No one has ever isolated a virus!”, to which I imagine replying, “No one has ever isolated an oxygen molecule either; therefore they don’t exist?” Viruses have, of course, been extensively photographed using photomicroscopy, and I’m not sure how the disbelievers explain that away. Even more glaringly, they waffle when confronted with, “Clearly there is SOME infectious agent at play in diseases called viral, right?”
It’s not that the terrain model is invalid: of course being healthy makes a person more resistant to sickness than not being healthy! But that fact in no way invalidates the germ/virus model, and pretending that it does is just silly. Thanks so much for your level-headed discourse.
(Found you through your interview with Bretigne Shaffer)
Hey, thanks for the comment! Viruses are actually isolated by scientists all the time, and the idea that this is not true because they don’t ever get the virus all alone, by itself, with nothing else, i.e., that they essentially must suspend virions in a vacuum for it to be considered “isolation”, is absurd. I’m glad you found me through my chat with Bretigne, which I really enjoyed. I hope you’ll sign up for my newsletter.
The “viruses do not exist” lot is such an annoyance, because they provide an instant straw man argument for the believers in the narrative to use fautly logic to paint all who question the official narrative as unscientific kooks. Of course, that’s a lot like saying all cats are ocelots, but what does that matter to true believers?
Indeed!