I disagree. You are conflating the difference between characteristics of existing regarding swans that are one or another color, vs. the expansive and mind-blowingly indefensible claim that viruses do not exist. Try again, with the claim "swans do not exist" when there is a world of evidence on the existence of swans. That is analogy (gulp) "inference". Nate has the least amount of ego in play of all, btw.
Love your level headed assessments of our situation. I’d like to ask you some questions regarding the virus real or not question. I remember in my microbiology class talking about the controversy between terrain and bug as far as causation. We were taught that there was a microscope prior to the electron microscope that was able to see the “pathogen” alive. I found it interesting that instead of using a scope that can observe the “pathogens” way of dealing with its environment changing from a toxic nature to something healthy it was substituted with a scope that needed to kill the “pathogen” to observe it. I found it convenient from a profit point of view to come up with many products to protect us many bugs when in fact it may be a bug going through changes in reaction to its environment. I’m not sure what Dr. Cowan view is but is it possible he’s referring to what I’m talking about? If your not seeing it alive are you seeing it? Is this true about microscopes in use now? What’s your thoughts? I’m looking to learn, I have suspicions but no firm position.
My God you're confused. "The theory advanced by Dr. Cowan and Dr. Kaufman that viruses don’t exist..." We don't have a theory, we are refuting a hypothesis that has never even been tested with valid controlled experiments. Virologists don't even get to the stage of finding and purifying an alleged virus from the bodily fluid/tissue of an alleged "host" to use as an independent variable in any controlled experiment (JLW: try telling me again that I don't understand what an independent variable is? lol).
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:
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:
There are only over 1/2 MILLION journal articles on viruses that mention "virus" AND "control sample" or "control group" or "negative control" or "positive control". Your false claim that virologists do not use controls has thereby been falsified, disproven, and you should never, ever repeat this false claim again. but you will. And you will do it over, and over... BEFORE you have read all 500,000 studies. No one can take you seriously when you say things like this.
Look, i dont really have a dog in this fight, other than to really want an answer to this question. Has contagion in a natural setting ever been proven under scientifically controlled conditions. Its a simple yes or no answer. If the answer is yes then can someone show me the study. This all those on the pro virus side have to do. Who knows what all the virologists are looking at and sequencing. It makes no ends if they cant PROVE it does anything to another human being.
Mentioning the words "virus" AND... is not sufficient. I already showed you how the 1st 3 specific studies that you cited in your Tom Cowan hit piece were useless, and you didn't even disagree.
The 1st paper states "SARS-CoV-2-IHUMI2, IHUMI3, IHUMI669, and IHUMI2123 strains were isolated from human nasopharyngeal swab as previously described [14]". Ref 14 describes the usual monkey cell nonsense wherein nothing is isolated/purified (and thus no potential "virus" is available to use as an independent variable in a controlled experiment), scientific method is not applied and no virus is shown to exist. No controls are mentioned in the methods, and "controls" are only vaguely mentioned in the results with zero details provided. So a paper mentioning "virus" and "controls" but utterly useless:
"A total of 183 samples testing positive by RT-PCR...were inoculated in cell cultures. ... For all patients, 500 μL of nasopharyngeal swab fluid...or sputum sample were passed through 0.22-μm pore sized centrifugal filter ...and then were inoculated in 4 wells of 96-well culture microplates containing Vero E6 cells (ATCC CRL-1586) into Minimum Essential Medium culture medium with 4% fetal calf serum and 1% glutamine.... After centrifugation at 4000×g, microplates were incubated at 37 °C. They were observed daily for evidence of cytopathogenic effect." Blatant pseduoscience.
From the 2nd pseudoscientific study you cited:
"Virus Outgrowth Assay
Patient samples were thawed and 250 µL from each sample was mixed with 2.75 mL of Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) containing 5% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), 10 mM HEPES, 1X Penicillin/Streptomycin, and glutamine and amphotericin-B, then passed through a 0.45 µm filter. Media-only was used as negative control and media spiked with 1,000, 100, or 10 PFU of the 2019n-CoV/USA_WA1/2019 SARS-CoV-2 isolate were used as positive controls. Filtered samples were inoculated into T-25 flasks containing Vero cells ectopically expressing TMPRSS2 and human ACE2 (provided by Adrian Creanga and Barney Graham, Vaccine Research Center, NIH) in 5 mL of cell culture media (VanBlargan et al., 2021). Cultures were observed daily for 7 days for cytopathic effect...
Viral Sequencing
...RNA was extracted from cell-culture supernatant using the MagMax Viral 96 kit (ABI) on the Flex System (KingFisher). Extracted RNA was subjected to the ARTIC deep-sequencing protocol which was performed on a HiSeq platform (Illumina) (doi:10.17504/protocols.io.bgxjjxkn)."
"SARS-COV-2" was not used as the independent variable, because it has never been shown to exist. Instead they mixed bodily fluid (containing human cells, bacteria, fungi) with cow serum, toxic drugs and monkey cells, then blamed the nonextinct "virus" for monkey cell breakdown lol. Ridiculous. And for the "negative control" they used media-only (details unspecified, and nothing from a human added), and for the "positive control" they used the fake CDC "isolate" from Harcourt et al. that is just another monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi mixture, never shown to have anything to do with any alleged virus. (We have 8 FOIA responses from the CDC wherein every single time they failed to cite any study by anyone, anywhere, ever wherein the alleged virus was even found and purified from any bodily fluid/tissue on the planet, and 2 ridiculous FOIA responses from CDC re the "mock controls" used by Harcourt et al., available at the links I provided above)..
From the 3rd study you cited, which is very brief and has no methods section:
- "Vero E6 cells were inoculated with clinical specimens and incubated at 37 °C, 5% CO2. Cells were inspected for cytopathic effect daily" [no disclosure of the fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs that are typically used]
- "Presence of SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein staining by enzyme immunoassay on infected cells" [impossible when SARS-COV-2 has never been shown to exist]
- PCR "tests"
- regression modelling
- no mention of controls of any kind for any step; no scientific method was applied
- no science showing a replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits between hosts and causes disease via natural modes of exposure
So read the actual Methods sections in some of those 1/2 MILLION journal articles and then come back and cite one where valid controls were actually used and a virus was shown to exist via scientific method.
James, have you read all 500,000 studies? If you've read even a handful and they are valid, you should easily be able to cite 1 where valid controls were actually used and a virus was shown to exist via scientific method. But every time you're asked to do so, you fail.
Now that you have turned this pseudoscientific argument into a whole substack post, you can find my view of the argument there. But here it is copied below:
What a joke of an argument! It takes the question “big data or dumb data?” to the next level.
Try searching on pubmed for ‘vaccines AND “safe and effective”’ and you get 3779 results. I guess vaccines are safe and effective. Anyone who says that vaccines are not safe and effective has a lot of reading to do! So, sign me up for the 100 recommended jabs.
I disagree. You are conflating the difference between characteristics of existing regarding swans that are one or another color, vs. the expansive and mind-blowingly indefensible claim that viruses do not exist. Try again, with the claim "swans do not exist" when there is a world of evidence on the existence of swans. That is analogy (gulp) "inference". Nate has the least amount of ego in play of all, btw.
LMAO Ha ha you ADMIT IT! ONCE!! I can sleep now.
Much needed. Thanks
Hi James,
Love your level headed assessments of our situation. I’d like to ask you some questions regarding the virus real or not question. I remember in my microbiology class talking about the controversy between terrain and bug as far as causation. We were taught that there was a microscope prior to the electron microscope that was able to see the “pathogen” alive. I found it interesting that instead of using a scope that can observe the “pathogens” way of dealing with its environment changing from a toxic nature to something healthy it was substituted with a scope that needed to kill the “pathogen” to observe it. I found it convenient from a profit point of view to come up with many products to protect us many bugs when in fact it may be a bug going through changes in reaction to its environment. I’m not sure what Dr. Cowan view is but is it possible he’s referring to what I’m talking about? If your not seeing it alive are you seeing it? Is this true about microscopes in use now? What’s your thoughts? I’m looking to learn, I have suspicions but no firm position.
My God you're confused. "The theory advanced by Dr. Cowan and Dr. Kaufman that viruses don’t exist..." We don't have a theory, we are refuting a hypothesis that has never even been tested with valid controlled experiments. Virologists don't even get to the stage of finding and purifying an alleged virus from the bodily fluid/tissue of an alleged "host" to use as an independent variable in any controlled experiment (JLW: try telling me again that I don't understand what an independent variable is? lol).
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/
Well done Christine, i wonder if those that oppose Cowan/Kaufmann et al, have really done their homework and listned fully to what they have to say.
There are only over 1/2 MILLION journal articles on viruses that mention "virus" AND "control sample" or "control group" or "negative control" or "positive control". Your false claim that virologists do not use controls has thereby been falsified, disproven, and you should never, ever repeat this false claim again. but you will. And you will do it over, and over... BEFORE you have read all 500,000 studies. No one can take you seriously when you say things like this.
EVIDENCE:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=virus+AND+%22control+sample%22+OR+%22control+group%22+OR+%22negative+control%22+OR+%22positive+control%22
Look, i dont really have a dog in this fight, other than to really want an answer to this question. Has contagion in a natural setting ever been proven under scientifically controlled conditions. Its a simple yes or no answer. If the answer is yes then can someone show me the study. This all those on the pro virus side have to do. Who knows what all the virologists are looking at and sequencing. It makes no ends if they cant PROVE it does anything to another human being.
Mentioning the words "virus" AND... is not sufficient. I already showed you how the 1st 3 specific studies that you cited in your Tom Cowan hit piece were useless, and you didn't even disagree.
The 1st paper states "SARS-CoV-2-IHUMI2, IHUMI3, IHUMI669, and IHUMI2123 strains were isolated from human nasopharyngeal swab as previously described [14]". Ref 14 describes the usual monkey cell nonsense wherein nothing is isolated/purified (and thus no potential "virus" is available to use as an independent variable in a controlled experiment), scientific method is not applied and no virus is shown to exist. No controls are mentioned in the methods, and "controls" are only vaguely mentioned in the results with zero details provided. So a paper mentioning "virus" and "controls" but utterly useless:
"A total of 183 samples testing positive by RT-PCR...were inoculated in cell cultures. ... For all patients, 500 μL of nasopharyngeal swab fluid...or sputum sample were passed through 0.22-μm pore sized centrifugal filter ...and then were inoculated in 4 wells of 96-well culture microplates containing Vero E6 cells (ATCC CRL-1586) into Minimum Essential Medium culture medium with 4% fetal calf serum and 1% glutamine.... After centrifugation at 4000×g, microplates were incubated at 37 °C. They were observed daily for evidence of cytopathogenic effect." Blatant pseduoscience.
From the 2nd pseudoscientific study you cited:
"Virus Outgrowth Assay
Patient samples were thawed and 250 µL from each sample was mixed with 2.75 mL of Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) containing 5% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), 10 mM HEPES, 1X Penicillin/Streptomycin, and glutamine and amphotericin-B, then passed through a 0.45 µm filter. Media-only was used as negative control and media spiked with 1,000, 100, or 10 PFU of the 2019n-CoV/USA_WA1/2019 SARS-CoV-2 isolate were used as positive controls. Filtered samples were inoculated into T-25 flasks containing Vero cells ectopically expressing TMPRSS2 and human ACE2 (provided by Adrian Creanga and Barney Graham, Vaccine Research Center, NIH) in 5 mL of cell culture media (VanBlargan et al., 2021). Cultures were observed daily for 7 days for cytopathic effect...
Viral Sequencing
...RNA was extracted from cell-culture supernatant using the MagMax Viral 96 kit (ABI) on the Flex System (KingFisher). Extracted RNA was subjected to the ARTIC deep-sequencing protocol which was performed on a HiSeq platform (Illumina) (doi:10.17504/protocols.io.bgxjjxkn)."
"SARS-COV-2" was not used as the independent variable, because it has never been shown to exist. Instead they mixed bodily fluid (containing human cells, bacteria, fungi) with cow serum, toxic drugs and monkey cells, then blamed the nonextinct "virus" for monkey cell breakdown lol. Ridiculous. And for the "negative control" they used media-only (details unspecified, and nothing from a human added), and for the "positive control" they used the fake CDC "isolate" from Harcourt et al. that is just another monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi mixture, never shown to have anything to do with any alleged virus. (We have 8 FOIA responses from the CDC wherein every single time they failed to cite any study by anyone, anywhere, ever wherein the alleged virus was even found and purified from any bodily fluid/tissue on the planet, and 2 ridiculous FOIA responses from CDC re the "mock controls" used by Harcourt et al., available at the links I provided above)..
From the 3rd study you cited, which is very brief and has no methods section:
- "Vero E6 cells were inoculated with clinical specimens and incubated at 37 °C, 5% CO2. Cells were inspected for cytopathic effect daily" [no disclosure of the fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs that are typically used]
- "Presence of SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein staining by enzyme immunoassay on infected cells" [impossible when SARS-COV-2 has never been shown to exist]
- PCR "tests"
- regression modelling
- no mention of controls of any kind for any step; no scientific method was applied
- no science showing a replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits between hosts and causes disease via natural modes of exposure
So read the actual Methods sections in some of those 1/2 MILLION journal articles and then come back and cite one where valid controls were actually used and a virus was shown to exist via scientific method.
I challenged you over and over in the comments under your Tom Cowan hit piece (https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/yet-another-final-respectful-response) but all you cited were taxonomy entries, a children's blog and reviews (which do not involve scientific method) (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/JLW-cites-reviews-childrens-blogs-and-taxonomy-as-proof-of-virus.jpg).
All you have are sequences of unknown provenance cobbled together to make meaningless in silico "genomes", wild assumptions and sweeping claims.
James, have you read all 500,000 studies? If you've read even a handful and they are valid, you should easily be able to cite 1 where valid controls were actually used and a virus was shown to exist via scientific method. But every time you're asked to do so, you fail.
Now that you have turned this pseudoscientific argument into a whole substack post, you can find my view of the argument there. But here it is copied below:
What a joke of an argument! It takes the question “big data or dumb data?” to the next level.
Try searching on pubmed for ‘vaccines AND “safe and effective”’ and you get 3779 results. I guess vaccines are safe and effective. Anyone who says that vaccines are not safe and effective has a lot of reading to do! So, sign me up for the 100 recommended jabs.
Bingo... why didn't I just say that lol?