Addressing Dr. McCullough, Dr. Malone, and Dr. Cole’s “SARS-COV-2” Claims: Where’s the Evidence?

Yesterday I had the privilege and the honor to speak with Alec Zeck, John Blaid, Mike Donio, and Jacob Diaz about the claims made regarding the isolation and existence of “SARS-COV-2” by Dr.’s Malone, McCullough, and Cole. In this video, we address specific points they made such as whether or not:

  1. Cultivation in cell culture is “isolation” of a “virus?”
  2. Koch’s Postulates had been satisfied for “SARS-COV-2?”
  3. The effect a drug has can be considered proof of the existence of a “virus?”
  4. The electron microscopy images taken from unpurified cell cultures are proof of “virus” particles?
  5. The particles assumed to be “viruses” are purified and isolated directly from the samples of a sick patient?

It was a pleasure to be a part of this conversation! I hope that you are able to come away with a better understanding as to why the evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” or any “virus” for the matter, is entirely lacking and unscientific.

Addressing Dr. McCullough, Dr. Malone, and Dr. Cole’s SARS-CoV-2 Claims: Where’s The Evidence?

Mike Donio, John Blaid, Jacob Diaz, Mike Stone, and Alec Zeck filmed a response to claims made by Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Ryan Cole regarding virus isolation and the existence of SARS-CoV-2 during an episode of The StreetMD Show hosted by Dr. Jo Yi on the Ickonic platform. The overall stance held by the speakers is simple: the claims made by these 3 gentlemen lack both in context and in substantial evidence to support the notion that SARS-CoV-2 exists as a pathogenic disease causing agent.

26 comments

    1. Yes it is absolutely ridiculous. Virologists know full well the meaning of the word isolation and that they can not adhere to that definition with regards to “viruses.” That is the only reason they changed the definition to the exact opposite of its intended meaning. Anyone who says otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

      Like

  1. Oh, man, I could hardly listen to those StreetMD clips. Cringe worthy, same old lies and misconceptions and changing long-standing definitions. So many fallacies. Unicorns trampling lawns, gifts under the Christmas tree. Perfect analogies.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. No biggie, but i think it would help to have info about the participants, aside from you, Mike, for example i had to search to find out anything about John Blaid, did luck onto his page.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for pointing this out! I was intending to link to both Alec and John and I will see what I can find for Mike D. and Jacob. Thanks for the suggestion/reminder! πŸ™‚

      Like

  3. It was gratifying and even a little moving to see all of you together. Your broad scholarship and Donio’s lab experience/knowledge were a particularly dynamite combo, with Diaz driving points home with a social reality check and Blaid and Zech as all-rounders.

    This to me is the new face of science. Real science. Citizen science as some call it.

    The mainstream is an infinite hall of mirrors. It’s all motte-and-bailey arguments, like the idea that one doesn’t isolate a virus the commonsense way as “it would take too many samples” but still speaking as if it’s been done that way before at least once or would be possible. As we know, it’s never been done. More to the point, it’s never even claimed to have been done (unless I missed something).

    So we have something that’s never been done being used as a bailey, an argument that is dropped if ever pressed on it but that serves as a paper tiger for public consumption (much like Einstein’s “gravity well” with a steel ball on a rubber sheet analogy): “Yes we COULD do isolation that direct way [as if it’s sometimes done] but it isn’t really practical so we do it indirectly, you see. This is how it’s done in the field.”

    The appeal to authority helps the motte-and-bailey go down, notice, as do the semantic games. Recognize that holy trinity of the art of bullshitting and you will see it everywhere bullshit is sold: Motte-and-bailey argument (a.k.a. rhetorical bait and switch), semantic games, and appeal to authority. If data is involved, lying with stats is an essential fourth tool, but the best methods of doing that lean heavily on semantics.

    Finally, that particular bailey is just one of many. A different virologist or doctor or epidemiologist will give a different bailey, another disposable argument offered as a paper tiger that is easy to crush but on the occasion someone finally calls them on it they would just retreat to some other bailey or finally to the ultimate motte: “We’re doing the best we can.”

    As you’ve documented so well, there are literally hundreds of baloney notions they can invoke, from “high titers of virus” to “antibodies” to genomics to mis-documented historical data to endless semantic games to the basic flawed paradigms of germ theory and symptom suppression as cure.

    To debate with them is to slash endlessly at giggling phantoms offered then withdrawn, never anything you can sink your teeth into unless you can either drill down and destroy each notion one by one (but that requires tremendous discipline and in a single debate only one of the hundreds of pieces could be debunked) or zoom out and show the overarching circuitous pattern of circular reasoning that their short-term memory can never grasp all at once so as to notice its circularity (but that requires a large pre-made diagram as well a deft correction of the fubar semantics, and at the end when bare appeal to authority is all that remains this must be impressed on them or the gallery).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is why focusing on “virus” isolation/purification is key. It’s the one point that if drilled down on takes down the whole edifice.

      The other such linchpin is that these diseases are helpful, not harmful. I like that one because they have no immunity to it, no arguments built up against it yet.

      As an aside, the notion of isolate as in “get it away from the human subject” is a neat wordplay. That means they must think anyone hawking a loogie has “isolated the virus,” tooπŸ˜‚

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Lol, I wouldn’t put it past them but they will just claim there is not enough “virus” in the loogie. Then in the same breath, they will tell everyone to be sure to keep wearing a mask, get vaccinated, and stay 6 feet away from anyone out of fear of coming into contact with the loogie without enough “virus.” πŸ˜‰

        Like

      2. It’s like that, an endless stream of too-convenient arguments, punts relying on the strength of the rest of the paradigm, semantics, and whatever other tricks they feel are in arm’s reach. It didn’t escape me that they presumed the questioner believed all the other “viruses” exist – punting to the paradigm. Once it’s clear that appealing to the rest of a bunch of mutually reinforcing pillars is all they have, and that there’s a much better paradigm (theory) for explaining the known observations, the whole thing collapses.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Beautifully said and I couldn’t agree more! They have come up with a multitude of ways to claim a “thing” exists without ever directly showing the “thing” exists in humans. They have thrown in some many methods and disciplines and compartmentalized the crap out of all of it in order to keep people from the truth. I’m so happy you are able to see through the BS and I’m glad to be able to do my part with my colleagues to help others learn the truth. Thanks for the feedback! πŸ™‚

      Like

  4. If you Dldo everything that’s done to isolate a virus to a grape, it’s easy to picture in your mind what would happen.
    Grapes are equal to exosomes.
    Viruses are exosomes.

    Like

  5. I am no expert, scientist or anything close. It seems to me that you gather a sample of some kind from an infected person(s) and then thoroughly examine it. You eliminate all the particles or molecules you can identify because as a researcher you have run into them before. Whatever remains, could be your virus.

    But having never seen any virus before, how do you know what you are looking at? The samples you take have a specific composition which should be fairly constant from person to person. It is some kind of invader you are looking for and if you have contaminated your sample with all kinds of cells and gooky potions, there is no way to know what the invader looks like because you may have created it by all the interference of your sample.

    Isolation and purification seems straight forward to me. Because they beat around the bush all the time, these researchers are clueless and only bend to the whims of germ theory which is saying they worship at the alter of big pharma. In that case, their confidence and trust factor is blown to smithereens.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Virology painted itself into a corner when trying to blame invisible particles. They can not find them directly in human samples, can not separate the particles in cell cultures, and can not prove pathogeniticity in any logical way, shape, or form. This is why they try to make the case with nothing but indirect evidence. They can never provide direct proof.

      Like

Leave a Reply to ClariFire Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: