Virology’s Unproven Assumptions

If you are looking for one of the most masterful takedowns of virology to date, this presentation by Alec Zeck, Dr. Jordan Grant, Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, and John Blaid is one of the best out there. When I first watched it a month ago, I was blown away and I had intended to share it here but, as often happens, I got sidetracked and sadly forgot to upload it. I hope you can take away a great deal of value from this presentation as the guys delve into the numerous fallacies and assumptions related to this fraudulent field.

In this presentation, you will find:

  • A break down of the ridiculous cell culture experiments
  • The lack of adhering to the scientific method
  • The foundational issues with virology from the very beginning
  • The inherent problems with and the limitations of electron microscopy imaging
  • The lack of any purified and isolated physical “viral” particles found directly in human samples
  • The issues related to the creation of the theoretical genome
  • The fabrication and lack of validation of the PCR test for “SARS-COV-2”
  • A thorough explanation of the Stefan Lanka control experiments
  • The myths of contagion and other possible explanations for dis-ease
  • The FOI requests and the burden of proof

As I said, a masterful takedown of the pseudoscience called virology!

Virology’s Unproven Assumptions

In this episode, Alec Zeck has a discussion with Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, Dr. Jordan Grant MD, and John Blaid on the fallacious reasoning, unproven assumptions, and lack of proof for virus theory.

33 comments

  1. My first thought after i finished viewing: “This should shred any remnants of belief in the alleged pandemic and its virus, if not virology in general.” And then i realized, per what the participants said: No, it won’t, we’re dealing with a “paradigm lock.” I can think of several email discussion lists i’m on, “resistance” people, and predict reactions from the people in them such as “this is divisive,” “we’re not experts, the experts will shred us to pieces if we bring this up,” “we don’t need this, enough to show by using their stats that lockdowns, masking, jabs,…are unnecessary,” “our priority should be to stop the jabs, anything else is a distraction,” “I got sick, people i know got sick,….,”I have a science degree, this line of argument is fallacious, i don’t have the time or desire to say why, i’m too busy fighting the mandates,”…. I even had one person insist she had “Covid” even though she tested negative! Why? “Because the PCR test is inaccurate.” Totally no getting that it repeatedly tries to come up with a positive, let alone that it’s never been properly calibrated using a “gold standard,” an actual virus, let alone that it’s not a testing tool. But i’m glad the crew did this, and will spread it around, maybe some seeds will stick. Please tell them thanks a LOT! (PS: I am science-trained, degree in mechanical engineering, over 3 decades teaching stats and math at UC Berkeley)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Hi Jeffrey, I really like your comments. Are you interested in being part of a group who is working to get the film Viral Delusion and Mike’s blog (this one) out in front of more eyes? I would love your help. I am putting together a group, we meet tomorrow for the first time, on a zoom call. EMAIL ME if you are interested: forcgd@yahoo.com Also are you on FB at all? If so, are you already part of the Infectious Myth groups? — Carolyn

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Hi Carolyn. I’m already getting the word out to my lists and i’m being very subtle doing so on FB. 🙂 Am “grouped out,” trying to keep up with my present groups, but feel free to look me up. I’ll message you.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I’ve made a study of paradigms myself, of theories and their mutually reinforcing parts. The true science movement is mushrooming despite paradigm lock-in, but it still helps to understand it.

      It’s a circular reasoning process of many steps, such that one must simultaneously doubt all the mutually supporting pillars of the paradigm in order to begin to see whether the whole thing stands on firm ground or merely floats in the air, and to compared how well it hangs together versus another paradigm. How many anomalies there are in one paradigm vs. another. How many observations explained how neatly.

      Most people are unable to weigh two paradigms objectively, because they lack the tools and circumspection to untangle their assumptions from their current paradigm. There’s no shame in that; if everyone were a deep questioner society would become unstable. Nevertheless, anyone who is unable to do this cannot be called a scientist; at best they are a glorified lab monkey.

      To a real scientist, every anomaly and every new piece of data requires a reassessment of the entire paradigm *and* the competing paradigms to see if either threatens to overtake the other in credibility. Such a global re-evaluation should be beyond a lab monkey’s pay grade, but in truth academia and academic culture are dominated by lab monkies.

      The reasons trace back to hyperspecialization and the Prussian factory model of education introduced during the industrial revolution as a means of citizen control (see John Taylor Gatto for that redpill).

      Another elephant in the room is how many links there in the chain of reasoning virologists use to “prove” contagious particles exists. There are something like hundreds of them. Yet as Mike shows in this blog, not even a single one of those links is solid or reliable. Yet every single link has to be solid or else the chain breaks. Meanwhile the alternative paradigm is not only solid and leaves far fewer unexplained anomalies, it also contains probably two orders of magnitude fewer links.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Lab monkeys is the perfect word for them. They follow the manuals and instructions to a T but don’t question whether what they are doing is actually valid in the first place. They lack the ability to see the forest for the trees.

        Like

      2. Yes, totally agree that true science is mushrooming despite paradigm lock. And all your other points, agreed! 🙂

        Like

    3. Thanks for the insight and the feedback! I will let the guys know! 🙂 It is sad that people can not see past their own cognitive dissonance. They always have an excuse ready and waiting for why they can not let go of the indoctrination. My hope is that by continuing to hammer these points home, we will eventually break down their psychological barriers.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    4. I tend to agree with you, Jeffrey. I have brought up “paradigm locking” as well. It’s always interesting to see the responses people give, rarely addressing the actual arguments/points we make.
      I’m thankful others are starting to see the issues.
      I myself am under no notion that we’re going to suddenly change the paradigm. those things take time – LOTS of time. But I think planting seeds is a good way to think about it, and regardless, I try and honor what I feel is true whether others agree or not.
      I came in to this in 2020 with a head full of virus belief, since I had to learn it all in medical school. But the minute I sat down myself and spent hours and hours reading the actual papers, I immediately saw the issues. And I think that’s part of the problem: I wager that very few people will take the time to sit down and read through all the papers, digest them, think about the methods and compare said methods with the actual scientific method.
      My own wife, who does “see” what I’m saying w/regards to “viruses”, has not once sat and read a virology paper. She’s also an MD. She’s just not that caught up in it all, even though she’s very open minded.
      So it’s going to be a major battle to ever get entrenched “learned people” to really re-think this paradigm (or other paradigms which may have no basis in reality).
      Love your comments here.
      The fallacious reasoning with these responses irritates me to no end, but I’ve realized that’s another big hurdle: people don’t really know how to think. They do in some basic situations, but when it comes to these “higher” topics, they somehow think they’r’e not sharp enough to understand them, so they’ll defer to the “Experts”, or will just use some affirming the consequent logical fallacies to try and bolster their belief.
      I pray this changes one day.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. The Big Bus!!! Glad to see you here Jordan! 😁

        Jeffery, I just want to say that the comment above is by Dr. Jordan Grant, who is featured in this video. He is one of the smartest men I know. I have learned so much from him over the past two years, especially regarding the scientific method. Dr. Grant is a wealth of knowledge as you probably picked up in the video.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. This WAS such an awesome video! One of the best discussions. This would be an example of a video that (in my mind) should be part of a “package” we could make. You are doing such a good job of promoting others work, I want to use your blog posts (such as this one) in some way…. not sure how yet. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I love this presentation! I can’t believe I forgot to share it originally. I remember thinking it was a masterful job by all involved and I wanted to promote it. I’m not sure how it slipped my mind until Alec mentioned it this morning in a group chat. I immediately realized I needed to rectify my mistake and share it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. What a bloodbath. Zech seems to have a talent for putting together these great groups of complementary thinkers and keeping the discussion focused and moving forward with each person providing the right kind of input. Though arguably it’s hard go wrong with a crew like this, much like the other one from the other day which included Mike Stone instead of Jordan Grant. All 6 make a great team: Stone, Grant, Donio, Blaid, Diaz, Zech. Almost sounds like an RPG character lineup. I’m also interested in how a Stone, Grant and Donio session would go. And this Daniel Roytas guy sounds interesting.

    A new academia is coming into view…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thanks! Definitely interesting. The genetic sequences are irrelevant however as they never came from a purified/isolated source. The sequences are essentially meaningless. 😉

      Like

      Reply

  6. Thanks , great site .

    Dr Lanka gives a good summary in this article.

    “”To this day, no virus has been seen in or isolated from humans, animals, nor plants or their fluids. It has not even been possible to isolate a nucleic acid that would correspond to the length and composition of the genetic strands of the claimed disease causing viruses, although the isolation, presentation and analysis of the composition of nucleic acids of this length has long been possible using the simplest standard techniques.”

    https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-virologists.pdf – Dr Stefan Lanka)

    I would add the paradigm lock is also being stuck in the belief in cellular biology that started with Rudolph Virchow in around 1858 out of ‘thin air’ and mostly disproven by Dr Harold Hillman.

    The approach in main stream science and even alternative research is based on inherited wrong concepts in understanding biology. Excluding trauma, toxicity, severe nutritional deficiency there are no rules for health and disease . From my research Universal biology ( based on dr Hamer) explains the biological process .

    Some takeaways from an interview with Dr Lanka

    STEFAN LANKA – ILSEDORA LAKER: BIOLOGY AFTER HAMER PT. 1
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/r2ugAzuJhBfM/

    A better view on life.
    -Life is always going to be a secret. if you stay decent and ask the right questions you are going to get answers.
    -Always keep in mind – a principle taught in Chinese medicine and philosophy that our models and explanation of today could be invalid tomorrow.
    Always when dr Lanka is asked a question, the best answer is going to come, can give the view at the moment and what disagrees with.

    And some additional insides about virology.

    https://media2-production.mightynetworks.com/asset/37619197/Virologists_are_fooling_themselves_and_the_public.pdf?_gl=1*1njqs44*_ga*MTIzMTkzOTQ4OC4xNjI1NzM1OTcw*_ga_T49FMYQ9FZ*MTY0OTExMTcxMC44NDYuMS4xNjQ5MTExNzE0LjA.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  7. I have watched several of these videos now and and read a few books by Cowan. To think that so much of the entire medical mafia is contrived and supported using such flimsy research is downright scary.

    It appears that most medical research is nothing more than “faking it for the money”…and I imagine this goes extremely deep in other disciplines as well. These people maintain a cherished position to pump up their own silly egos and wallets. They have to believe lie after lie to justify their need to be seen as someone special. To hide behind this veil of purposeful research is most cowardly.

    For pretending to be some of the sharpest knives in the drawer, they are nothing but scared little self disillusionists. Like so many doctors, they will protect their livelihood no matter how many they murder.

    Working through the Paradigm Shift videos. Thanks for the whole shebang. Contrary thoughts and ideas are welcome verses just accepting the status quo.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You are welcome! I agree that they are in a state of self-delusion. There is a huge difference between being educated and being smart. They may have the degree and are well-versed in the methods, but they lack the ability to think critically and logically. Without this, they are not smart, they are only educated.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. They are not even usually educated, just trained. “Education” used to be reserved for actually learning how to think, as well as how to be a citizen. The training of these trades doesn’t qualify. They have neither the philosophical basis of their field so as to call themselves scientists nor the moral center to call themselves good ones. This system is by design (Gatto has the scoop).

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Since scientism is the new religion, most fields have been little more than “faking it for the money” for over a century now. There are many shades of gray on this but science only works when there is zero taint of this kind. The obviously politicized fields are almost completely taken over, such as medicine and climate science and economics, yes, but even the fields where there would seem to be no political aspect, such as physics and math, fell prey to cultural Marxism and other such fashions over a hundred years ago. At least 90% of the funding and brainpower are funneled into meaningless dead ends because it’s taboo to critique the building blocks of the dominant paradigm in the field. The state funding of science is another major issue in itself that ensures endless rent seeking is the most viable or only viable career path.

      The result has been that the only progress has come in fields where it’s impossible to fake it, such as (non-life-science) engineering. And I’m sure in whatever pockets it remains possible to fake it in engineering that’s what is done.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. I’m very pro-engineer myself, although I’m not one (not smart enough – wish I was). What the best engineers are good at is understanding systems, and the body is a complex system, more complex of course than anything a human could invent. One example that comes to mind in the covid era is Ivor Cummins (also very good on metabolic health). As far as I know, he’s not a virus sceptic, or even “anti vax” (he’s just against the mRNA pseudo vax), but he’s been excellent at taking down much of the covid nonsense.

        Yes, I’m sure there is also faking it in the engineering world, especially in huge projects involving large amounts of government money, even more so in international collaborations. But because of the size and the time these projects take, the faking is not discovered for years, and those responsible long gone (probably promoted…).

        Liked by 2 people

  8. I’m not an expertise in medical science at all, but in my opinion, the only way to ever ‘prove’ contagion is to demonstrate it in human experiments under experimental conditions. Without it, the diagnostic tests, genetic analyses and nano-scale microscopy images of pathogens would be meaningless.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. They would have to prove it via natural routes. Even though there are flaws in the methods, the 1918 Rosenau Spanish Flu experiments were the closest to what needs to occur. You are correct that there definitely needs to be direct proof of contagion/”viruses” as all of the indirect methods you listed are absolutely meaningless.

      Like

      Reply

  9. The latest objection I’m seeing is, “Cell cultures are how we isolate bacteria, so why not viruses?”

    I’m a bit at a loss on what to say to that. I mean, for starters, bacteria become the vast majority of the petri dish by the end, whereas “viruses” remain these scant dots.

    Has this objection been covered somewhere?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Bacteria can be observed in nature. They are visible in colonies and can be seen in a microscope. They can be purified and isolated.

      None of this is true for “viruses.” They are assumed to be within the sample without ever seeing them within a sample. The concept of a “virus” is the only thing that exists. These fictional entities can not be observed in nature.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. Hello again
    In the podcast, the “mock [cell] cultures” are mentioned. What is the problem with this (as a control)? I believe it was said that most of them were different beyond just the lack of the substance containing the “virus,” but, maybe for some of them, what is the fallacy here (they supposedly used material that was from an organism directly and put that into the cell culture, so if that organic substance is excluded, how would the mock culture also not cause disease?)
    Thanks, and again God bless

    Like

    Reply

    1. The problem is that the mock cultures are often undefined and never include samples from sick patients with the same symptoms who are not “positive” nor from completely healthy people. Also, the creation of CPE is not specific to “viruses” so the cell culture experiment itself is invalid.

      Like

      Reply
  11. Pingback: Virology Interview With Lies Are Unbekoming – ViroLIEgy

Leave a comment