The “Virus” of Sin

What constitutes proof for the existence of an entity such as a “virus?” It is safe to say that most would agree that having the particles assumed to be the “virus” taken directly from the fluids of a sick host and having them physically present in a pure and isolated state so that the particles can be examined and manipulated would be a good place to start. It would then be possible to photograph the particles in order to determine the morphology and structure of the assumed “virus” and to determine the purification of the sample by showing whether or not there are other microorganisms present that could also potentially be correlated to disease. Researchers would then be able to take the purified and isolated particles and biochemically characterize and sequence them. It would then be possible to use these purified and isolated particles in an attempt to prove pathogenicity by subjecting a healthy host to the particles via a natural route in order to see if they can cause the same symptoms of disease that they are suspected of causing. This entire process would be repeated again and again in order to see if the same purified and isolated particles are found in each host and to see if they can cause the exact same symptoms each and every time. This would be the logical approach and one that adheres to the scientific method.

What does not constitute proof for the existence of an entity such as a “virus?” Most would agree that ignoring all of the steps outlined above, buying a commercially-made lab-created cell culture concoction said to contain the “virus,” taking this unpurified mixture and sequencing it, and then claiming that the resulting computer-generated model is an actual representation of a “virus” never seen in nature nor observed in the fluids of a sick host would not pass scientific muster. However, this age of molecular and digital trickery is exactly where we are heading currently if we allow those in charge to lead us down this false path.

One of the people promoting these fraudulent activities is Steve Kircsh. Mr. Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur and a Silicon Valley philanthropist who invented the optical mouse and one of the earliest search engines known as Infoseek. He has a BS/MS in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT. Mr. Kirsch founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) which funded early research into drugs such as fluvoxamine to treat “Covid” patients. He is also Executive Director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (vacsafety.org) which is meant to research the safety of the “Covid” vaccines. This is how the VSRF mission statement describes the organization:

“The primary purpose of VSRF is to advance scientific inquiry as the best way to guide us out of the pandemic. We present the most up-to-date and relevant information on COVID-19 policies, free from corporate press, agenda-driven narratives, and sponsorships with conflicts of interest. We encourage questions and an open dialogue of transparency on any medical and scientific information presented.”

https://www.vacsafety.org/about

Mr. Kirsch’s organization states that its primary mission is to advance scientific inquiry and that it encourages questions and an open-dialogue regarding scientific information. Thus, it is quite confusing that Mr. Kirsch is seemingly against both of these defining principles of his organization.

We recently reached out to Steve in order to see if he would be willing to lend his support to a challenge intending to end the “virus existence” debate once and for all. Knowing full well that Steve believes in the existence of “viruses” based on the opinions of his own experts, we had high hopes that scientific curiosity would win out. We had hoped that he would be willing to meet us halfway and that he would accept the offer to see if the methods used by virologists to prove the existence of “viruses” were actually valid when put through proper scientific protocols with proper controls. For those who are unfamiliar with the proposed challenge, you can find the details here.

Unfortunately Steve declined the offer to sign on as a signatory which is absolutely fine as we knew that many of those who cling to the “virus” story would be unwilling to be associated with a challenge looking to prove that these entities do not exist. Steve’s lack of participation was not unexpected to say the least. However, what was unexpected was to see Steve write a misleading hit-piece about the challenge and those who reached out to him.

Sadly, this is not the first time that I have felt compelled to respond to false and misleading information coming from Steve Kirsch. I would rather not give the man any more of my time as I feel he is attempting to divide and distract. I’ve previously addressed his inaccurate claims on isolation and purification in order to set the record straight and I had hoped that would be the end of it. However, after reading his latest post that was sent to me, it became clear that there are once again misrepresentations and illogical leaps being bandied about as if they are facts which are in need of being addressed.

In his blog post titled Settling the virus debate challenge from Dr. Sam Bailey, Steve attempted to make the case as to why the challenge to virology that was presented to him was unacceptable. Steve did so by doing what he does best: making excuses, misrepresenting the facts, and hiding behind others who do the thinking for him. In order to clear things up, let’s go through Steve’s claims one by one and see if they hold up.

Here are the details according to Steve:

“I requested a debate with Christine’s team, but Christine wrote she was too busy to reply at the time. Now she wrote to me that she won’t debate me.”

While I won’t completely touch on this as I was not directly involved in the conversations, let me assure you that Steve is being misleading. Christine Massey will be releasing full details of their most recent exchanges in the near future. For those who do not know Christine, she has been amassing a collection of vitally important Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from many institutions stating that they have no studies or records of purified/isolated “SARS-COV-2” as well as many other “viruses.” Regarding the debates that Steve has proposed, she has consistently shown that Steve will claim one thing in a private email thread while incorrectly recounting said events to his audience. In the past, he stated that Christine was unwilling to debate him after he demanded a 5 hour Zoom call between Christine by herself and his own team of experts (whom he refused to name).

A 5 hour Zoom call?!?!

While Christine has proven herself a capable debater in her own right, requiring a 3-on-1 five-hour marathon was an unfair proposal. Christine reached out to Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Mark and Sam Bailey, and others to participate along with her in a debate between Steve and his unnamed experts. It got to the point where Dr. Kaufman was in contact with Steve and even wrote out a debate proposal:

Debate question:
The published experiments on the isolation and in silico genome sequencing prove the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 “virus.” True or False?

The purpose of this debate is to engage in a healthy scientific discussion. The spirit and philosophy of scientific inquiry demands attempting to refute all theories until it is clear they are irrefutable. This debate rekindles that spirit and serves to advance the state of truthful knowledge about the natural world. As such, the debate must only include scientific arguments. The focus is on the experimental procedures used to allege the existence of viruses, in particular SARS-CoV-2. Have these methods demonstrated the existence of a real biological entity found in nature or are they a misinterpretation resulting from the experimental procedure itself? Why have virologists been unable to extract and purify viral particles directly from the host? Why do they rely on computer computation to construct a genome? Have proper control experiments been done? If not, why?)

In the end, Steve was the one who called everything off in a blog post as he felt that the debate challenge he initially offered was now somehow a waste of his own time and he instead left it to his readers to debate Christine’s team for him:

Why spend time educating yourself on the “virus” isolation topic you consistently write about as if you understand it? Let’s think about this for a minute… 🤔

You can see some of the exchange here.

Steve demanding an answer to his question before being willing to debate. This looks familiar. 🤔

“Richard Fleming requested a debate with them as well and they wouldn’t debate him either.”

According to Steve, we won’t debate Richard Fleming. Why wouldn’t anyone want to participate in a debate with Richard Fleming? Could it be that, when Fleming agrees to a civil discussion ahead of time, he completely disregards his previous pre-debate agreement on the air and launches into numerous ad hominem attacks and rudely interrupts his opponent as seen in his exchanges with Dr. Robert O. Young?

Interestingly, myself and others got into a post-debate debate with Fleming in the comments of the video when it was originally released. Sadly, Fleming deleted his comments afterwards in order to cover up all of the evidence. He has a bad habit of doing such a thing as shown in the comments section of this page.

Debate, delete, and run. Not a very admirable debate tactic.

There are other reasons for why those who know of Fleming do not wish to engage with him but I will let them slide for now. The bottom line is that Fleming is not an honorable man when it comes to debates. Character counts Steve.

“I asked Christine, “OK, so if it isn’t a virus, explain to me what my wife caught from her golfing friend who had COVID, and what I caught from my wife. If it wasn’t the COVID virus, then what the heck was it? The COVID tests were positive for all of us after we got symptoms.” Every email, Christine avoided answering my question. So I had to ask several times! Finally, she wrote the following: “Steve, I sent you the challenge and now you insist on diverting the conversation to your wife and asking what covid is and what people (who I have zero direct knowledge of) allegedly caught.  We all know what covid is claimed to be and what people think they “caught”.” So she was being evasive and her answer to my simple question is evasive once again! This is important. They cannot answer this simple question. It is their Achilles heel. They like to claim that the virus doesn’t exist, but they cannot explain what COVID is if it isn’t a virus, nor do they have a set of tests to PROVE that THEIR theory of what it actually is is correct. Watch this video at 1:47:19. Why aren’t THEY spending the money to prove THEIR theory? Gotta wonder about that one. The point is this: If they cannot PROVE their alternative hypothesis then why should the demand proof of the current hypothesis? I’ve emailed Tom Cowan directly and he said he didn’t know what I had. I got “it” from my wife for sure.”

Steve is engaging in a few logical fallacies here. Shocking, I know. Steve wants us to explain how he and his wife got sick if it wasn’t “SARS-COV-2.” This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. This is a logical error that assumes that if the consequent is said to be true, then the antecedent is said to be true as a result. It is normally expressed like this:

If X then Y.

Y.

Therefore X.

Or in this case: If there is a “virus,” I will get sick. I got sick, therefore there is a “virus.”

Steve also wants us to explain how both he and his wife got sick around the same time and tested positive for a “virus” using tests repeatedly shown to be inaccurate and fraudulent. This is called a false cause fallacy which is where it is presumed that some sort of perceived relationship between two things means that one caused the other. Just because Steve and his wife became ill around the same time does not mean that a “virus” was transferred between them. Just because they both tested positive on fraudulent tests does not mean a “virus” was detected. There are many proven reasons for why people can become ill:

We can not determine what caused Steve nor his wife to become ill. That would require examining numerous factors both physical and mental which is beyond our capabilities.

Steve also seems to believe that we must provide him an alternative hypothesis and prove it in order to reject the current one. This is also untrue as there is no requirement that one must provide an alternative when critiquing the current dogma. In fact, none of us are providing an alternative hypothesis so there is nothing for us to prove. Steve is simply engaging in a third logical fallacy which is shifting the burden of proof. As Steve and Co. are the ones making the claim that “viruses” exist, the onus is on them to back up their assertion with evidence proving this existence.

“It’s not cheap to do the tests they are requesting and they won’t pay the costs. They claim they have some pledges available of $500K, but pledges are not the same as cash on hand (I’m an expert on that one). They basically insist that rich people like me should spend our money to prove their hypothesis.”

This is blatantly false as it was never insisted that Steve needs to pay to prove our “hypothesis.” The challenge is meant for testing their hypothesis that “viruses” exist and cause disease by performing the proper controls that should have been performed by virologists from the very beginning. Steve was only asked to either agree or disagree to supporting a proposal involving independent labs performing the proper scientific validation for his hypothesis. He obviously declined.

“If they have an alternate hypothesis on what is causing people to all come down with a respiratory infection that is so severe they have to go to a hospital, I’m all ears. But they have none. I suspect their purpose is to distract us from the main vaccine narrative. If they want to fund the research they want, we are happy to do it.”

Again, we do not need to supply an alternative hypothesis as to what is causing disease in order to disprove the current one. There are numerous factors which can cause disease. Regarding respiratory disease, Steve is conveniently ignoring the increasing air pollution problem as a major factor. However, it is not the only factor. What Steve and Co. want people to believe is that there is one cause (i.e. “SARS-COV-2”) that is resulting in a “new” disease which, oddly enough, just so happens to have no new or specific symptoms. He wants his audience to believe in the “Covid” lie and to trust the science and the evidence already presented. We have repeatedly challenged said evidence and we are now seeking to hold them accountable to show that the methods used in these studies are indeed valid. It is very telling that they want no part in performing proper scientific validation.

“This is not my field of expertise at all. I rely on other people around me who I trust. These people are all red-pilled with respect to the vaccine. It is possible that they are blue pilled with respect to the virus, but generally red-pilled people are red-pilled in many areas. None of them found the hypothesis compelling.”

Steve has a habit of reminding his readers that his experts do the thinking for him. It is odd that he continues to insist on writing about a topic that he does not understand.

“There is a video of Purnima Wagh (full videohighlights) who says she had $1.5M to do the isolation work and they found nothing. They said in the video that the CDC wouldn’t send them a sample. This is very interesting. But you can buy SARS-CoV-2 samples commercially from a number of commercial suppliers including ATCC. Sin Lee bought his reference from Boca Biolistics Reference Laboratory, Pompano Beach, FL. The samples cost under $2K. Why didn’t they do that? My colleagues (such as Sabine Hazan’s lab) have bought these samples and they matched the gene sequences from their infected patients. If the virus doesn’t exist, how do they explain that? And how can you explain Sin Lee’s papers (see below)? If the virus doesn’t exist, then how do you explain his results? We’d be DELIGHTED to debate Purnima Wagh. I’ve emailed her and have not heard back.”

You can not buy purified and isolated particles claimed to be “SARS-COV-2” which comes directly from the fluids of a sick human but you can purchase lab-created cell-cultured concoctions said to contain the fictitious entity known as “SARS-COV-2.” Steve doesn’t understand purification and isolation which is why he believes that buying commercially made cell-cultured goo is acceptable. If you would like to understand why cell cultures are invalid, please see this article.

As for genome sequencing, Steve is trying to distract with indirect evidence. As he knows that they can not provide direct evidence of purified/isolated particles taken from the fluids of sick humans which were proven pathogenic in a natural way, he is opting for the latest and greatest indirect evidence to bamboozle his audience with. However, what Steve fails to understand is that in order for the original “SARS-COV-2” genome (which all others are based upon) to be considered an accurate representation of a “virus,” the “virus” must be shown to exist in a purified/isolated state first in order to be sequenced properly. Otherwise, a whole range of substances are sequenced along with the assumed “virus” including host DNA, bacteria, fungus, extracellular vesicles, etc. If cultured, you have added foreign animal DNA from the cell line as well as the fetal bovine serum used as the medium. The original “SARS-COV-2” genome is a fraudulent assembly stemming from the unpurified BALF of one patient. Every other genome has been built upon this erroneous foundation.

And for the record Steve, you spelled Poornima (not Purnima) Wagh’s name wrong which may be why you haven’t heard back as you potentially e-mailed the wrong woman.

“Their challenge to prove there is a virus was accepted by Dr. Kevin W. McCairn, who created a web page accepting the challenge and asking them to put up the money to pay for the tests they wanted. Now, for some odd reason, they do not accept the offer that they asked for.”

There is quite a bit wrong with Steve’s claims here. First of all, had McCairn actually read the challenge, he would have noticed this statement:

STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and None would know the identities of the other participating labs”

By McCairn publicly announcing his acceptance to participate in the challenge rather than doing so privately, he disqualified himself from being able to be a participant. I notified him of this under both of the comments he had left on my blog.

Interestingly, based on McCairn’s acceptance statement, he seems to agree with us that the proper scientific validation studies have not been performed:

“I have seen your video asking for laboratories to test the underlying assumptions regarding virology.

I have, available to me, all the laboratory facilities and animal facilities required to perform these experiments.”

“I believe that you will not accept the offer of lab facilities or put forward the money to fund such studies. I have publicly sent this email so people will know if you are lying about your intentions to engage in a proper scientific investigation.”

It appears rather clearly that McCairn is admitting that the proper scientific investigation testing the underlying assumptions of virology have never been carried out. He offered to do the proper scientific investigation we are seeking thus admitting that the investigations up to this point have been neither proper nor scientific. This is exactly our point as none of the virology studies adhere to the scientific method and are therefore by definition pseudoscience.

Beyond McCairn publicly disqualifying himself, he has consistently shown in the past to be disrespectful while making disgusting comments about Dr. Sam Bailey as well as being prone to resorting to ad hominem attacks. This behavior can be seen on full display in a recent debate with Dr. Mark Bailey:

McCairn’s disrespectful and disgusting behavior can also be seen in this recent email exchange with Christine Massey:

Once again Steve, character counts and you should understand why we do not want to associate with McCairn based on his repeated pattern of inappropriate behavior.

“When McCairn pointed out that the challenge was accepted and the originators then didn’t reply, Christine ostensibly threatened McCairn with legal action. You really can’t make this stuff up. Here’s the actual email exchange with McCairn’s acceptance and also a debate offer from Dr. Fleming.”

As I stated previously, this is a flat out lie that no one responded to McCairn. I replied to McCairn letting him know that he had disqualified himself by announcing publically his intended participation. Obviously, this would defeat the purpose of blinding the labs to each other if they all announce their acceptance to the world. However, McCairn never responded back to me for some reason:

“Now of course, they will then tell their followers that McCairn, Fleming, and I are all bad people and they don’t want to waste their time with us.”

We allow people to judge you all based upon your responses and your actions. To anyone looking at the exchanges any of us have had with Fleming and McCairn, it is fairly obvious why we do not wish to engage with either of them again. In regards to Steve, he was approached to sign on as a signatory as a interested party willing to see how this challenge worked out. There was no financial requirement for him to do so. It was all in the interest of both sides coming together halfway in order to see the proper scientific validation and control experiments carried out. However, Steve declined and decided to try and change the narrative to the “No Virus” side being unwilling to debate his “experts.”

This was never about a debate Steve. This is about proving whether or not the methods used by virologists are valid and that the particles assumed to be “viruses” exist as sold. One must wonder why you have no interest in seeing this process play out.

From Sin Lee confirming the lack of accuracy of the PCR test

He wrote me:

The PCR tests for COVID-19 have at least 40% false positive rates and an unknown % of false negatives. The antigen tests may work when the viral loads are very high. But even the CDC has publicly advised that all antigen positive cases be retested by PCR. 

The PCR test kits at best have 42% false positive rates as I reported in this preprint manuscript: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202204.0091/v1

Oddly enough, it appears we have an area that we can all somewhat agree on. PCR test results are inaccurate. While Sin Lee gives them at best a 42% false-positive rate, the true number is actually 100% false-positive rate as no PCR test has ever been calibrated and validated against purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses:”

This is from the FDA emergency use authorization of the CDC’s PCR test used in the USA:

“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.”

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

From the Drosten PCR Test used around the world:

“The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable while there is growing evidence that the outbreak is more widespread than initially thought, and international spread through travellers does already occur.”

“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”

“In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/

Thus, all results from the tests are absolutely meaningless. There are many other reasons why PCR is inaccurate, from the prevalence problem to the issues of contamination, all of which can be found here.

“I asked him directly, is the virus real? He wrote back:

Of course, the virus is real. 

Sanger sequencing electropherograms do not come out of thin air. It is the genetic fingerprint of the virus.

Sanger sequencing is the gold standard for confirming the presence of the virus.”

Apparently, if Steve asks Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist and director of Conneticut’s Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, if a “virus” is real and the Dr. answers “yes,” it is case closed. Of course, both Steve and Dr. Lee want you to believe that A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is all the evidence that is needed in order to prove the existence of a “virus.” No purified and isolated “virus” is necessary if the computer assembles a theoretical genome of an invisible entity. They will tell you PCR is inaccurate but in the same breath tell you Sanger sequencing of unpurifued samples is the “gold standard” to confirm the presence of a “virus.”

However, is Sanger sequencing the “gold standard” or is it NAAT’s?

“The “gold standard” for clinical diagnostic detection of SARS-CoV-2 remains laboratory-based (moderate- and high-complexity) NAATs.”

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antigen-tests-guidelines.html

Or is the gold standard “viral” culturing?

“During our Open Evidence Review of oral-fecal transmission of Covid-19, we noticed how few studies had attempted or reported culturing live SARS-CoV-2 virus from human samples.

This surprised us, as viral culture is regarded as a gold standard or reference test against which any diagnostic index test for viruses must be measured and calibrated, to understand the predictive properties of that test. In viral culture, viruses are injected in the laboratory cell lines to see if they cause cell damage and death, thus releasing a whole set of new viruses that can go on to infect other cells.”

Are you infectious if you have a positive PCR test result for COVID-19?

So many “gold standards” to choose from, so little time. However, without purified and isolated particles proven to be pathogenic, there is no standard. It amounts to nothing more than:

“When I press these folks on why any given study doesn’t meet their standards, I don’t get technical rebuttals. I get “Gates funded it” or “Fauci funded it” types of answers which dismiss most of the evidence we have unfortunately. [i.e., they dismiss our evidence not for technical reasons, but based on who funded the research]”

The above section is quoted from one of Steve’s anonymous experts. If he/she is not getting technical rebuttals, he/she is not talking to the right people. Perhaps Steve’s anonymous expert would like to reach out to any of the signatories on the challenge for a technical rebuttal that does not involve Gates and Fauci? I assure you, we exist. All you have to do is contact us.

Sin Lee’s challenge

Sin wrote:

Tom Cowan claimed the virus has not been isolated. But the virus has been isolated by the CDC and marketed by ATCC as the control materials. I bought the virus as the control for my CLIA tests. Many others do.

I know others that use the ATCC materials and they work as expected. If the virus doesn’t exist, then how is that possible? Also, ATCC wouldn’t be able to sell anything.

Sin also wrote the following challenge which I refer to below as the “Sin Lee challenge”:

I have a Preprint manuscript currently under peer review.

There is irrefutable Sanger sequencing evidence that the virus exists and keeps mutating.

If anyone disagrees, please write a critique to challenge my data and interpretation online in the open. I will respond. Other scientists can join in for the debate. 

So if the virus doesn’t exist, you simply explain how it is possible he got the results in the paper. Simple.

The Sin Lee Challenge. This is the crux of Steve’s article. Instead of joining our proposal and working with us to put the methods of virology to a proper scientific test, Steve and Co. decided to try to change the narrative. They know 100% that they will always lose on the issue of purification and isolation. This was made abundantly clear in Steve’s previous article on purification:

“Also, the people I talk to fully acknowledge there is no purified virus, but that it isn’t needed because they can do everything they need to do without it. Lanka et al. claim it is needed. So it’s now just a matter of opinion. Neither side is going to convince the other side. That’s what happened.”

“The reason nobody has purified the virus is there is no need to do so in today’s world where gene sequencing is readily available.”

Steve wants you to believe that the lack of a purified and isolated “virus” is not important:

In place of any actual physical and tangible evidence for the existence of the particles assumed to be “viruses,” Steve and Co. want to offer you this instead:

Who needs actual direct proof for the existence of a “virus” when you can have this beautifully crafted arrangement of random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database? This kind of “logic” reminds me of a certain scene in Dumb and Dumber:

Steve and Co. want you to believe that genomic sequencing is all that is required in order to prove the existence of a “virus.” This is their “irrefutable evidence” as there is no purified and isolated “viral” particles anywhere in Dr. Sin Lee’s paper. There are no electron microscopy images of the isolated particles. There is no proof of pathogenicity by subjecting the assumed “viral” particles to a susceptible host recreating the same disease. There is no re-isolation and re-purification of the assumed “viral” particles from the challenged host. There is no independent reproducibility nor replication of the results. There is no adherence to the scientific method. All you will find in this paper, said to be “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” is data. Period.

It seems that Steve and Co. either ignored or did not heed the warnings of Charles Calisher and 13 other veteran virologists back in 2001:

“Although all that is terrific, says Calisher, a string of DNA letters in a data bank tells little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, how it makes people sick, or whether antibodies to other viruses might protect against it. Just studying sequences, Calisher says, is “like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprints.“

The Old Guard of Virology Warn About the Ways of the New Guard and Their Molecular Toys

Steve and Co. would also do well to read this informative 2015 paper by Edward R. Dougherty, the Scientific Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Genomic Systems Engineering, who spoke extensively about the epistemological crisis in genomics and how the accumulation of genomic data is not science:

“High-throughput technologies such as gene-expression microarrays have lead to the accumulation of massive amounts of data, orders of magnitude in excess to what has heretofore been conceivable. But the accumulation of data does not constitute science, nor does the a postiori rational analysis of data.”

“Here we focus on how the experimental method leads to a general scientific epistemology and how contemporary genomic research often fails to satisfy the basic requirements of that epistemology, thereby failing to produce valid scientific knowledge.”

The Epistemological Crisis in Genomics

Data accumulation is not science. Presenting said data is not “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of an entity never seen in a purified and isolated state. The collection of data does not replace the requirement for evidence that adheres to the scientific method which requires a valid independent variable (i.e. purified/isolated particles) in order to determine cause and effect. It does not matter what Sin’s indirect computer-generated evidence shows as it can not take the place of having the necessary direct physical proof. These strings of DNA letters in a data bank tells little or nothing no matter how badly Steve and Co. want to convince you otherwise. For more on why this genomic evidence is invalid, Dr. Mark Bailey wrote an excellent article breaking down the problems with the Sin’s paper here.

For a further breakdown of the Sin Lee paper, please watch this Dr. Tom Cowan webinar recorded 7/27/22:

https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/28/a-follow-up-to-the-virus-challenge-7-27-22-dr-tom-cowan-webinar-with-dr-andrew-kaufman-mike-stone-and-mike-donio/

Fraudulent foundation.

While the illogical claim that genomic data is somehow “irrefutable evidence” of a “virus” is bad enough, there is an even larger issue lurking underneath the surface here that needs addressing. Why are Steve and Co. relying on a non-peer-reviewed preprint study from June 2022 as their “irrefutable evidence” to begin with? Shouldn’t the “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” come from the initial “virus isolation” studies from January 2020 to March 2020?

  1. The Fan Wu Paper (the genome):
  2. The Zhou Paper (“virus” isolation):
  3. The Zhu Paper (first EM images):
  4. The Park Paper (first patient in Korea):
  5. The CDC Paper (first patient in US):

These were the studies that claimed that a new “virus” with a new disease existed. The Fan Wu paper is where the original genome was produced. The Zhou paper has the isolation of the “virus.” The Zhu paper is where the original EM images came from. The Park paper is from the first patient in Korea while the CDC paper is from the first patient in the US showing the supposed spread of the “virus.” These papers are the foundational evidence presented in the case made before the public for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” yet Steve and Co. did not choose a single one of these as the “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” Why would that be?

Could it be that because Steve and Co. admit that purification (and therefore isolation) has not taken place, that they already know that they have lost the battle? The physical evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” in and of itself does not exist. It is admitted within these papers by the authors themselves that they can only provide an association yet not proof that “SARS-COV-2” causes disease due to a small sample size as well as the inability to fullfill Koch’s Postulates, the very criteria needed to be met in order to prove a disease-causing pathogen exists:

Fan Wu:

Although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study29.”

Zhou:

“The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.”

Zhu:

Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include identification of a 2019-nCoV antigen in the lung tissue of patients by immunohistochemical analysis, detection of IgM and IgG antiviral antibodies in the serum samples from a patient at two time points to demonstrate seroconversion, and animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”

Many of the authors of these early studies also admitted to not purifying their “viruses:”

No Purification = No Isolation.

If the foundational papers supplied as evidence for “SARS-COV-2” are not “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” this means that the case for the existence of this “virus” was built upon a faulty and fraudulent foundation. As all other studies that have been conducted since are built upon this same faulty and fraudulent foundation, this means that they too share this very designation, including Dr. Sin Hang Lee’s paper which relied on previous fraudulent genomic data to produce his own results. Steve and Co.’s “irrefutable evidence” is not scientific evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” at all. It’s nothing but genomic data.

“I told him we are interested in resolving the issue as well so we can put it to bed, and suggested we collaborate on defining the challenge. A challenge defined by parties on both sides is what you want if you want to convince the other side.

He wrote back:

Hi Steve, the challenge is clear, simple and doable, if any of these folks have specific requests or questions about the full protocol which is to come, please have them send them to us.   There is no need to proceed in the stepwise manner you suggest.   All the best, Tom

That didn’t sound like someone who is interested in collaborating with others to find out what the truth is.”

I’m not sure what the full context of this exchange was and I’m not even sure what to make of it here based on this single snippet. It seems Steve wants to collaborate. Great, this is the reason we reached out to him. Dr. Cowan responded to Steve by telling him to send specific requests and questions about the full protocol (which is undecided and yet to be put together) to us in order for them to be addressed. The “action of working with someone to produce or create something” is the very essence of collaborating. How is Dr. Cowan’s response not in lockstep with that? Steve wants you to believe that we are unwilling to work together, which is obviously not the case at all.

“We are claiming the virus exists which is different that has it been isolated based on YOUR definition of isolated. Different people have different definitions of what that term “isolation” means in virology, as I’m sure you must be aware of.”

Steve is really having a hard time understanding and grasping the meaning of the word isolation, even though I already explained it to him previously. Once again, for old time’s sake:

Isolation

1the state of being in a place or situation that is separate from others: the condition of being isolated

2the act of separating something from other thingsthe act of isolating something

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

Isolate

1: to set apart from others

2to select from among others especiallyto separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state

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

There is no “OUR” definition of isolation/isolate. There is only THE definition for isolation/isolate. If Steve is going to claim that virologists get to make up their own definition which is the complete opposite of the accepted definitions for these words, he must show who determined this definition change, why it is valid, and where in any dictionary the term isolation/isolate means the mixing of many substances together in a culture.

“Here’s one of their products for SARS-CoV-2. Note the world “isolated.” It is the RNA that is isolated, not “the virus.” This doesn’t mean that that the virus doesn’t exist. If the virus didn’t exist, they wouldn’t be able to sell the isolated RNA of the virus.”

Here, once again, Steve is trying to fool you with genomics. According to his thought process, if a manufacturer claims it is selling you “viral RNA,” the “virus” must exist. Manufacturers can not just sell you something that doesn’t exist, correct? Well, companies definitely can sell you something that doesn’t exist such as a plot of land on the moon or naming a star after a loved one. Obviously, these are gimmicks that play on people’s emotions.

As far as “viral” RNA is concerned, these companies are selling lab-created cell cultured concoctions with the claim that “viral” RNA exists within it. Interestingly, they do not stand by the accuracy of any claims, as noted in the product sheet for the “viral” RNA product Steve supplied:

“While ATCC uses reasonable efforts to include accurate and up-to-date information on this product sheet, ATCC makes no warranties or representations as to its accuracy. Citations from scientific literature and patents are provided for informational purposes only. ATCC does not warrant that such information has been confirmed to be accurate or complete and the customer bears the sole responsibility of confirming the accuracy and completeness of any such information.”

https://www.atcc.org/api/pdf/product-sheet?id=VR-3347D

As previously explained, “SARS-COV-2” has never been scientifically proven to exist in a purified and isolated state. As the assumed “viral” RNA comes from an unpurifued cell-cultured source that contained many other host and foreign genetic materials used in its creation, there is no evidence that the RNA comes from a “virus” whatsoever. In fact, all “viral” RNA and sequences are most likely nothing more than a mixture of human, animal, bacterial, fungal, and other unknown sources of genetic material. These mixtures of RNA are claimed as “viral” and added to a database in order to build a “viral” library. There is no evidence whatsoever that any RNA ever came from any “virus.”

“However, the bet was overturned on appeal not because the virus was proven not to exist, but because Lanka cleverly specified the challenge as “a SINGLE paper.”

“The bet was disingenuous. If Lanka really wanted to answer the scientific question about measles, then why the single paper limitation? That’s not how science works. If the existence and size measurement is covered in six papers, why is that not sufficient? As far as I know, there is no “single paper” requirement of science to prove anything.”

While I will not go in depth on the measles “virus” trial as it has been covered extensively in many other places, especially this excellent breakdown by Feli Popescu, I will point out a few things. First, these are the six papers supplied by David Bardens:

1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.

2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85

3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

4. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.

5. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.

6. Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.

As can be seen, we have papers from over the course of six decades. The first, from John Franklin Enders in 1954, is the original publication claiming the isolation of the measles “virus” and it established the cell culture techniques still in use by virologists today. Thus, all other papers supplied were built upon the foundation of this single paper. Yet, the court decided that NONE of these papers, even the original Enders paper claiming the proof for the isolation of the measles “virus,” was sufficient as evidence alone that the measles “virus” exists. In other words, the very paper claiming the existence and isolation of the measles “virus” was not “irrefutable proof” and could not win a court case. Let that sink in.

Interestingly, even though Steve is claiming that the single paper limitation is not how science works, he is standing by a single June 2022 paper from Dr. Sin Hang Lee as his “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” That seems rather hypocritical Steve, don’t you think?

“The fastest way to settle this is a debate. Otherwise, we’ll be waiting about a year for the challenge to complete (assuming they can raise the $1M required to fund the challenge).”

If you are qualified to discuss the topic (e.g., you have read and understand Sin Lee’s papers cited above and can explain to us how he goofed in your application since he thinks the virus exists), we’ll have the debate. Simply provide a scientifically plausible hypothesis explaining his observations. If it wasn’t a virus he sequenced, what was it? Or conversely, in your lab if you proved the samples from ATCC do not contain parts of the the SARS-CoV-2 genome as advertised, show us evidence of that.

Alternatively, simply show us your CDC 0728 permit and proof you work there (e.g., use your work email address).”

Steve and Co. will debate you…but only if you have the proper “unique” credentials as well as a scientific hypothesis and refutation of Dr. Sin Lee’s paper that they will accept. You must also have a social media following it appears:

If you believe either:

  1. SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist
  2. viruses in general don’t exist

then I challenge you to a $1M bet.

If you are confident you got it right, you should jump at the chance to double your money. If you don’t have $1M, do a fundraiser and tell people this is a slam dunk and it’s a great way for them to double their money. After all, if you are right, you should have PLENTY of people who believe in you since you represent the truth.

While I was finishing up this article, Steve decided to add more fuel to the fire by challenging those of us who released the Debunking the Nonsense presentation to a $1 million dollar debate challenge. He also wrote his own article on his blog about his latest attempt to divert and distract from the No “Virus” Challenge he was presented with that is intended to either validate or invalidate the methods used by virologists. This trick by Steve and Co. is designed to make those of us challenging virology look like we are not confident in our position if we decline his one million dollar offer. However, it should be fairly clear that none of us have a cool million dollars lying around just in case we are challenged to a debate by millionaires. Steve might as well have have offered us this:

As I said previously, Steve and Co. are not interested in validating the methods of virology scientifically. They are interested in changing the narrative as quickly as possible to a debate, an area that they feel they have a tactical advantage on for some strange reason. However, a debate is not in the spirit of collaboration and comraderie. A debate does not settle the question as to whether or not the methods of virology are valid. A debate does not determine the existence of a replication-competent intracellular parasite transferring from person-to-person causing the same exact disease. The time for debating is over. Even past Steve agreed that debating is a pointless endeavor:

“That us why debating Kaufman and his collaborators is fruitless: each side will dig in on their own definitions and settle nothing.”

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/has-the-virus-been-isolated-yes?fbclid=IwAR14YOf73MLPEa34XXu5oGL4lZmnOYZnPCN6li8rhcmPIYwdbRomJB3IAV4

“People have asked me to debate whether the virus has been isolated. I’m not willing to invest my time in this debate because it’s off topic for me and doesn’t advance my agenda. If I win, nothing changes. If I lose, nothing changes. Why would I spend time educating myself in this area to achieve nothing?”

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/does-anyone-want-to-debate-does-the

It is time to perform the proper scientific experiments which adhere to the scientific method with valid controls. This is the only way this gets settled.

In Summary:

  • Steve Kirsch was offered the chance to collaborate and participate in the “No Virus”challenge yet he declined
  • Steve claimed that Christine Massey would not debate him which was never the intention for any of us for reaching out to him about this challenge in the first place
  • Steve claimed that we would not debate Richard Fleming, a man who has shown himself to be a dishonorable debater in the past
  • Steve engaged in at least 3 logical fallacies trying to get us to explain to him how and why both he and his wife did not get sick from a “virus”
    1. Affirming the consequent
    2. False cause
    3. Burden of proof
  • Steve claimed that we were not willing to debate Kevin McCairn, another man who has shown himself to be dishonorable in debates and who has engaged in disgusting comments directed at both Christine Massey and Dr. Sam Bailey
  • Steve falsely claimed that none of us responded to McCairn’s acceptance even though I had told McCairn he had disqualified himself by publicy announcing his intention as the goal is for the labs to be blinded to each other
  • There is some area of agreement between all of us as we all seem to agree that the PCR tests are inaccuate
  • Steve and Dr. Sin Lee proposed the Sin Lee Challenge as a way to distract from the “No Virus” challenge as well making it as a requirement to debate
  • Steve wants you to forget about the required evidence of purified/isolated “virus” which he and his experts admitted did not exist in the past in order to believe that Sin’s genomic data is “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2”
  • In 2001, virologist Charles Calisher, along with 13 other veteran virologists, warned that a string of DNA letters in a data bank tells little or nothing and just studying sequences is “like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprints.“
  • In 2015, Edward R. Dougherty, the Scientific Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Genomic Systems Engineering, wrote a paper stating that the accumulation of data does not constitute science, nor does the a postiori rational analysis of data and that contemporary genomic research often fails to satisfy the basic requirements of that epistemology, thereby failing to produce valid scientific knowledge
  • Steve wants you to believe that Sin’s pre-print non-peer-reviewed paper published in June 2022 is “irrefutable evidence” even though it lacks:
    1. Purified and isolated “viral” particles
    2. EM images of the particles
    3. Proof of pathogenicity
    4. Reproducibility and replication
    5. Proper controls
  • Meanwhile, Steve and Co. failed to offer any of the original “SARS-COV-2” studies presented from January to March 2020 as their “irrefutable evidence”
  • These papers include:
    1. The Fan Wu Paper (the genome)
    2. The Zhou Paper (“virus” isolation)
    3. The Zhu Paper (first EM images)
    4. The Park Paper (first patient in Korea)
    5. The CDC Paper (first patient in US)
  • Some of the author’s of these papers admitted to not fulfilling Koch’s Postulates, the very criteria needed to be met in order to prove a new pathogen causing disease exists, while others admitted to not purifying the “virus”
  • Sin’s studies and all others that came after those originals are built from the false and fraudulent foundations of these original publications
  • Steve attenpted to make the case that Dr. Cowan did not want to collaborate even though Dr. Cowan asked Steve to send specific requests and questions about the full protocol (which is undecided and yet to be put together) to us in order for them to be addressed
  • Steve is still under the impression that isolation means the combination of many elements together
  • Steve is also under the belief that if a company claims it is selling “viral” RNA, this is proof that they are selling “viral” RNA, even though the company cited by Steve admits that it will not back the accuracy of any of its claims about its products
  • Steve attempted to claim that the Dr. Lanka’s measles trial was disingenuous as Dr. Lanka asked for a single paper to be provided as evidence which Steve claims is not scientific
  • Steve then hypocritically challenged anyone to refute Sin Lee’s SINGLE paper he claims as “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” as a requirement to debate his experts
  • If you want to debate Steve, you must also have the proper “unique” credentials as well as a social media following, thus showing that Steve is failing to live up to the promise he set for his organization to encourage questions and an open dialogue of transparency on any medical and scientific information presented

As I said before, it was not my intention to ever respond to another Steve Kirsch article. He has consistently shown me that he does not understand the very topic he is writing about. This is not just my own assessment as it is even admitted by Steve publically that it is his experts feeding him his information (as well as apparently his opinion) as Steve is no expert himself. However, I was holding out hope that a man of science would be interested in actually participating in a challenge designed to perform the proper scientific validation irregardless of the outcome. I had hoped Steve would see the value in putting aside any differences and to work with us in a joint effort to see what the science truly shows when performed as closely to the scientific method as possible. Steve has shown interest in the past in actually funding and performing independent research:

So it’s up to us if we want answers

“Private individuals can fund the needed experiments and have them performed at one of the 10 BSL3 labs in the US.

The cost to do these experiments to show conclusively that the vaccines are both dangerous and ineffective is less than $10M.

I would fund this myself if I had a spare $10M sitting around, but I don’t.

And I haven’t found a philanthropist in the world who is interested, able, and willing to fund the research.”

However, instead of Steve and Co. working with us to get the necessary scientific research performed, we received a declination and a hit-piece. Rather than joining us in a scientific endeavor, Steve would prefer to sit on the sidelines while challenging us to engage in debate with his “experts,” a strategy that he has stated in the past is a fruitless waste of time that will change nothing. Steve has decided to counter our efforts to come together by setting forth with a divisive challenge of his own. In order to win this debate, we must agree to his terms. We must tackle his experts and his “irrefutable evidence” made up of genomic data given to him in pre-print form by Dr. Sin Lee. To win, we must defeat the genomic “virus” of Sin.

Let’s be very clear. The time for verbal sparring is over and genomic data is not “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of a “virus.” These are tactics used by Steve and Co. to distract from the challenge at hand and to change what they see as a losing narrative for their position. If Steve and Co. were truly interested in settling this debate, they would realize that a war of words is not required. Action is. If Steve and Co. were truly interested in science, they would join us in support of carrying out the proper scientific validation and controls. The fact that they declined the offer and would rather carry on with a verbal boxing match should tell you everything that you need to know.

90 comments

  1. In order not to undermine their authority as scientists in front of the popular masses, so-called scientists who have official credentials claim that if you do not have credentials from those who are in charge of the Academic System (i.e., if you do not have credentials from the so-called leaders of the Scientific World, who are appointed to their leadership positions by the satanists who rule the World: Jesuits, royal families, financiers, politicians, militarists, industrialists, etc.)… you are not a real scientist and what you state is devoid of any real scientific value.

    Like

  2. Just like the so-called micrographs made with the so-called electron microscope, biochemical characterization and sequencing are just scams devoid of any real scientific value, on the basis of which, if you are one of the countless scammers with official credentials considered scientists, you can pretend all you want to be able to back up your lies.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Like the so-called micrographs taken with the so-called electron microscope, biochemical characterization and sequencing are mere scams devoid of any real scientific value, on the basis of which, if you are one of the countless fraudsters with official credentials considered scientists, you can declare everything what do you want to be able to support your lies.

    Like

  4. Mike,
    This is an excellent response. I literally was starting to second guess myself (having a surreal moment) if it was possible that I and many others are mistaken in believing that the terrain is everything and the germ theory is a complete fabrication. I truly appreciate you taking the time and energy to respond to his ramblings and snapping me out of the near-trance I was under.
    I see that Steve & Co. are nothing more than the typical controlled opposition puppets of TPTB doing what they’re told. Their job is to absolutely draw in as many people as possible from the truth seekers’ side using diversion tactics in order to distract from the challenge, create excessive drama with the back-and-forth responding/bickering about senseless attacks on their part, instill confusion (like I fell prey to, momentarily), degrade the importance of what must be done – the challenge – and cause divisions amongst the different schools of thought on this topic.
    This will only lead to nothing getting done.
    I know you and all the people involved in trying to get to the bottom of the truth have INTEGRITY and SELF-RESPECT. It’s clear to me that honest individuals such as yourselves want to see this issue put to the test properly and authentically, so it can be put to rest once and for all. We all do!
    You’ve done a fabulous job of clearing up the BS Steve (& Co.) had written. Now, it’s time to leave them in the dust of the garbage dump of their own making and stay focused on the goal. People like that don’t deserve anyone’s time and energy, nor our respect. They are NOBODIES in the eyes of truth seekers, and NO MATTER in the world of truth.
    Their hit pieces are nothing more than bait. Let’s swim away together letting them keep their bait! 🐳🐠🐬🐡🐟🦈🐋

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you Udon for the kind words and support! 🙂 I agree completely that it is time to leave Steve and Co., as well as the rest of the pied pipers, behind. They have shown their true colors as they continue to try to divide and distract. Our energy is better spent elsewhere.

      Like

  5. I quote from the article:
    „An 87-year-old Iranian man who has been living on the streets and hasn’t taken a bath in almost seven decades recently baffled scientists with his good health.

    We first wrote about Amou Haji in 2014, dubbing him ‘the world’s dirtiest man‘. At the time, he was living in a small village in Southern Iran’s Fars province, surviving on roadkill and dirty water, and staying as far from bathwater as possible, thinking it would make him sick. He was 80-years-old at the time and appeared to be in good overall health, despite his questionable hygiene and living conditions. Well, apparently not much has changed since then, as a team of doctors recently conducted a series of tests that showed he was in surprisingly good health.

    Photos and articles about Amou Haji have been doing the rounds on social media ever since his story originally went viral, over seven years ago. After all, his way of life is pretty incredible, in a time when many of us probably bathe more than we should. We once wrote about an Indian man who hadn’t bathed in 38 years, but at 67 years without a bath, Haji most likely holds the world record.

    If anything, I was a bit surprised that it took a team of scientists so long to track down the octagenarian and run some tests on him to get some insight into the life of a person who shunned bathing so many decades ago, instead living in what can only be described as thoroughly unhygienic conditions. But, better late than never, I guess.

    A team of doctors led by associate professor of parasitology, Dr Gholamreza Molavi, from the School of Public Health in Tehran visited Amou Haji in the village of Dejgah and convinced him to let him run some tests. They included tests for various forms of hepatitis and AIDS as well as parasites.

    Dr. Molavi and his team were particularly interested in finding and studying the parasites and bacteria that might have developed in his unwashed body, but were surprised to find no disease-causing bacteria or parasites, except for Trichinosis, an infection that, in his case, appeared to be producing no symptoms.

    The discovery was particularly shocking considering that the 87-year-old regularly consumes raw roadkill like porcupines and rabbits, drinks untreated water from puddles using unwashed rusty cans, and reportedly smokes dry animal feces if he doesn’t have tobacco for his pipe.

    Dr Gholamreza Molavi believes that the only logical explanation for the test results is that Amou Haji has developed an enormously strong immune system over decades of living in extremely harsh conditions.

    Despite his good health, 87-year-old Amou Haji routinely has to deal with the meanness of his fellow humans, many of whom taunt him and even physically abuse him, simply because of his lifestyle choices. The local governor recently appealed for people to leave him alone, saying that, despite his appearance, he was a gentle soul that never caused anyone any harm.”

    https://hamariweb.com/articles/150120?fbclid=IwAR0swaaEQALst8Jk8EsfEjTdWZOYWILf7DhzalXTMmEFL0kdpaID2dCe2-E

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I have only had time to skim this for about 10 minutes, but WOW what I want to say is that this is an example of a post that deserves a thorough reading by everyone involved. The tone and content is respectful and professional, and yet very hard hitting, and that is what I have come to expect from Mike. Keep up the GREAT work Mike, I know you will. What I see from Kirsch and others is psychology and emotions trumping logic and the honest pursuit of knowledge. Science is ostensibly offered up as a methodological framework to prevent exactly this from occuring.

    Also: character matters. So I applaud Mike (loudly!) and Christine (🥰) and others fir exposing the communications that have gone on, the proposals made and declined, and all the details. No blog post is too long when it comes to presenting an accurate account of these very important matters.

    Anyone reading this who is new to this debate (we wish!) and new to this rabbit hole please know that there are many of us who have followed this closely over the past two plus years and it’s clear as day where the points go for “good character”. This is not to say that others are “bad people”, using terms like that isn’t good character in my book and I have never heard Mike use terms like that in all the time I have known him.

    The character assassination attempts are coming from Kirsch and others, and they try to hide this fact by saying that they are being maligned. Nope. They are being exposed, unfortunately, as being of poor character through Mike and others using their own words as proof. This is fair fighting in my book.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thanks Carolyn! 🙂 I don’t like to get into these back-and-forths but I also do not like allowing misinformation and flat-out lies to stand unchallenged. I covered everything I felt I needed to say with this article and I don’t plan on wasting any more time responding to Kirsch and Co. If they want to settle the debate, they can join our challenge and work with us to get the proper scientific experiments set up. Everything else is just a distraction at this point.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I thought the article was going to be about a ‘mind-capture’ virus of irrevocable guilt set by convicted hate into mutual pacts of masking non-disclosure – such as to deny light of truth that fear says will utterly damn the sinner.

    Ok – I guess it was…!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Mike, you are usually very thorough, but this is REALLY thorough. And devastating to the “virus pushers against clot shots” brigade, of which Steve Kirsch appears to be a principal backer, both financially and also in terms of offering mass media space. My large email lists and FB friends’ pages appear saturated with the work of this group, so this article is a VITAL antidote to all that noise. It is alarming how many “resistance” people i know just go on infinitely reciting out of official recipe books about positive tests and people “getting sick” as if that’s proof of not only a virus, but a specific one, and refuse to answer the very simplest of questions, such as “what do these tests detect? How were they calibrated?….” They are letting the likes of Kirsch and “fuel me” Fuellmich do their “thinking” for them Thanks!!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You are most welcome Jeffrey! 🙂 It is at the point where we draw the lines. Anyone pushing the “virus” narrative who is unwilling to support putting the virology methods to the proper scientific test is not on our side. We know who they truly support.

      Like

  9. If I’m not mistaken the method of sequencing they use requires a template. Since they claim it is a new virus where did they get the template from? From the new virus? Nope. Because they didn’t have the virus to create the template from. But they claim to have sequenced the virus from a template. Confused? Well you should be. But they say you shouldn’t be confused because they used a template from an older virus. Never mind that the older virus was once a new virus that they sequenced from a template from a yet older virus. So where did the first template come from to sequence the yet older virus when it was new? They made it up and hoped you would forget.

    By the way, no one has been nominated for a Nobel prize for proving the germ theory of disease by isolating the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The germ theory is still germ theory even after the isolation of SARS-CoV-2. This simply means that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a theoretical virus like all the other viruses.

    To prove the germ theory of disease as fact someone, somewhere in this great big world full of disease causing germs and viruses, would have to produce the guilty party (not merely a person of interest) to establish as fact causation and then that person would get the Nobel prize and germ theory would become germ law or the law of the germ. This hasn’t happened.

    But let me tell you what happened at the golf course just the other day. I wasn’t playing golf, just walking through the course, and when I came upon the seventh green, lo and behold, there were golf balls all over the green and the hole in the green was blowed out to three feet in diameter. (I know from before it was only three inches in diameter.) Let me tell you what happened even though I wasn’t there to see it. A golf ball fell out of an airplane and went straight into the hole and started multiplying in there until the hole was too small to contain all the balls and the pressure built up and the balls blew out of the hole and enlarged it to three feet in diameter and the balls landed all over the green.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Lol, I love the golf ball analogy! 🤣

      And you are 1000% correct George. There is no original template of a “virus” as none have ever been purified/isolated. Every “viral” genome is a fraudulent Frakensteined theoretical model of something never shown to exist.

      Like

  10. Absolutely superb article Mike. I was compelled to read the Bailey article and then the Matto/Popescu exchange with Voda. You’ve outdone yourself here. Kudos!!!

    Chuckle! You do realize articles of this caliber almost guarantees you will be put on the needs-to-be-ignored list by the pro-virus zealots, don’t you?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Ian! I appreciate the kind words and support! 🙂 I imagine I am already on their ignore list. Hopefully, they won’t be able to ignore this information much longer. 😉

      Like

  11. Because they do not understand what the disease state is and what is the role of its unpleasant symptoms, 99.(9)% of allopathic and naturopathic followers consider it obligatory to oppose the disease state and its symptoms and fight against them with all their might and by all possible means, regardless of the serious adverse effects resulting from this way of relating to the disease state and its unpleasant symptoms.
    ————————————–
    „What the sick need is teachers not treaters, health schools not hospitals, instruction not treatment, education in right living not training the sick habit. Both they and their advisors must get rid of the curing idea and the practices built up thereon.

    Healing is a biological process, not an art. It is as much a function of the living organism as respiration, digestion, circulation, excretion, cell proliferation, or nerve activity. It is a ceaseless process, as constant as the turning of the earth on its axis. Man can neither duplicate nor imitate nor provide a substitute for the process. All schools of healing are frauds.

    Health and disease are the same thing—vital action intended to preserve, maintain, and protect the body. There is no more reason for treating disease than there is for treating health.

    Deep within the human constitution lie written laws of nature that should guide man in the conduct of his life.

    The so-called symptoms of disease are manifestations of an inherent principle of the organism to restore healthy function and to resist offending agents and influences.

    If you desire truly to live you will cease trying to find magic tricks and short-cuts to life and learn the simple laws of being, and order your life in conformity with these. Realign your life with the laws of nature—this and this alone constitutes living to live.

    There are many things to resist, but disease is not one of them.

    So long as the processes of healing were not understood and man thought that the power to heal resided in substances and things outside of him, he logically sought for extrinsic means of healing, and a healing art was a logical development. The system of medicine, as we know it today, was a logical development out of the fallacy that healing power resides in extrinsic sources.

    You don’t need treatment. The fever, inflammation, coughing, etc., constitute the healing process. Just get out of their way and permit them to complete their work. Don’t try to ‘aid’ nature. She doesn’t need your puny aid—she only asks that you cease interfering.”

    – Herbert M. Shelton

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Bravo! This doesn’t just debunk virology, it’s so much more than that, as if that weren’t huge enough. Y’all are raising the bar on public and scientific discourse, and that’s just brilliant. And even better, for me, you are embodying and demonstrating how to deal with major conflict, and this is the kind of example I’ve sought all my life unsuccessfully, including from programs and institutions who have claimed to teach exactly that. We learn best from modeling, but those models must be there in order to learn from them, so where have they been all my life?! Better late than never! 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks so much for the kind words! 🙂 We are definitely trying to raise the scientific standards and keep these institutions honest. I try to do so in a professional way, although sometimes it is hard not to respond emotionally. In any case, I will continue to do my part in trying to raise the bar of the discourse so that we can come together to fix the problems. ❤

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think your approach is better—the traces of emotion are more effective than pure objectivity—you aren’t addressing robots after all. Too emotional doesn’t work, too flat doesn’t work either, you are just right!

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Another superior article for anyone who seeks the truth. Furthermore, medical truth will never be found in the halls of medicine.

    They say there is no cure for acid reflux so you need meds. I basically cured it myself with a 90% success rate. They say that high cholesterol causes heart attacks and therefore you need meds to survive. This is another completely false statement. Read some of Malcolm Kendrick’s wonderful material. I am using herbs instead of any meds.

    They say that type 2 diabetes is incurable therefore you need endless meds. Not so…there are many options like fasting and change of diet that can reverse this disease. But don’t ever ask your no-nothing doctor.

    What about the opioid crises, now taking about 100,000 lives a year. The current crises was basically invented by the Sackler family over 25 years ago with their endless push for using pain killers. But of course, it’s not big pharma’s fault.

    After reading “The Real Anthony Fauci”, the playbook for covid was invented over the last 40 years while fauci pretended to master the fake AIDS virus. To this date, they still don’t know how AIDS develops and there is still no vaccine after nearly 40 years of spending billions to create one. This is where covid is going…decades of total nonsense. Medicine has been
    “fauci-rized” in a reprehensible and tyrannical manner over the four decades.

    Many studies have shown that vaccines had little to do with the eradication of many viruses and diseases. But they still cling to the vaccine model as the cure all for viruses. No proof exists that vaccines are any better than doing nothing at all.

    And we come to the virus parade…the major scam of the universe whereby germ theory is everything, or so they claim. More lunacy, to be sure.

    The common theme here is that much of big medicine is built upon a foundation of lies, half-truths and complete fraud. Big pharma’s next goal, apart from injecting every person on the planet with terrible mRNA gene therapy concoctions forever, is to wipe out the vitamin and supplement industry. Or, get rid of anything that is not a big pharma drug.

    My trust in the medical industry has been eroding for the last 30 years, at least. I have watched too many people be murdered by horrible cancer treatments and have watched people become entranced by their doctors and their putrid drug protocols. It’s surely the blind leading the blind to their demise.

    And as I read elsewhere, it’s not the doctors fault that covid vaccines are maiming and murdering people. It’s not the doctors fault that their prescribed drugs often do more harm than good. Don’t ever tell me that rubbish. It is exactly the fault of the doctors who are on the front lines pushing these fraudulent medical schemes all in the name of making huge incomes and gathering huge payoffs.

    Then again, it’s the brain dead patients who enable this to continue because they seek a “medical” cure for their lives filled with not so healthy living.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. This is what you get when you buy the “virus”
    When I read in these studies “final purification was accomplished…” I need to know why that claim is not valid? There are claims that the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its variants are commercially available. If that is the case why do people say it has not been isolated? If the virus has not been isolated, what are they selling in vials for $1200/vial?

    Dr. Saeed Qureshi – “ You are trapped exactly in the position where “they” (promoters of the virus) like you being in, with the (MISUSE of the) wording “final purification.” In general, you are correctly reading that if someone uses the word “final purification,” it should mean that they purified, and the pure PRODUCT/item is obtained. However, the question is what PRODUCT “they” got. You assume the virus (that is what they like you to hear and believe), but instead, they are giving you the “ISOLATE or LYSATE.” So, read pure “ISOLATE or LYSATE,” NOT THE VIRUS, which is nothing more than gunk/sewage (diluted version of swab sample junk) as I described here:”
    Please consider reading the description carefully. It is not the (isolated) virus but the lysate/isolate, i.e., soup from “culturing” the swab sample. For example, see here
    Heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2, Delta variant
    Under Detailed product information/Comments
    “This isolate is lineage AY.24″
    “The following mutations are present in the clinical isolate:”
    (Note the word “isolate,” which is cell culture/gunk, not the isolated virus)
    Under Shipping information:
    “Each vial contains approximately 0.25 mL of heat-inactivated, clarified cell lysate and supernatant” (note the word “lysate,” which is the soup from the breakup of cells in medium/culture, not the virus).
    For $1200, what’s the customer really buying? A diluted human mucus/phlegm/mucus from swab samples with all kinds of added chemicals (30+), including African green monkey kidney cell (Vero cells) broth.
    In short, they are faking it and lying all the way with confidence and authority!”

    Mike Adams, (Health Ranger) spoke out about his experience in trying to purchase the “Isolated virus” for his lab. – “This whole issue of the so-called isolation came to my attention, because I was very skeptical of what Dr. Cowan and Dr. Kaufman were saying at first. I did not believe what they were saying. And then I guess about a year went by and my laboratory was in the process of trying to purchase PCR instruments from Thermo Fisher.“…”As a laboratory, I went out and tried to purchase this SARS-CoV2 isolate and this is what woke me up to this whole thing. I found companies that were selling so-called ‘standards’ because as you know without the standards you can’t calibrate the instruments. You have to have an external standard that’s usually NIST traceable. I mean all of our standards are NIST traceable, otherwise how do you know what you have and then you have to calibrate your instrument to that standard so that you have a calibration curve of concentrations. You can’t just be theoretical, oh we think that’s what mercury looks like in the machine, no got to tell the machine this is real mercury or whatever, a real virus. And the company selling the standards, they said themselves, oh that their so-called “isolate” was it’s just this; it’s a combination of human cells and bovine cells mixed with what they thought was SARS-CoV2. And basically it was just a snot collection scheme and they were reselling snot as standards, which is quite a lucrative business to labs that are just testing giant snot cocktails. So that’s my story.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Just a note that your are basically right re Mike Adams and the use of PCR to test for contaminants such as e-coli, but that its wasn’t Sars-CoV-2 that he sought and was told it was a matter of downloading the genetic instructions to make. I cant recall with surety what it was, but I’m sure it wasn’t Sars-CoV-2. Though by extension a similar argument would apply.

      Like

  15. Another great post, Mike. I’ve been following people like Kirsch and Mercola for a while now (because they do provide genuinely useful information). But articles like this are convincing me they’re controlled opposition. I give them big credit, though, for fighting against the clot shots.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks CK! I am very suspicious of anyone pushing “safer” treatments while promoting the existence of “viruses” and being unwilling to look at the “virus” issue critically and logically.

      Like

  16. The so-called molecular microbiologists, the so-called geneticists, the so-called virologists and the so-called immunologists can prove absolutely nothing of what they claim. But their big trick is that they don’t have to prove anything they claim, due to the fact that 99.99999% of people blindly and unconditionally believe all their pseudo-scientific lies and scams in the illusory realm of hypothetical submicroscopic particles. So if 99.99999% of people blindly believe all the lies of the so-called submicroscopic scientists… the infinitesimally small remainder of people who no longer believe in the scams of the so-called submicroscopic Science are fighting a heroic but doomed battle. Furthermore, there is an apparent opposition movement whose prominent members refuse to go to the root of the submicroscopic domain and demand DIRECT, UNINTERPRETABLE, REPEATABLE evidence of the existence of hypothetical submicroscopic particles, starting with hypothetical atoms and hypothetical molecules.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. I saw Steve Kirsch’s post on the challenge.
    My response to him was as follows:
    With total respect. You answered your own question.

    “I have no conflicts of interest and I cannot be intimidated. They cannot take away my license to practice medicine because I’m not a doctor. I’m worse. I’m an engineer with two degrees from MIT. And I have a lot of smart friends.”

    Yes, I’m not a doctor.

    So stick to your knitting. You claim there is a virus. You are also not qualified are you? Then follow your training as an engineer, The burden of proof is yours.

    I happen to like Stefan Lanka who is highly qualified. I suspect he wouldn’t waste his time to debate you.

    I found him arrogant to say the least. Based on this challenge post I decided it was a waste of time listening to him to be honest.
    Keep your good work Mike

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks Sunface! I agree that for someone who repeatedly admits that he is not an expert on the subject, Steve comes across very arrogant. I do not plan on giving him any more of my time.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. If you found out what the self-proclaimed scientists in the lying fields of so-called molecular biology are really doing in their so-called reference laboratories… you wouldn’t give a damn about what they claim to have discovered.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Excellent article. However, I disagree with you on one comment about Lanka’s measles-virus challenge: “Interestingly, even though Steve is claiming that the single paper limitation is not how science works, he is standing by a single June 2022 paper from Dr. Sin Hang Lee as his ‘irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2.’” You claim that Kirsch is being hypocritical.
    But it’s fine for Steve to rely on one paper. His criticism of Lanka was that Lanka *required* that the challenge be met with one paper. (Better said, Kirsch claims that Lanka required as much; having seen Kirsch’s recent posts, I no longer accept Kirsch’s statements as direct evidence of anything and need to look at what Lanka specified and/or the court’s interpretation of it.) Meeting a challenge with only one paper is a higher standard than meeting it with several papers. So Kirsch would argue (and I’d agree) that his providing just one paper (Lee’s) is evidence that the claim is clearly true (because it needs only one paper).

    Like

    1. Hi Sanjoy, thanks for the comment! The reason I claim Steve is being hypocritical is due to his comment here:

      “The bet was disingenuous. If Lanka really wanted to answer the scientific question about measles, then why the single paper limitation? THAT’S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. If the existence and size measurement is covered in six papers, why is that not sufficient? As far as I know, there is no “single paper” requirement of science to prove anything.”

      He is stating that there is no one paper requirement as that this is not how science works as a criticism of Lanka asking for one paper providing proof of the measles “virus.” Steve then seems to change his mind and supplies one paper as his “irrefutable evidence” for “SARS-COV-2.” I guess Steve believes the one paper requirement is how science works when it comes to his own argument. He wants to rely on one paper as “irrefutable evidence” to enter his debate challenge.

      However, I do understand your interpretation as well.

      Like

    2. Surely Lanka’s offer of = 10000 Euro was for ANY paper showing scientific proof of the existence of a measles virus. What were brought were 6 (or 7?) circular references that may seem like body of evidences but none of them showed the proof of claim.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. I asked Steve the following questtions:

    “Can these virii have negative health impacts on a person with a robust health system?

    In your view is/was SARS-CoV-2 a particularly contagious/infectious/transmissible virus?”

    His response:

    “yes and yes. what’s the point?”

    I followed up with:

    “So could someone be around a whole bunch of people, a wide variety of people, who all tested positive for “Covid” (some on multiple occasions), be around these people day in and day out, in close proximitiy (literally inches) with these people and do this for months on end (with no masks) and never contract “Covid?”

    Or in your view is it that impossible due to the high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2?”

    He has yet to respond. Let’s see what he says.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. In reality, all the so-called laboratory procedures in the field of submicroscopic particles are just scams from the fairy tale series about the emperor’s new invisible clothes… but which, unfortunately, are accepted as correct and valid even by the 99, 99999% of all who deny the existence of all viruses. He who wishes to go to the root of the fraud in the fields of so-called molecular biology, has only to critically and honestly analyze the validity of the so-called laboratory methods used in the fields of so-called molecular biology, and he will immediately realize that all so-called molecular biology it is just a colossal scam in all its areas.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There are two facets immediately come to mind;
      one is the parameters of what gets funding.
      Ride and Naessons didn’t attract funding for their living microscopy instruments – though I think Naesson’s wasn’t smashed up.
      The other is the lens of erroneous assumptions by which they interpret or augment their findings. Narratives not only mutate but extend new facets.
      The resulting structure or stricture becomes a call for death to release what couldn’t be released in life?

      Like

  22. I read Steves article first. Then yours. He is a small mind and comes off as a petulant child. Your response is one of your finest yet. What you and the team are doing is THE most important work right now. The truth will prevail. Thank you for your perseverance.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks Julie! I didn’t want to respond but it seemed necessary. The response seems to have helped some who were questioning things after Steve’s pieces so in the end it was worth it. 😉

      Like

      1. Thanks Julie! It was a tad nerve-wracking and I didn’t really have a chance to prepare so I wasn’t sure how I did. However, I felt the others nailed it! Thanks for the feedback! 🙂

        Like

  23. In order not to undermine their so-called authority of scientists in front of the popular masses, the so-called scientists who have official credentials claim that if you do not have credentials from those who are in charge of the Academic System (that is, if you do not have credentials from the so-called leaders of the scientific world, who are appointed to their leadership positions by the satanists who rule the World: Jesuits, royal families, financiers, politicians, militarists, industrialists, etc.) means that you are not a true man of science and what you state is devoid of any real scientific value.

    Just like the so-called micrographs taken with the so-called electron microscope…biochemical characterization and sequencing are mere scams devoid of any real scientific value, on the basis of which, if you are one of the countless fraudsters with official credentials who pass themselves off as scientists, you can state anything you want to support your lies.

    The so-called molecular biologists, the so-called geneticists, the so-called virologists and the so-called immunologists can prove absolutely nothing of what they claim to do and to have discovered. But their big trick is that they don’t have to prove anything they claim, due to the fact that 99.99999% of people blindly and unconditionally believe all their pseudo-scientific lies and deceptions from the illusory realm of hypothetical submicroscopic particles. So if 99.99999% of people blindly believe all the lies of the so-called sub-microscopic scientists… the infinitesimally small remainder of people who no longer believe in the scams of so-called sub-microscopic Science lead a heroic battle but doomed to failure.

    Moreover, there is even an apparent opposition movement whose prominent members refuse to go to the root of the sub-microscopic domain and demand DIRECT, UNINTERPRETABLE and REPEATABLE evidence of the existence of hypothetical sub-microscopic particles, starting with hypothetical atoms and hypothetical molecules.

    In reality, if you found out what the self-proclaimed scientists in the lying fields of so-called molecular biology are really doing in their so-called reference labs… you wouldn’t give a damn about what they claim they discovered.

    In fact, all the so-called laboratory procedures in the field of hypothetical sub-microscopic particles are just pseudo-scientific hoaxes, from the series of fairy tales about the emperor’s new invisibility clothes… but which, unfortunately, are accepted as correct and valid even by 99.99999% of those who deny the existence of all viruses. The point is that one who wants to get to the root of fraud in the fields of so-called molecular biology, has only to critically and honestly analyze the validity of the so-called laboratory methods used in the fields of so-called molecular biology, and he will immediately realize that all so-called molecular biology is just a colossal fraud in all its aspects.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Specialised cliques will identify a territory as their own and protect it. Other specialised disciplines will use different terms or approaches such as to effect fragmentation and institutional ego – where self-interests are put above the whole of which they originally and properly serve. here you see the basis for the fall of the tower of Babel – relative to any monopolistic ideal/idea, that does set up insider networks of ‘common interest’ that run contra to the original founding ideal. Such as a science that is weaponised to a technologism set over the people it only ostensibly serves as some abstracted human progress.
      I don’t discard that evils are actively enacted and protected by insider cliques, but that they are expressions of the Terrain – but not merely a physical world as modelled and invested. An actual, tangible and directly experienced relationship of which we perceive only ‘symptoms’ or ‘effects’. Projection of a dissonance or imbalance casts out a system of representation. I can link this to the ‘gods of terror’ that run archetypal to our mythic & symbolic narratives, as I can to biological (functional-relational) shocks and Hamer’s GNM. Or to Electric Universe principles of charge separations of self-organising balancing disequilibrium. Ironically I read you as an attempt to drag me back into the Old testament! Which has its place, as does everything in our Human Experience. Demonising denial sets conflict in our receptive to the Field of which we are. Reality is not mocked, but our capacity to recognise and align right relationship is filtered and distorted by what we perceive and react to as real.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. Great work Mike and some good comments.
    ——

    Adding to this guy Kirsch
    Someone posted this.

    https://rumble.com/v1dcl8l-i-interview-virus-denier-patrick-gunnels-to-clarify-his-views.html

    Started it but gave up after 10 minutes, the line of questioning, the arrogance and the ignorance of Kirsch shines through.

    So browsed through the article, seems to be scientifically illiterate and  putting out false information., ad hominem attacks.

    Eg.
    “Now Stefan Lanka comes along and says (I’m paraphrasing here), “whoops. You never PROVED you can isolate a virus! Therefore, it is more likely that they don’t exist because if a virus existed someone should have “isolated it” based on MY definition of isolation, not yours. So we have to accept there is no virus or virology until you meet a set of criteria that I define that are based on the outdated Koch’s postulates and my interpretation of them.”  “

    Dr Lanka making of his own criteria ?
    From what I have heard and Lanka has mentioned the scientific principles codified in Germany after the big scandal of scientific fraud in around 1997

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/nov/08/2

    Click to access BBSRC-260122-SafeGuardingGoodScientificPractice.pdf

    ——

    “ Lanka never uses the single paper argument in the lower court and loses in court based on expert testimony about whether the offer was satisfied. On appeal, Lanka points out the single paper requirement, and the judgement is overturned as a matter of law, not science since higher courts never rule on the evidence”

    Where did he come up with this information ?
    From interviews with Dr Lanka in the lower court, the judge did not even have the papers as part of the documents for which can go to jail.

    https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/all-about-that-measles-trial/

    I had no opinion about this guy Kirsch , no idea who he is and only heard his name mentioned recently but he lost any credibility, he is making up stories and is scientifically illiterate, does not even seem to understand basic secondary school science.

     

    Liked by 2 people

  25. I guess the author just wanted to stick to the scientific facts so let me ghost write the elephant in the room for him:

    Steve’s fund the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) was administered by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
    And has a few famous Globalist donors like:
    Marc Benioff (owns Time Magazine)
    Elon Musk Foundation
    Vanguard Charitable Fund (the very top Globalist fund)

    Any questions?

    Like

  26. This is from Steve’s Substack “Settling the virus debate challenge from Dr. Sam Bailey” where I asked Steve to do a research paper debate. HE THEN ADMITTED TO ME HE HAS NO PAPER PROVING SARS-COV-2 AND SO THIS PROVES HE HAS ALREADY LOST THE DEBATE
    (screen shot on file)
    ———————————————–
    Steve Kirsch
    Author
    Paper debates take years. Why are you camera shy?

    Proton Magic
    Hey Steve
    You are essentially admitting there is no proof of Sars because there is NO PAPER. Great, you’ve lost the debate before it started.
    1. Looking at the Agenda 2030 entities who invest in/fund your early treatment fund (Vanguard, Benioff, was run by a Rockefeller group), and that funding to repurpose drugs will get a use-patent is a conflict of interest for you to be in this discussion to begin with. I don’t think the Bailey’s get anything whether a virus exists or not they will still have their medical platform, making peanuts compared to Vanguard for example who owns lots of Pharma who has a a lot to lose from a stop of the Covid agenda.
    2. Research papers only give info, don’t make snide remarks, ad hominem attacks, diversions, etc. they just state what they did which invites replication if it is done right. The debate Mark Bailey did with Dr. Kevin M only proved that Kevin was a virulent debater. Do Rand Paul and Dr Fauci have debates?
    3. Since Fan Wu (Funded by Gates), Drosten, NIH/CDC and all the wonderful drug companies have lots of cash where is this paper? They all state the science is there to inject 8 bil people. Cost of this research is less then the PR company (Hill+Knowlton?) they all pay to run this hoax.
    Not thinking a paper is necessary is extremely questionable. Either please take a course on medical ethics, and maybe review (relearn?) the scientific method, maybe from your MIT buddy Khan:https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology
    I often take on-line courses, no shame Steve to re-learn basics, step up to the plate and give us a paper or get off the plate no shame. I don’t personally care if there is a virus or not, only the truth.

    Mark
    Why would “paper debates” take years?
    If one has evidence to defend their argument [claim] made at the TIME of accepting the debate, then it should be straight forward;
    Present the evidence [to the moderator[s] and get on with it;

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Please lookup Steve’s background:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_businesspeople

    I doubt this comment is going to get through moderation as it seems Mike Stone won’t allow any valid information on the true rulers of this planet most likely due to the brainwashing Mike has undergone. Breaking out of the mind prison created by Zionist Jews 3,300 years ago is very hard for most people.

    I am happy to debate you directly Mike Stone on this subject matter. Many of the people in the no virus camp are all religious believers. They won’t use the same logic and reasoning applied to their religious beliefs that they do for viruses. This is a shame because they are limiting themselves and ultimately are being controlled by the same people they are fighting against (ie the virus promoters as we see here with Steve). Most people suffer from cognitive dissonance and won’t even engage. The very same response that we receive from virus believers is what I receive from religious believers.

    Here is a great 15 minute clip of the true intention of Zionist Jews:https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1/Jews-Rule-the-World:1

    Christianity, Islam, & Judaism were created and used for mind control to accept the enslavement of humans which is being perpetrated onto us via COVID controls.

    What is the harm in believing in religion especially Islam, Christianity, and Judaism?
    * See the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the maltreatment of women in the name of the Jewish God
    * See circumcision as a sexual mutilation and rape of infant males in the name of the Jewish god
    * See the continued financial and military support of Israel in the name of the Jewish god.

    Like

    1. “I doubt this comment is going to get through moderation as it seems Mike Stone won’t allow any valid information on the true rulers of this planet most likely due to the brainwashing Mike has undergone. Breaking out of the mind prison created by Zionist Jews 3,300 years ago is very hard for most people.

      I am happy to debate you directly Mike Stone on this subject matter. Many of the people in the no virus camp are all religious believers.”

      I literally have no idea what you are rambling on about. I have never blocked any of your comments. I also have no desire to debate you on religion. Let’s please keep the discussion here focused on virology.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Fauchi claims that circumcision prevents STDs and of course Fauchi is a Jew. (https://odysee.com/@imnotdlux:7/just-the-tip:a)

        Circumcision is a religious blood sacrifice ritual that rapes and mutilates infant boy penises. This is done to about 50% of male infants in the USA in either the name of religion (be it viruses, christianity, or judaism). Here is a deep dive from a reformed Jew on the subject https://youtu.be/FCuy163srRc

        Note, at this time, the presenter still believed in the virus fraud but still goes on to debunk the claims made by Fauchi, virologist, and AMA.

        The reality is that circumcision is a religious ritual and those in power (the jews) have used virology to push its widespread adoptance in the USA and the world.

        Circumcision objectionably does NOT provide any protection against STDs and objectionably harms the sexual organ of the person.

        This is the problem with allowing religion to go unchecked. Viruses are just a small part of the overall problem and that is the religious domination of the world.

        Again, Mike Stone doesn’t want to debate this because of his cognitive dissonance. Believing in imaginary things provides comfort to some and applying the scientific method to their believes is a bridge too far.

        Like

      2. “Again, Mike Stone doesn’t want to debate this because of his cognitive dissonance. Believing in imaginary things provides comfort to some and applying the scientific method to their believes is a bridge too far.”

        I do not want to debate religion as it is not my purpose nor intention here on this blog. I am focused on virology. You can assume whatever you want about what I believe. You are doing so to suit your narrative and you are trying to conflate two separate topics.

        Like

      3. “I literally have no idea what you are rambling on about. I have never blocked any of your comments.”

        I made several comments on a reply to my post yesterday. The comments didn’t show up. But looks like 2 of them made it through. Apologies, perhaps it was a technical difficulty with the forum software? https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/22/debunking-the-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-4502

        “I also have no desire to debate you on religion. Let’s please keep the discussion here focused on virology.”

        Why do you use the word ‘sin’ in this post if you have no desire to discuss religion? Sin of course is a religious term and has no valid usage in scientific debate.

        Also, the origin of viruses is found in Judaism and Christianity. Many Christians point to the stories of lepers as the first recording of ‘viruses’.

        Let me remind you, virology is a religion. We are using the scientific method to debunk the religion of virology. And yet you have no interest in doing that for the Abraham religions which are controlling the world? Why? Is it because you KNOW that the result will be the same with viruses? IE, gods do not exist.

        Admitting that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are built on fraud will cause you cognitive dissonance? So instead of addressing the elephant in the room, you choose to ignore it like the virologist do?

        Like

      4. “Why do you use the word ‘sin’ in this post if you have no desire to discuss religion? Sin of course is a religious term and has no valid usage in scientific debate.”

        The title was a play on The Sin Lee Challenge presented by Steve Kirsch. The “virus” of Sin is nothing but genomic data.

        Like

      5. Self-illusion is not a sin – for imagination can and does serve life.
        But if self-illusion is given persistent priority over relational integrity it can rightly be called sin, for it must attack and undermine the witness for truth, and reap a destructive outcome.
        That its wages is a world framed in death is the nature of an inversion or reversal.
        That it rests on error is hidden and protected by every distortion and corruption of truth set as fear of disclosure to a self-convicted damnation.
        The concept of sin as attack on love, was lost to attempts to manipulate by fear and threat as a result of no longer embodying a natural authority of love’s extension and recognition, such as to seek control to cover for an inability and unwillingness to communicate.
        The culture of blame or attack is so deeply set as to seek to run in stealth mode.
        And seek the trappings of perceived authority in which to mask a dis-possesion of faculty and function in a frame of specialness by which to judge, denigrate and exclude.

        Like

  28. Fauchi claims that circumcision prevents STDs and of course Fauchi is a Jew. (https://odysee.com/@imnotdlux:7/just-the-tip:a)

    Circumcision is a religious blood sacrifice ritual that rapes and mutilates infant boy penises. This is done to about 50% of male infants in the USA in either the name of religion (be it viruses, christianity, or judaism). Here is a deep dive from a reformed Jew on the subject https://youtu.be/FCuy163srRc

    Note, at this time, the presenter still believed in the virus fraud but still goes on to debunk the claims made by Fauchi, virologist, and AMA.

    The reality is that circumcision is a religious ritual and those in power (the jews) have used virology to push its widespread adoptance in the USA and the world.

    Circumcision objectionably does NOT provide any protection against STDs and objectionably harms the sexual organ of the person.

    This is the problem with allowing religion to go unchecked. Viruses are just a small part of the overall problem and that is the religious domination of the world.

    Again, Mike Stone doesn’t want to debate this because of his cognitive dissonance. Believing in imaginary things provides comfort to some and applying the scientific method to their believes is a bridge too far.

    Like

    1. Why do you not speak your own witness without speaking as if the judge over another?
      The nature of hate seems not to care for ‘sides’ as long as it receives sacrifice of the loving.

      The mind of hacking deceit that hijacks to then replicate as false witness is depicted in the ‘virus theory as leverage of contagion fear’. Anyone who recognises the deeper patter is not just looking at fake science, but a deep-set deceit that goes back millennia.

      Liked by 1 person

  29. Mike Stone wrote: “I do not want to debate religion as it is not my purpose nor intention here on this blog. I am focused on virology. You can assume whatever you want about what I believe. You are doing so to suit your narrative and you are trying to conflate two separate topics.”

    Than you do not want to debate virology as virology is a religion. What are you doing here with this blog?

    Like

    1. “Than you do not want to debate virology as virology is a religion. What are you doing here with this blog?”

      As I said, you are conflating many things. While it is interesting to discuss the religious undertones rekated to virology, it is not necessary to do so to debunk virology. I am focused on the methods and the lack of adherence to the scientific method. If you want to dive into the religious symbolism, more power to you. It is not my interest to focus on that at this time.

      Like

      1. You are conflate many things – is not an argument. You conflate many things in all of your blogs.

        If all you discussed was the scientific method, your blog posts would be very short. You certainly wouldn’t be bringing up ad’hom attacks against those on the no-virus side. This is just one of many proofs of you conflating ‘many things’.

        So if you want to stick to the scientific method, that is cool, don’t conflate other things. You will need to significantly remove a lot of your conflated material which will make your blogs easier to read at least.

        Like

      2. “You are conflate many things – is not an argument. You conflate many things in all of your blogs.”

        Please explain what I am conflating. I have focused on the lack of adherence to the scientific method and regarding “viruses,” antibodies, exosomes, genomics, etc. None of these adhere to the scientific method. You would know this if you truly understood the scientific method.

        Like

  30. ““I do not want to debate religion as it is not my purpose nor intention here on this blog. I am focused on virology.”

    Virology is a religion including blood sacrifice rituals. Why do virologist use Fetal Bovine Serum? Is it because it is a part of the blood sacrifice ritual of aborting cow fetus and draining the blood of the cows?

    There is no need for FBS as the nutrient solution if given in enough density is more than enough to allow cultures to survive.

    That is because FBS is religiously motivated because virology is a religion. And what religion backs virology? The abrahamic religions of judiasm, christianty, and islam. Yet Mike Stone won’t discuss, why?

    Like

  31. Mike wrote: “Please explain what I am conflating. I have focused on the lack of adherence to the scientific method and regarding “viruses,” antibodies, exosomes, genomics, etc. None of these adhere to the scientific method. You would know this if you truly understood the scientific method.”

    I truly know the scientific method. And not everything you write is scientific (IE the application of the scientific method). In fact, the vast majority of what you write is simply comments and opinions which is NOT scientific. You are conflating irrelevant information if all you care about is the scientific method.

    For example you wrote: “One of the people promoting these fraudulent activities is Steve Kircsh. Mr. Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur and a Silicon Valley philanthropist who invented the optical mouse and one of the earliest search engines known as Infoseek. He has a BS/MS in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT. Mr. Kirsch founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) which funded early research into drugs such as fluvoxamine to treat “Covid” patients.”

    None of this is scientific. You would know because you have no hypothesis nor experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis. You would also know that ‘background’ has no bearing in the scientific method. It matters not the degree or profession of the human proposing a hypothesis and proving or disproving it.

    Yet, you wrote about Steve’s background. I also included Steve’s background as he is one of the top Jews in America.

    You are just trying to deflect from your untenable position; that virology is a religion and will not face the fact that Judaism is at the centre of virology.

    Like

    1. “None of this is scientific. You would know because you have no hypothesis nor experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis. You would also know that ‘background’ has no bearing in the scientific method. It matters not the degree or profession of the human proposing a hypothesis and proving or disproving it.”

      Are you serious? Obviously I did not state I am using the scientific method when writing my articles, especially when writing a response to Steve Kirsch. I am writing about subjects which do not adhere to the scientific method, critiquing them, and pointing out the flaws in the methodologies.

      I provided Kirsch’s background for people who do not know who he is and want to know as responding to him was the main subject of the article. This article is not a scientific paper and I never claimed it as such.

      I understand you do not like that I challenge your belief in exosomes and that you are upset but this line of attack from you is rather ridiculous.

      Like

      1. Mike, this argument is about you claiming that I am conflating. I have pointed out that you indeed conflation. You asked for evidence and I have provided it.

        Instead of admitting that I am correct, you shift the goal posts (a logical fallacy).

        Here is you shifting the goal posts:

        Mike Stone Wrote: “Are you serious? Obviously I did not state I am using the scientific method when writing my articles,”

        Mike Stone Wrote: ” I have focused on the lack of adherence to the scientific method and regarding “viruses,” antibodies, exosomes, genomics, etc. ”

        Mike Stone Wrote: “I provided Kirsch’s background for people who do not know who he is and want to know as responding to him was the main subject of the article. ”

        Again, his background is unimportant if all you care about is discussing the scientific method. That was you entire point, you don’t want to discuss religion.

        You are using fallacy after fallacy in order to avoid the facts.

        “I understand you do not like that I challenge your belief in exosomes and that you are upset but this line of attack from you is rather ridiculous.”

        Exosomes have nothing to do with Steve being a Jew and that virology is a religion based on judaism. Yet another strawman logical fallacy from you.

        Based on our discussion, your avoidance of this topic demonstrates the commonality you share with most religious people I have encountered in my life. They make wild unfalsifiable claims. But they WANT EVERYONE to disprove them. This is no different than those who believe in virology.

        I don’t think this conversation will progress. If you believe in christianity and gods, you are in a mind prison like your guest Dr Jordan who actually made the claim that god created everything (laughable).

        Like

      2. “Again, his background is unimportant if all you care about is discussing the scientific method. That was you entire point, you don’t want to discuss religion.”

        Once again, I wrote a response, not a scientific paper. The scientific method does not apply when writing a response article. I am not proving cause and effect by responding to Steve’s false and misleading claims. His background was important for anyone unfamiliar with Steve. You are reaching to find criticism here.

        “Exosomes have nothing to do with Steve being a Jew and that virology is a religion based on judaism. Yet another strawman logical fallacy from you.”

        I never said exosomes had anything to do with Steve. I said that you appear angry as I challenged your belief in exosomes and you are now reaching for reasons to attack my posts. I write about virology and related topics. I am not writing about religion. I have no interest in debating religion. I understand you want to believe religion and virology are the same topic but you are incorrect and conflating two different topics. If you want to debate religion, there are numerous theological blogs you can mosey on over to in order to hash out your issues.

        Like

  32. Do you want to not be cheated? Then look only at what exists and what happens in everyday life, because reality exposes all the lies and all the deceptions of the so-called religious leaders and the so-called scientists.

    Like

  33. Pay no attention and importance to the words spoken by the so-called religious and scientific leaders, because through their words they lie and deceive us, pretending that there is that which does not exist. It is the duty of each to look into the surrounding reality and decide for himself whether what exists arose out of nothingness and chaos or as a result of the will of a Divine Being.

    Like

  34. I am no longer interested in the so-called Human Sciences, nor the so-called Religions of the World, because I have understood that God cannot be known through the teachings of religions and that the true knowledge of our world is not in the teachings of the official human sciences. We are born intelligent so we only need sincerity of soul and efforts of objective thinking to find out what is the reality in which we live. In reality, the microscope and the telescope did not bring any kind of beneficial contribution to our life, but only opened the way to more lies and deceptions but also to more dirty desires and to more very bad deeds.

    Like

  35. Thanks for the reply Mike. I have been doing my best trying to locate contact information for Regis, with no luck. That is why I reached out to you in the first place, hoping that you would know how to locate her. I think she’s in Texas (possibly Austin area) but as yet have not located her laboratory contact e-mail or a physical mailing address.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. 🤞
    “Hamburg court case 19.10.2022: Sensational interview with Marvin Haberland and Torsten Engelbrecht ❗️
    Neither the RKI, nor the Pasteur Institute (Paris) carried out control tests. The matter is clear
    At last, the first interview with defendant Marvin Haberland has been published. We at @Corona_Facts could not have wished for a more suitable person than Marvin for this task, to support him in the trial as promised. With his knowledge of the weaknesses of virology and his confident demeanour, we are sure that we can only win.
    In a unique court case, Marvin Haberland wants to have it clarified whether “SARS-CoV-2” has been proven. In an interview, the engineer explains why he is focusing on the question of whether control experiments were carried out in the detection studies. By Torsten Engelbrecht
    deepL tarnslate
    Source: https://t.me/Corona_Fakten/1226
    ———–
    Now it’s getting serious – All or nothing❗️
    We depend on your help, so we ask you to print out this information and distribute it widely in Hamburg, e.g. by handing it out personally at the Saturday demos. However, there are no limits to your imagination!
    Dear HAMBURGER and all others!
    Have you ever heard that the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is questioned by many scientists worldwide?
    Did you know that there is no isolate in pure culture anywhere in the world, no control experiments have been carried out or documented, the genome is a purely mathematical construct that exists only virtually, and the rules of the German Research Foundation have not been observed?
    No …! Then you now have a one-time opportunity at a hearing on the
    Wednesday, 19 October 2022 at 2:45 pm , at the District Court, Sievekingplatz 1 in 20355 Hamburg,
    courtroom 201a, 1st floor
    to be present. On this day, nothing less than the question of the existence of viruses and the observance of scientific rules will be at stake.
    ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
    Our strategy is unique!
    Should the judge insist that the control tests be carried out, the fraud of the lack of control tests will come to light.
    Should the judge not insist, it confirms that scientificity is not required in virology.
    It’s a catch-22 because both decisions will collapse the scientific virus narrative.
    ✅ Objection and 5 motions for evidence
    ✅ Proof of virus existence requested
    ✅ Control experiments demanded
    ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
    Lawyer support also in first instance would be desirable, please get in touch with Telegram user @Notisolate (click)
    We are grateful for any support, tip and numerous audience on site. Let’s use this chance together and increase the pressure on those responsible❗️
    ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
    All documents and information about the court case( see link, source)
    All details about the trial
    Interview on the trial”
    deepL translate:
    Source:https://t.me/Corona_Fakten/1228

    Like

    1. “Even the Pasteur Institute did not do any control tests – and thus did not detect ‘SARS-CoV-2′”

      https://www.medicdebate.org/node/3134

      ————

      Telegram Translate:

      https://t.me/Corona_Fakten/1216

      🇫🇷 Prof. Marius Ilie et. al.: Negative controls were also positive❗️ 👉

      This confirms: There are no “disease-causing viruses” Marius Ilié et. al. from the “Université Côte d’Azur – Faculty of Medicine” not only confirmed to us on written request that they carried out control experiments, but also confirmed the results which we had published through our own control experiments.

      The authors of the publication “Setting-Up a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Genome Assessment by Next-Generation Sequencing in an Academic Hospital Center (LPCE, Louis Pasteur Hospital, Nice, France)”, which involved over 20 scientists, replied:

      🗣🇫🇷 Prof. Marius Ilie et. al.: “[…] Since then, however, we have also sequenced negative samples in routine practice and, interestingly, the NGS finds some weakly positive samples.”

      ———
      Comments:

      So what is “weak” positive?”

      “Means that you have received results that are considered positive, but this should not be the case, because that refutes your own statements about SARS-CoV-2 and is then simply consistently ignored, as by the well-known Corona critics, this topic is consistently ignored and hushed up, even after knowing the facts.”

      “’Slightly positive’ sounds like ‘a bit pregnant’”

      And some comments:

      “”interestingly” 😂 The feverish search for everything but the truth”

      “Against “virology” reading tarot cards is a hard-hitting science. Paganism, foreign shame”

      “It was probably too delicate, so they preferred to ignore it. Normally you would have to investigate this intensively. But what is striking about our correspondence with the French (more will be published) is that they are among the “most honest” and try to say as much as they are allowed to..

      ———

      deep L translate:

      https://t.me/Corona_Fakten/1218

      🇫🇷 Guillaume Croville et. al. – Control experiments are necessary, unfortunately we did not perform any❗️

      The scientists of the publication “First French draft genome sequence of Monkeypox virus, may 2022” confirmed to us upon written request that they unfortunately did not carry out any control experiments to eliminate doubts.

      This applies to all publications worldwide, they are not isolated cases. We will publish correspondence from many countries.

      🗣🇫🇷 Guillaume Croville et. al..:

      “Unfortunately, we did not carry out controls for several reasons” […].

      “I fully accept that all these reasons are not good” […].

      “You’re absolutely right about the controls we need to do for sequencing, but also for the bioinformatics process, and that’s something I’m thinking about to be able to do robust analyses in the near future.”

      ➖➖➖

      Liked by 1 person

  37. Someone took the bait

    —-

    deep L translate:

    https://t.me/Corona_Fakten/1280

    “The publication of the Chinese virologists refutes the statement of the evidence providers

    The team of evidence providers around “Franky” and Prof. Kämmerer, who want to accept the award, claim in one of their answers that the genome construction process, in which a theoretically long gene sequence is assembled from many very short gene sequences – whose origin comes from a mixture of genetic material – is 100 percent accurate.

    This statement is one of the core criticisms of the 1.5 million claim and has been refuted by us at NEXT LEVEL in simple steps.

    We have summarised this claim in detail in our new NEXT LEVEL MAGAZINE so that everyone can understand it.

    Already on this core criticism, the attempt of those who are obliged to provide evidence fails

    👉 Statement of the parties obliged to provide evidence”

    ——

    Google translate slide:

    6,438,547 omicron genomic sequences The viral genome sequencing

    Every sequencing process and every assembler produces a different result. Various parameters, as well as susceptibility to errors, are the reason why nobody can reconstruct the genome presented by the Chinese virologists.

    The results of the assembler Megahit & Trinity within the authoritative study from China produced completely different results using the same raw data.

    This fact alone proves that the genome construction process is not exact but contradictory.

    Like

Leave a comment

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: