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.”
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).
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:
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:
You can see some of the exchange here.
“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.
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.
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 video, highlights) 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:
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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
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”:
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.“
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.”
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:
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?
- The Fan Wu Paper (the genome):
- The Zhou Paper (“virus” isolation):
- The Zhu Paper (first EM images):
- The Park Paper (first patient in Korea):
- 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:
“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.”
“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.”
“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:”
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:
1: the state of being in a place or situation that is separate from others: the condition of being isolated
2: the act of separating something from other things: the act of isolating somethinghttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isolation
1: to set apart from others
2: to select from among others especially: to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free statehttps://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.”
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:
- SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist
- 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.
- 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”
- Affirming the consequent
- False cause
- 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:
- Purified and isolated “viral” particles
- EM images of the particles
- Proof of pathogenicity
- Reproducibility and replication
- 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:
- The Fan Wu Paper (the genome)
- The Zhou Paper (“virus” isolation)
- The Zhu Paper (first EM images)
- The Park Paper (first patient in Korea)
- 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.