Last night marked my third time on the Fakeologist show and as usual, it was a fun and enlightening experience. We focused our attention on the recent “virus” debate drama with Steve Kirsch. For those unfamiliar with the situation, Steve is a serial entrepreneur and a Silicon Valley philanthropist who is trying to get those of us who were involved in the No “Virus” Challenge to pony up a million dollars to debate his “experts.” I previously addressed this divide and distract tactic here. We also discussed those who are leading the anti-vaccination movement who still push the “virus” myth and are unwilling to look at and/or discuss the lack of scientific evidence supporting virology. The bottom line is that the time for debating the existence of “viruses” based on the current pseudoscientific evidence is over. It is time for the methods of virology to be put through the proper scientific validation process with proper controls. Only then can this ‘debate begin to be settled once and for all.
FAK597-Mike Stone
Related posts brought up during our discussion:
Debunking the Nonsense:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/22/debunking-the-nonsense/
ViroLIEgy 
Debating is a strange term often used to frame an issue in claim and counter claim. I prefer open dialogue. Truth is not the ‘winner’ of a debate but a means and an end of an honesty enquiry, reflection and exchange.
Virology is more akin to demonology than biology, yet to be sure, we project attributes of our own mind onto the world – even to the extent of mind-making a version of a world such as not to meet, recognise or be exposed to a real world, a truly shared world. Shared illusions, lock down an isolation in a virtual matrix of mutually shared ‘agreements’ as beliefs & definitions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debates remind me of witness interrogation and cross-examination in a courtroom. I would much rather hear testimony from the witness without other parties involved. The word “witness” means that someone has experienced something or has knowledge of something and can testify to the truth of what he experienced or has knowledge of. In the case of viruses, all the witness has to do is present the evidence and explain why that evidence demonstrates that viruses are real or not. Witnesses for either side need not interrogate one another as far as I’m concerned. I just want the facts, and after that I’ll evaluate them, probably do my own research, and come to my own conclusions. I guess I’m like the drill sergeant when he addresses the privates and says, “I’ll ask the questions.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed. We all need to do the research for ourselves. It’s great to have information on hand but we must verify the information presented by utilizing our own critical thought, logic, and discernment. It is my hope that this is what people do even with the information on this blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said Mike, and once again, thank you for your grand efforts in putting together, maintaining and expanding this very thorough resource.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course! You are very welcome. 🙂
LikeLike
Well done Mike, and I agree with George above. Lay out your cards, tell me how and why you came to your conclusion and I will then research, study and make my own conclusion. Debates can be won or lost to the skill of the debater and they very often become ad hom attacks. The can quickly descend to name calling.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely. The evidence (or lack thereof) will speak for itself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Fakeologist had it right at one point, it’s up to those who assert the virus exists to prove it, since one cannot prove a negative such as “viruses don’t exist.” But otherwise, both before and after this point in the program, he kept saying the very thing he said cannot be proven, and unfortunately, Mike, you kept going along with it. 🙂 But great discussion nonetheless. Thanks! Sharing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Jeffrey! I admit I was rather tired last night so I’m not even positive what exactly I said but it was a fun discussion overall. 😉
LikeLike
This is a very interesting article. There are also links within it to some published papers about the processes relative to the article.
50 years ago, genes eluded electron microscopes
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-ago-genes-electron-microscopes
I couldn’t help but submit a few questions to the author.
Good day Sir,
Great article about cryo-electron microscopy. Would you happen to have any photographs taken by light microscopy of any tissue at – 196°C in which there are no ice crystals?
Additionally, after the tissue is frozen is platinum or carbon deposited on the surface of the tissue? And finally, how does one distinguish a viral particle from an exosome?
Any information would be greatly appreciated,
George
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol, I saw that article too and did a post about it on Facebook and Telegram. Such ridiculousness. It essentially boils down to this:
“In the over 100 years since we first dreamt up the concept of genes, we still can’t see them. But trust us, they exist! 🤞”
-Molecular biologists
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is interesting:
“Water is the most abundant molecule in cells, accounting for 70% or more of total cell mass.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9879/#:~:text=Water%20is%20the%20most%20abundant,more%20of%20total%20cell%20mass.
New study proves that water separates into two different liquids at low temperatures
“. . . water can change from one form of liquid into a denser form of liquid, . .
. . . So these new findings are a significant leap toward confirming the hypothesis of a liquid-liquid phase transition. . .”
https://interestingengineering.com/science/new-study-proves-water-separates-in-two-different-liquids
Apparently lowering the temperature of water creates a phase transition at some point. I wonder if this has any effect on cell cultures? Do they keep the cultures at body temperature?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good question. I’m not sure about all cultures. I know in smallpox cultures they kept it at 35° incubated for 2 days whereas monkeypox was 37° incubated for 3 days. They claim the differences in the chorioallantoic membrane were caused by the “virus” rather than the changes in temp/incubation length which is obviously BS.
LikeLike
Question for those who have convinced themselves based on direct, uninterpretable and verifiable evidence that viruses DO NOT EXIST:
If there is no direct, uninterpretable and verifiable evidence of the existence of viruses… then… what is the direct, uninterpretable and verifiable evidence of the existence of the supposed parts that make up viruses: amino acids, proteins, nitrogenous bases (purine, pyrimidine), pentose sugar (ribose, deoxyribose), phosphate groups, nucleotides, nucleic acids (RNA and DNA)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s like saying, because unicorns don’t exist horses can’t exist either🦄
LikeLike
No, no it’s not. That’s comparing apples to pianos. Nike’s point is about the unseen world, not the seen world, about things claimed to exist, but the normal Joe has never seen nor experienced. Your analogy is not only about the seen but what is experienced. So your analogy fails.
Speaking for myself, my trust in experts has been destroyed for the most, shattered. So for someone to say “I know the invisible thing exists” means nothing without evidence. This is not to say invisible things do not exist at all. It’s not to say that immaterial things do not exist. But all the examples that Nike gave, I must agree, I have no idea if they exist because I’ve been given no proof. I can use the words: I know how to describe what a virus is in their language. But I have no experiential understanding of the terms I’m using. “A piece of genetic information surrounded by a protein shell.” When I look for the definition of protein, I just get childish images of coloured balls connected and structured with rods (macromolecules) which has no existence in my experience. I know these words are what I was taught growing up or what I read when I was older. But, for me, they are words connected to hypotheticals. Frankly, I have no idea what to do with that.
And my writing this response is not some request to you for a solution. It’s just to say that, from my point of view, Nike has a solid point. The analogy of unicorns and horses just sounds like circular logic to me, that you’ve already assumed the existence of these things to the point of comparing them to horses. You may have grounds for that link. I don’t see them.
LikeLike
The quantum microscope has been out for a while now, but I can’t find any recent publications about it. If this instrument, or any other for that matter, were to discredit biology as it is currently taught they might do whatever is necessary to keep it a secret.
Major Scientific Leap: Quantum Microscope Created That Can See the Impossible
Jun 09, 2021
A major success of the team’s quantum microscope was its ability to catapult over a ‘hard barrier’ in traditional light-based microscopy.
“The best light microscopes use bright lasers that are billions of times brighter than the sun,” Professor Bowen said.
“Fragile biological systems like a human cell can only survive a short time in them and this is a major roadblock.
“The quantum entanglement in our microscope provides 35 percent improved clarity without destroying the cell, allowing us to see minute biological structures that would otherwise be invisible.
LikeLike
Here we go again.
Dr. Meryl Nass Debunks SARS-CoV-2 ‘Virus Isn’t Real’, ‘Never Been Isolated’ Myths
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-meryl-nass-debunks-sars-cov-2-virus-isnt-real-never-been-isolated-myths/
LikeLike
Wow, that childish article got demolished in the comments, along with the poster (not author) Patrick Wood.
LikeLike
Let’s see if she takes Dr. Kaufman’s offer for her to present to the evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d put money on her ignoring the offer, or using some kind of Dunning Kruger appeal to authority excuse to avoid it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Her article was really bad. As David said, it comes across childish. It is clear that she is repeating talking points without engaging in critical thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I feel sorry for her patients.
LikeLike
Yes, Nass obviously didn’t do any research into this and is deferring to the so-called “experts”. However, she’s still one of the good guys. She’s been anti-vaxx for a long time and has been outspoken on the COVID nonsense which I commend her for.
LikeLike
George
Thanks for following up here on the rest of the book.
What’s the list, then, of what does exist according to Hillman?
How does he account for all the functions without organelles? Self-organizing eddies in the primordial soup? Something else?
In case you missed it the first time. 🙂
LikeLike
Apparently, everything you can see under light microscopy. He didn’t claim to have all the answers. He believed there should be a different approach taken. The book primarily deals with the problem of artifacts. This particular book was not written for the layman, he wrote it for his peers. They just ignored him, because they didn’t want to lose their jobs.
LikeLike
I hear that. Thanks George appreciate it.
LikeLike
This is the best water, in my humble opinion anyway.
Skyra Spring Water
“Naturally 8.88 pH alkaline. Pristine natural Icelandic spring water filtered over the ages through basalt and lava, and bottled daily from a self-replenishing source. Nothing is added or taken out, with a naturally high pH of 8.88.”
LikeLike
They have not given up.
The Social Science Research Council is providing USD 7.2 million to 12 teams advancing ambitious, applied social and behavioral science to combat the growing global threat posed by low Covid-19 vaccination rates and public health mis- and disinformation
“The Social Science Research Council (SSRC) announced it will provide an initial USD 7.2 million in direct research funds to 12 teams working in 17 countries in order to better understand how health mis- and disinformation spreads, how to combat it, and how to build stronger information systems, while increasing Covid-19 vaccination rates. Through the Mercury Project—enabled by The Rockefeller Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation with a total of USD 10.25 million so far—the SSRC is supporting a first cohort of social and behavioral scientists from around the world to generate much-needed new research on locally tailored solutions in Bolivia, Brazil, Côte D’Ivoire, Ghana, Haiti, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, United States, and Zimbabwe. . .”
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/mercury-project-to-boost-covid-19-vaccination-rates-and-counter-public-health-mis-and-disinformation-in-17-countries-worldwide/
Prepare accordingly, take courage, and remember
“No weapon that is formed against you will prevail; and you will condemn every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Yahweh, and their righteousness which is of me,” says Yahweh. – Isaiah 54:17, WEB.
LikeLike
My question would be, I have a completely different diet than my family. I eat mostly raw foods, my family eats processed foods. Multiple members of my family have been diagnosed with “covid”. I spent an hour at my son’s place where he and his girlfriend were isolating themselves as they were both testing positive. I brought them both smoothies and shared my son’s, straw and all. I have been exposed to other sick family members as well, and yet I have not gotten sick. How is it possible to have multiple exposures, share a drink, and still not get sick? After cleaning up my diet, I have noticed that I no longer get sick with anything, not even a cold, even when family members in my household are getting sick. How is it these viruses are only “contagious” in some cases? The terrain theory appears to answer these questions practically, the germ theory, however, does not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You keep your terrain clean and will continue to enjoy good health for doing so. Isn’t it nice not having to be scared of invisible boogeymen and just live life free of fear? 🙂
LikeLike
These debates (Mark Bailey vs Kevin McCairn is another great one) are actually amazing. The antivirus guys come in with competence, heavily prepared, with ironclad logical arguments that are explained professionally but without jargon, They do not lose their cool or use logical fallacies or change the subject or resort to ad hominem.
The supposedly “respectable” virus peddlers otoh come refuse to address the substance of the debate, do not even attempt to make an argument in favor for the existence of viruses, seethe with arrogance, and actually rely ENTIRELY on ad hominem attacks.
Any average joe probably would go into these expecting the exact OPPOSITE dynamic, that the antivirus guys would be the squirming fallacy-obsessed lunatics. But nope. Virology has no clothes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. Dr. Mark Bailey did an amazing job handling that debate with McCairn. IMO, these debates definitely expose people like McCairn as their illogical and irrational outbursts ultimateky reflect badly on them and allow the viewers to see that they do not have evidence to back up their own position. All they can do is try to interrupt and tear the other person down in order to try and save face.
LikeLike