Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue
Inductive vs Inventive Reasoning
Starting out on the No Virus topic, I was introduced to the isolation issue. Cowan mentioned that the 1954 Enders paper showed a failed control and I searched for this paper to confirm it for myself. At the back of the paper under “Other agents isolated during the study” Enders discussed the failed control and this was enough to know that virology was dead (refer to an earlier article here). The below meme was born from this knowledge.
A further two years of study and I was confident enough to start chasing down the Mutton co trolls and the 77th brigade on Twitter. I joined some sharp peeps and a team of people are now confronting these twitter sewer dwellers on a daily basis. One thread has been ongoing since 10 March this year, believe it or not! You can have a look at that thread here.
For the longest time my focus was on the isolation process because this seemed to be the best angle to take down virology seeing as this same method is still being used today with some small changes in the process. Being new to the subject I did not really question this angle because the entire movement was talking about the isolation issue.
However, the most fundamental assumption of virology is that a viral agent can be transmitted by means of natural pathways from a sick person to make a healthy person sick. If there is no proof to support this assumption, then virology is well and truly dead. The meme obviously had to be updated as seen below.
The idea of hacking away at transmission was recently given a very good update with two presentations by Cowan.
The true issue of where the idea or theory of virology comes from was well defined in a presentation discussing Inductive vs Inventive theories (the full length presentation can be seen here).
The deference between inventive and inductive theories:
Inductive theory - The best description of our observation of what is out there in real life.
Inventive theory - Making shit up.
From the below video it is explained that many fields are born out of inventive theories, but we stand at an age where we have accumulated to many epicycles and we are due to enter, once again, an age where science will be based on inductive theories once again.
For virology we started building on the mountains of epicycles from the main theory, which is still unproven, that transmission of a viral agent occurs when a sick host makes a healthy host sick. The endless number of epicycles are further discussed by Cowan in the below video.
When you are debating this stance however you will quickly realize that it is important to have the language simplified. Cowan managed to do that in a recent presentation where he rebutted a few so-called transmission studies that was sent to him to fulfill the logical requirements for proving the existence of a virus (full presentation on twitter here, or see the video below). The requirements are as follows:
VIRUS / TALK IDEAS
1. A properly controlled study showing sick people make well people (or animals) sick.
2. A properly controlled study showing the "filterable fraction" of any biological fluid makes people or animals sick, when the subjects are exposed to the filterable fraction in a "normal" way
3. A properly controlled study demonstrating that the CPE in a "viral culture" experiment could have ONLY have been caused by the virus in question.
4. A properly controlled EM study showing that any EM photo, done in any way, has been proven to be a photo of an isolated, purified virus.
5. A properly controlled genome study showing that all the components of any assembled "viral" genome could have only originated from the virus in question.
Absent these studies, logic, rational thinking and science must conclude that no viruses have ever been shown to exist. “Germ theory" should therefore be renamed the disproven germ hypothesis.
Seeing as the first bullet point is the only point where we do not need a laboratory to assess its validity and because we can observe this phenomena ourselves (Inductive reasoning) this is the linchpin for virology. A previous article where there is a growing number of studies that show that all the transmission studies ever attempted has failed can be seen below.
The below meme is a good explanation of how this all fits together.
The full presentation of Cowan rebutting the studies that was submitted can be seen below. This was cut from the original presentation that can be found here.
Every single transmission study that we have reviewed has shown that transmission has never been successfully demonstrated. Most of these studies include the injection of ground-up spinal fluid into the brains and lungs of animals and the remaining studies are observational, where there is little to no control over a large number of variables that can influence the results.
The virus pushers hate addressing this point because it cannot be addressed with the current body of peer reviewed publications.
Consider joining the following groups: