JJ Couey - "The No Virus Movement Defends Their Position Through Lying"
Malik and JJ Couey Interview - 4 October 2023
Introduction
One thing that I have tried my very best with over the course of 2023 was to break down the evidence, as easy as possible, for people to understand that there is no infectious particle that spreads around and make people sick. Currently my focus is the fundamental assumption of virology which is the assumption that a sick person can make a healthy person sick (refer to Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue). If this is not possible then the entire field of virology is a fallacy as there is nothing to spread around and people down the chain will not be influenced by this particle which is claimed to “infect” others (refer to the image below).
In the video of JJ Couey and Malik below it is clear that they also think that this assumption has been proven. I wonder if they have ever considered the fact that every transmission study that has ever been published in the peer reviewed literature shows exactly the opposite. We have documented this fact in the article titled “Virology The Damning Evidence” which contains more than 50 peer reviewed studies demonstrating that a sick person can not make a healthy person sick.
We also list the failed controls of which the most detailed show that the Electro Micrographs (EM) and protein analysis of the infected and uninfected cultures are identical (which means viruses are merely extracellular vesicles). Refer to the article titled The Most Detailed Controls Ever Published.
The below video shows JJ Couey and Malik trying to explain why there is such a thing as an infectious virus (Original video here). The best evidence they have is probably Malik making the statement that he got an infection from a Christmas bauble (most likely because someone came into his house from the street and licked the bauble. You can’t make this stuff up). Couey just falls back on the well known fallacy that the only way to detect a virus directly from a sample is to do a PCR… This is however all downstream waffle in an attempt to explain why no one has ever been able to purify a virus directly from a sample without culturing first.
Conclusion
It is important to note that they will always try and confuse the conversation with downstream arguments when in fact all that is required to blow this whole thing up is to show the lack of proof that a sick person can make a healthy person sick.
I also don't know who they requested to come speak on their show but we have done more than a few and invited everyone. Even the mutton co trolls:
Twitter Space - Logical Fallacies: "Shifting the burden of proof fallacy"
Twitter Space - Where’s the scientific data that “vaccines save lives”?
Debating a Twitter Space - No Virus Means Vaccines Are Poison for Pharma Profits Only
It is however unbelievably easy to settle this debate. I challenge both of you to send us a transmission study that demonstrates that a sick person can make a healthy person sick. For the sake of clarity please don’t send us epidemiological/observational studies because this is not a properly controlled study. Send us a properly controlled study where the variables that might influence the results are controlled. If you need some guidance have a look at Cowan’s presentation here.
Good analysis, again. It's the same ole bs over and over and over again and few question it which is why they keep this up. Then they do the song and dance around direct questions. I'm not so much baffled as to why all of these people keep spouting the same easily provable nonsense as to why so many people just gobble it all up without doing any serious questioning and research of their own. Alternatively, Cown, Lanka, Bailey's, Kaufman, Stone, Massey, have done it all for them if they only would stop and think. Amazing.
Thank you, dpl, for continuing to bring this into the light. We know, of course, that no one will ever send a study showing what you and Cowan repeatedly ask for. It should be easy though, right?
But far too many that really need the info broken down never even see these substack articles and videos as they are glued to MSM info and the "health freedom" pretenders.
I have come to the point where I determine that Mr. Couey and people like him are just not clever enough to grasp the difference between having a physical proof of something and having NOT.
Can he give a definition of a THING called virus, then explain how this definition developed, then explain the method of applying this to the virus definition and then show the proof, please? Isn't it that simple? Where did he lose the plot?
If apart from a pcr test nothing else on this planet were able to show the existence of a cat, would Couey believe in the existence of some-thing like cats? Why should it be any different when it comes to fictional viruses? A virus is allegedly a thing, right? Then he should be able to show that THING and only that THING or shut up for heaven's sake. This is so annoying.