All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 19, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:07:28
The Pseudoscience of Virology: Tyranny-Enabling SARS-CoV-2 Claims Don’t Meet ANY Standard of Proof
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I thought I would take the opportunity to actually look at some electron microscope images and see what we can see.
And the reason this comes up with virology is because it's, if not one of the proofs, it's one of the main proofs that all virologists use to prove the existence of such and such a virus like SARS-CoV-2.
Now, these images are going to be taken from one of two places.
Either they're all from peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Some of them, and I'm not going to tell you how many, are from journals that are saying that these are electron microscopy images of SARS-CoV-2.
Other images are taken from other journals that show you similar, you'll see, images from either kidney biopsies or from lung biopsies or lung, bronchial, alveolar, lavage fluid.
Some of them, there's no possible way they have SARS-CoV-2.
And some of them, they're claiming that these are images of SARS-CoV-2.
Now the first one I'm going to show you is, I'm going to give you the answer to this one, is SARS-CoV-2.
And there you see the picture of it, you see the dots which are meant to represent the spike protein, you see an approximate measurement of it, 100 nanometers, and there you go.
So that's the reference.
Okay?
These ones I'm not going to tell you because I'm hoping to show this to a expert virologist or electron microscopist someday and ask them to tell us, since this is one of the evidence that this thing exists, which ones of these are SARS-CoV-2 and which ones are just cellular debris.
So what about this one?
Take a look.
You might want to vote as we go along.
And then the next one is this one.
You can see the arrow in the lower left-hand corner.
And there's some other things that are similar in other places.
Don't cheat.
Don't look at the tissue.
That's not what we're looking at.
We're looking at the structure, which we're told represents the virus.
Here's a bunch.
They don't have arrows, but you can see one, two, three, four, five, six or so different structures with the black dots, circles, all the rest of it.
Here's another one, more of a close-up.
This doesn't have a measurement, but they're all around the same size.
Here we have a few more.
And then there's some more.
We have some arrows here, so you can see which ones they're referring to.
It doesn't have a size measurement.
And then I put four, I just put them in the same slide just to make it a little easier.
You can see the arrows pointing to the different things they're pointing out as either SARS-CoV-2 or debris from the kidneys or lungs.
And again, you can see the measurements and the shapes, et cetera.
So, and there you see in the lower left-hand corner, you see a close-up of one of them.
So, the question is, how many did you get right?
Now, I'm going to be mean and not tell you the answer here, because I'm hoping to show this to, as I said, some virologists or electron microscopists and see how many they get right.
And I think that would be very interesting.
In order to prove causation, you have to isolate the virus, you have to take the chicken pox out, you have to prove that you don't have anything else in there, no poisons, no snot, no nothing, just the virus, expose an animal to it.
They did that for 20 years.
They couldn't make any animals sick.
Now, there's an article in a journal called Viruses, Which looked at this question, how do we know that these are from the outside and not from the inside?
And they said something very interesting.
However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a separation of exosomes from viruses does not exist.
A war on viruses, it's a war on life.
So, the question then, is what is poisoning us?
That's the question.
We have to understand how a biologist, a virologist, or a medical doctor proves causation with a virus.
That's the first step.
So we should go back and say, how did the medical community determine that the disease COVID-19 is caused by this new coronavirus?
So the first step is, when I ask people that, because they've heard me have a dissenting position, and I'll say, why do you think that this coronavirus is causing COVID-19?
They usually say things like, well, there's a lot of people who died in New York City, or a lot of people who died of China, and then it spread to North Korea, or there's a lot of people in a nursing home, or my Aunt Bessie went to a party and then she got it, and then on and on and on.
So, the problem is, these are what are called epidemiological observations.
And there is not a reputable scientist or medical doctor in the world who thinks you prove viral causation with epidemiology.
In other words, if you or anyone out there thinks that the proof that it's a disease is caused by a virus because a lot of people in the same place died of a similar disease, then you must think that Hiroshima was a virus.
Because I can tell you a lot of people died in the same place of the same thing.
And as far as I know, nobody thinks that was a virus.
Now, back in the 17 and 18, 1600s, a lot of sailors on ships, one after another, they had their teeth fall out and then they died of heart failure.
And for 200 years, they thought that must be caused by some spreadable microbe that they couldn't see.
And then one day, somebody ate a lime and the whole thing went away because it was scurvy.
And the point is, you cannot prove Viral causation with epidemiology and it has consequences if you're wrong.
We thought beriberi and pellagra which killed millions was caused by an unseen microbe.
Because the epidemiology was there.
A bunch of families got it, and then the next family got it.
And it turns out it was a nutritional deficiency.
So, there is nobody who thinks that epidemiology proves viral causation.
Nobody.
And anybody who says, I think this is a virus because Uncle Fred went to a party and he got sick, that's a unscientific They're basically scientifically illiterate, if they say that.
And I have gotten to the point where I say we have enough epidemiological evidence with COVID-19 that we should investigate a microbial cause.
Now, we also have enough epidemiological evidence to investigate many other causes like electromagnetic field toxicity and air pollution and a bunch of other things.
None of those prove that those are the cause either.
But the purpose of epidemiology of these observations is to generate hypotheses that you can test in the lab.
Okay, we've already decided that we're going to investigate viral causation.
Now, how do you investigate viral causation?
It's interesting that all these tens and maybe even hundreds of people who tell me they're sure that they know that this is caused by a virus, when I ask them the simple question of, how do you go about proving viral causation?
I mean, I could ask you that.
Do you know?
No.
I've not met one person who even knows actually how to answer that question.
Let alone knows what the answer is, which means they have no idea.
Now, let me just say that again.
100% of the people who just a minute ago told me that they're sure this is caused by a virus, don't even know how you would go about doing that.
Now, that should be shocking to people, because if you're listening and you don't know how to do it, Then you have no idea whether it's been done or not.
I've said things and written things which were incorrect because I didn't know the science of this as well as I should have.
And the only reason I point that out is I can pretty much guarantee that your family doctor and your internist and your surgeon doesn't know this either.
Now that may be shocking to people, but I didn't learn any of this in medical school or any training.
This one has to figure out for themselves.
So, here's the way.
First of all, you have to isolate the virus.
And where am I getting this from?
Well, I'm getting this from 20 years of research from about 1935 to 1954 where they did this exact procedure.
They took people like with chicken pox.
And they ground up their snot or their vesicle, you know, fluid.
And they, so they had to basically macerate its cells.
Now that's not the virus anymore than that's caffeine.
So then they put it through a filter and the filter would catch the bacteria and the cells and tissues and all the big stuff.
And then you would have the virus and a lot of other things.
That's still not the virus.
Then they would put it in a centrifuge, which separates things by weight, and the virus, because it has a certain weight, separates out into a band.
And then they would suck out the band, and they would show you with an electron microscope picture, this is all we have.
Pure virus.
Then they would expose an animal to that virus, and none of them got sick.
20 years.
They exposed every type of, quote, viral illness they could find.
They isolated and purified the virus.
No animal or human got sick, and they said basically there's nothing to this.
Now, here's the shocking thing, and I'm about to sort of prove it to you.
Nobody has isolated a coronavirus from anybody with COVID-19.
How do I know that?
Let's say what the CDC says about this.
These are excerpts from published papers.
The first one is from July 13, 2020.
It's from the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel on 39.
So this is their report on the state of science of what we know about this COVID-19 and coronavirus.
They say, quote, since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019 ENCODE virus are currently available.
So what does that mean?
It means the CDC, as of July, has never isolated the virus.
Now, sometimes when I give talks about this, I remind people that a virus is a thing.
Right?
Like a fork.
I usually have a fork, but I don't have a fork.
We're not talking about a thought or a feeling.
We're talking about a thing, like a chair or a fork.
Every fork can be isolated.
Every fork, if I have three forks, can be quantified.
This is three forks.
If you say no quantified viral isolates are available, you've never isolated the virus from anybody with COVID-19.
Now, are they the only ones?
So here's an excerpt of the paper called Detection of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus by Real-Time RT-PCR.
This is the paper published in a peer-reviewed journal called European Surveillance that inaugurated the pandemic, so-called.
This is by Christian Drosten and a bunch of other Virologists and they were tasked with developing a test for this new coronavirus.
So let's see what they say.
This is quoting from the paper.
The ongoing outbreak of a recently emerged novel coronavirus poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable.
In other words, they were tasked with making a test for a virus and they have no examples of the virus to start with.
And then they go on to say, quote, we aim to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.
They had no virus to make a test to find a piece of the virus.
Therefore, their PCR test, the test which is being used all over the world to document cases, is a complete fraud.
They have never isolated a virus and said, this is a unique piece of that virus.
Because they have no virus.
Now, are they the only ones?
Here's a quote from Pfizer about making their RNA vaccine.
To build an RNA vaccine, scientists do not need the actual virus.
In other words, Pfizer admits they have no virus with which to make a vaccine against.
They call it an actual virus as opposed to, I guess, a theoretical virus.
Now, I would change the word theoretical to say an imaginary virus or a make-believe virus.
So they're using a make-believe virus, which they have never isolated, they don't know the sequence of, they don't know the components of, to make a vaccine against this virus, and God only knows what they're making a vaccine against.
Here's another one, a paper published in Nature, which was one of the first papers on describing the novel coronavirus.
And a friend of mine named Torsten Engelbrecht asked him because he says he isolated the virus.
And people have sent me about 20 different peer-reviewed articles claiming they isolated the virus.
When you look at the paper, it's very clear that nobody has ever isolated the virus.
It's a fraud.
And we asked him, did you isolate the virus?
He said, quote, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.
In other words, they didn't do what every peer-reviewed journal article has to do, which is say, here's the steps we did, here's the picture showing that we have an isolated virus.
They didn't even take a picture.
And they admit they didn't isolate the virus.
Here's another one.
Same thing.
Identification of a coronavirus isolated from a patient in Korea with COVID-19.
This was published by the Korean Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Essentially, it's the CDC of Korea.
So we asked him, did you isolate the virus?
Because that's what it says in the title.
And the answer was, quote, we could not estimate the degree of purification because we did not purify and concentrate the virus.
In other words, they have no virus.
Here's another one.
Again, isolation of the new virus.
Quote, we show an image of sedimented virus particle, not purified one.
The Canadian Health Ministry, Freedom of Information, request, do you have any information on an isolation of this virus?
Their answer, quote, having completed a thorough search, we regret to inform you that we are unable to locate any records responsive to your request.
None of these groups who are organizing this have any example of an isolated virus.
If you've never isolated the virus, you have no way of knowing whether it causes disease.
Period.
And the test to identify a virus that you've never isolated is not false positive or false negative.
It's just good old-fashioned false.
To me, this is sort of the bigger picture issue, and we can talk in detail about virus isolation and the methods they use, but the issue is you hear everybody talking about science, science this, science that, trust the science, right?
Well, we have to know what science is if we're going to talk about that, and if you're going to make claims that are quote-unquote scientific, you probably should know what you're talking about.
There's a difference between science and pseudoscience.
In fact, the very definition of pseudoscience helps us understand what science actually is.
I'm actually going to start down there.
Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method.
We'll have to go into that in a minute.
What's natural science?
Because that's what we're dealing with in virology, right?
It's supposedly natural science.
These are supposed to be things in nature that are causing illness.
So natural science is just a major branch of science that tries to explain and predict nature's phenomena based on empirical evidence.
And that's where we get into the scientific method, which is coming up on the next slide.
Importantly enough, in natural science, a hypothesis must be verified scientifically vis-a-vis experiment, and then it becomes a scientific theory.
Okay, people today use the term theory very loosely and colloquially to mean just some any fanciful idea they have.
But in science, a theory comes at the end after you've validated your hypothesis, your alternative hypothesis.
Next slide.
So in brief on the scientific method, I'm not going to read all this out, but basically the scientific method is a way to discern if the thing you think is causing your observed phenomenon actually is.
That's the whole point of a hypothesis test, i.e.
experiment.
You have to first start with observing a natural phenomenon.
You then form a hypothesis.
I think X causes Y. Y being your phenomenon.
It's called the dependent variable.
X is your independent variable.
It's the thing you think is causing the effect.
So for something to be scientific, it has to adhere to the scientific method.
You have to vary and manipulate your supposed cause in order to see if it actually does cause the thing you think it does.
And the presumed cause is, again, the independent variable.
Okay, let's say with virology and viruses you've got an illness.
Okay, you've got an illness.
That's your natural phenomenon.
Formulate a hypothesis.
I think X causes Y.
Well, guess what?
Virology can't get here, okay?
It's done.
It's over with at this point.
They don't have the thing in nature ever found to even get to the next step to even form a hypothesis, right?
Nobody has seen these things in a human being where they ever went, hmm, I wonder if those things are causing the effect.
That's not happened.
Okay, so if it was scientific, if we had science and biology, you would have those things, whether they're particles, they chose particles, right?
After the fact, they just pointed to particles in a cell culture to claim those are viruses.
But in reality, they never had anything to start with.
So whatever it would have been, you would have to have it, and then you would have to very manipulate it in a proper experiment to see if they cause the thing that you're seeing in nature.
In virology, this is not done.
Okay and we'll touch on that here in a second but this just kind of rehashes this over and over this is this is very important when all these people claim quote unquote we have science where the science says no you don't because you haven't adhered to the scientific method.
So what do virologists do?
What did they do in the beginning, right?
So this whole virus theory came first, and it's not a scientific theory, okay?
It's a colloquial theory.
It's a story.
It's a fiction.
It's a belief structure that they formed when they stopped being able to blame things on bacteria.
And we could go through the etymology of the word virus and how it's morphed from, you know, meaning just poison, which could be a general, you know, we could use that for anything.
But that's not what it is today.
And so this idea of this intracellular parasite that needs your own cells to replicate and then kill you, none of this was ever proven.
They just presupposed this, and then what they do is they take unpurified stuff from a human, they never have any quote-unquote potential virus, and then they add it to abnormal cell lines, along with all the other chemicals that Jacob mentioned, And then when they get a breakdown effect, they call it cytopathic effect, but they state that this cytopathic effect is due to a virus, okay?
That is an affirming the consequent logical fallacy, okay?
If x then y, y therefore x. So number two, that dependent variable, that effect they're studying in a petri dish, has nothing to do with nature, okay?
So you literally have contrived something in a lab that has nothing to do with reality, and you don't even have an independent variable variable to begin with.
You're not actually experimenting with the thing you think is causing disease.
What happens is after the fact you get cell breakdown, you put that into an electron microscope, you just point to particles that and just declare those are the virus.
So it's literally the definition of pseudoscience.
And this is just one of the ways they claim that is the proper way I guess to isolate a virus.
Like Again, a thing never before seen in nature.
You know, a lot of people appeal to the suprastensity gradient centrifugation method.
These are all typically done, however, after the fact, after the cell culture, but even let's say they took fluids from a human and did it this way.
You would have to go through every single particle and every gradient to figure out which one might be causing the thing you think.
And that's never been done that we can find.
So that's a big deal.
And we keep asking, you know, microbiologists and virologists for actual scientific validation that adheres to the scientific method.
Where did you find this supposed pathogen in nature to begin with?
Like, where did you show that it first existed?
And then where was it proven that these things cause disease?
And we have yet to get an answer to that.
So that's where we are so I could go into how they misled themselves into thinking they have this virus, but.
This is a scientific fraud.
And interestingly, just three days ago, a group of European virologists and pathologists dissected this Drosten study and said the basis of using this study, which is the basis of all the PCR tests, all the testing, is pure scientific fraud.
And they demanded that this journal retract the article.
When you're conducting something, you're trying to prove, like, when it comes to independent variable that it has an effect on something, you do something without that present to determine whether the independent variable actually had the effect.
Which, again, they don't even have the IV.
They don't even have the IV.
But if we're assuming that, like, if we're making the assumption that the snot stands in, like, the, you know, the minimally filtered fluids from a sick person stand in as a proper independent variable, which is already false, right?
But if we're assuming that that does, then you would need to conduct an experiment where you're introducing snot that is from a healthy person to the culture to replicate that identically.
And to my knowledge, the mock culture that some virology studies refer to, and some of them don't, which they don't even really say what goes into it, but from my knowledge, they don't even include Snot or fluids from a healthy person.
It's simply everything except for the fluids or sometimes they don't even name what's in it.
That's right.
Seeing cell cultures form syncytia or breakdown in a petri dish is not a valid dependent variable, right?
Your dependent variable is the effect you're supposed to be studying.
That's an illness, right?
So cell lines are not appropriate for this.
They're not appropriate for cancer research.
You can read the book called The Immortal Cell that goes into that.
Mike can probably talk about some of this stuff.
I mean, it's just the idea that monolayer cells that have been kept alive, that are immortalized, have anything to do with nature or natural biology or function is again, it's absurd, but it helps It helps to get this story perpetuated, right?
I mean, it's easy.
And now guys, they don't even, they don't question it, right?
When you ask people about this, I've talked to people that are more like, like a veterinarian who told me, you know, I worked with viruses when I was in veterinary school.
And I said, what did you do?
And he got into the whole CPE and all that.
I said, but you're assuming the CPE is proof of virus.
He's like, well, yeah, I mean, we just assume that.
It's like, so you're really just following the recipe in the book.
And just assuming that your outcome is telling you what you think, but they don't question all those methods to say, am I really actually doing what the book tells me I'm doing?
And that's the big, one of the biggest problems.
You've worked with HIV, correct, Mike, and so-called HIV.
So I'd like to hear your perspective on this.
Yeah, yeah.
So I did work with so-called HIV for a couple of years and I mean, it's exactly like you guys are saying.
It's all completely assumed that you have a virus there.
And in fact, one of the first things I recall doing was not even taking a patient sample and saying, you know, can you isolate virus?
Can you do anything with that?
Is taking a DNA plasmid vector and making a supposed viral stock, right?
You transfect, you put the vector into cells, let them culture for about 48 hours, and then you literally just take the media, the supernatant off of that and everything in there, and you don't even do anything to purify that.
And then you take that and throw that on cells that are supposed to be susceptible, and then you look for that cytopathic effect.
But You never control for the generation of that supposed virus stock when you're evaluating the cytopathic effect.
And in fact, I have taken the same cells that are supposed to be susceptible that you, when you throw all that junk on there, you know, they, they clearly look like something's going on, but you can just simply deplete the nutrients, take out, take out or lower the serum 24 hours, 48 hours later.
It looks the same thing.
The cells start to go into a programmed cell death process known as apoptosis.
And the kind of the end stages of that, the cells literally start to break off and form these apoptotic bodies that are these small particles.
And I mean, it looks exactly the same.
And I said, when I was first kind of coming into all of this HIV virology stuff, I said, well, why don't Why can't we take the primary patient sample, put it on the cells, or do something with that?
Well, it doesn't work that way.
There's not enough virus.
You're like, wait a second, I thought these people were supposed to be really sick.
There was supposed to be like a ton of virus.
It's like, no, it doesn't work.
Even when there's supposed to be high viral load, they call it, right?
Which is just assessed by a PCR assay.
Even then, it's really not that high or not sufficient enough to really do much with.
So you have to make these artificial viral stocks in cell cultures.
And that was my first like, wait a second, that's how this works?
These are the answers that I have personally seen.
I've personally had three of these thrown at me by immunologists, virologists, molecular biologists on Twitter, or at least I think they were.
They said they were, and their profile said they were, and they had a lot of followers.
These are some answers that we're going to discuss right now, the fallacies in these answers.
These answers are provided when you ask, why can you not isolate, purify, characterize a virus or multiple viruses directly From the fluids of a sick person because and then an emphasis on directly, right?
Because the process that they use to quote isolate a virus in nearly every single case that I've seen if not every single case that I or any of the guys here have seen is the process that I described earlier, which is the cell culture, right?
I think logically speaking here, if you are saying that something is the cause of another thing, you need to have that thing by itself in a peer-free state and prove, observe, that it causes what you say it causes.
Like, that is logic.
Like, the claim is a pathogenic virus exists in the fluids of a sick host.
Okay, what we're asking for is proof that a pathogenic virus exists in the fluids of a sick host.
That hasn't even been done, and then proving pathogenicity is a whole separate thing.
What's virus?
You can't talk about the thing you're supposed to be finding in a cell culture if it's never been proven to exist in the first place.
Okay, and it nips it all in the bud.
That, I mean, you have to.
Assigning attributes to something that you've never shown to exist in the first place in nature.
Right, and, like, you've got to bring them back because they will red herring away from that so fast with these rescue devices, and it's nonsense.
Like, you have to just say, where was virus ever identified?
Not in your mind, not where was it invented the idea.
Where did you validate quote-unquote virus?
Where did you see it in nature?
Number one, it has to exist, okay?
Number two, how did you show that it caused disease?
But I agree, this is nonsensical.
This, like you were saying, they're everywhere but they're nowhere, right?
You can't find them in human but they're everywhere else invading you.
But we're begging the question with them at that point that these things exist and you have to be careful going down that road.
Well, that's what we saw, kind of.
I know Jacob, who's on this with us right now, he was involved in a sort of debate on the existence of this.
And the person that they were debating kept bringing it two to three to four levels up, just assuming that all were in agreement on that this has been established as a thing.
And they're missing the fundamental point here.
The thing was never established to exist.
In the fluids of a sick person, as they say it does, first.
That is the first step.
Exactly.
Was there any questioning going on?
And like, how do we know what we know?
How do we know that this produces what we say it produces?
In the HIV lab that I was working in, the PI there, the principal investigator, the guy whose lab it was, was an infectious disease doctor that studied at NIH under Dr. Fauci.
So, And he was, he's a great guy.
I'm not, you know, I'm not going to slam him at all.
But, you know, when you're in that situation, I think many people that are not even in that kind of situation, you just, it's not even an assumption anymore, right?
You just fully believe that the virus is there.
So it's not even a thought to question when you move on and you make a viral stock or you do other manipulations, whether it's actually there.
I mean, that's why I was so surprised that We weren't doing more with primary patient samples and that that wasn't, you know, that we had to make all these different stocks and things and then you're using that to study and just assuming that there's a virus there.
I think it's just, it's even beyond assumption, right?
They just, it's belief.
It has to be there, even though I mean, we certainly didn't have the capability to properly isolate or purify anything, but I asked about it, and it was like, oh yeah, sure, it's been done, you know, but... Yeah, they always go back to, we already know that.
We already know this, so we're going to build on that foundation of, well, we just already know that, but they don't question it, right?
We talked about it with other stuff too, so it's belief, absolutely.
So, he says there's a paper from Chin et al.
So, here it is.
JAMA.
So, as always, we want to, because this was October 2022, that's the one he mentioned, and it's from JAMA Internal Medicine.
So, this must be the right paper, and it was all about who gets hospitalized and outcomes depending on whether this was your first or second infection.
Now, the key part of this whole thing, as I'm sure everybody is aware of, is, Tom, how in the heck did they know these people had a COVID infection?
Or an infection with SARS-CoV-2.
And so we go down to the methods because that is the key question to ask.
The key question to ask is not, is this your first or second infection?
But the key question before anybody says first, second, hundredth, thousandth, or whatever, how do we know this is an infection?
So, we go down to description and data collection for all COVID-NET cases, and they say it's a population-based surveillance system in 99 counties, 14 states, approximately 10% of the U.S.
population, hospitalized patients residing in a surveillance catchment area.
with a positive molecular or rapid antigen detection test result for SARS-CoV-2 during hospitalization or within 14 days before admission are included as COVID net cases.
So there it is right there.
In other words, the definition that this whole thing is based on, whether it's your first or second or hundredth infection, is based on a rapid antigen detection test.
So So, the question there is, where is the paper that shows that this antigen, in other words, a protein detected in your snot or your mucus, actually came from the virus called SARS-CoV-2?
The answer, if you go look in the specs for the rapid antigen detection test, is the rapid antigen detection test was validated based on its correlation with the PCR, or specifically the RT-PCR, quote, test, which is not a test.
So that is the only validation showing that this antigen came from a virus is that the results correlated in a high percentage of cases with results from a PCR test.
It's the same with an antibody test.
The antibodies are validated against the antigen test.
In other words, they find a protein which they call an antigen, and they see if there's a protein which they call an antibody that matches up with that antigen, and then they see if the antigen matches up with and then they see if the antigen matches up with the sequence that they're finding in the PCR process.
And these are essentially three, they call them three independent measurements, but the reality is they're all measuring the same thing, which is the sequence matches the protein, matches the antibody.
Those are all looking for the same thing.
At no point in any of this process, Were any of these three measurements validated against a particle called a virus, specifically SARS-CoV-2?
In fact, they were validated, in other words, proven to be from the virus because they matched up with the PCR test.
So then you have to ask, what led them to say that the PCR process, i.e.
they call a test,
Matches up to the virus and so there you have to go all the way back to the original debt original quote finding of the virus based on the fan woo paper which became the basis of This is the quote genome of the virus So we take little pieces of that genome allegedly from the virus and that becomes the PCR quote test
And that little piece becomes the antigen which we detect correlating with that PCR test, and that correlates with the same antibody that correlates with the antigen which correlates with the PCR sequence.
So, where did the Fan Wu sequence come from?
Well, that they took one person who they said allegedly had a new disease of which there was no evidence of.
They ran a sequencing analysis on their SNOT with two different metagenomic sequencing programs, one called MegaHIT and one called TRINITY.
And here's where it gets even more interesting, and I can't remember which is which, but I think with Trinity, although it could have been mega hit, they got approximately 400,000 plus different possible genomes.
The longest was about 12,000 base pairs.
With the other program, I think MegaHIT, they got over a million possible genomes basically by aligning the little pieces or assembling the little pieces of the genetic sequences in the SNOT and amplifying that with PCR, if that's what PCR is in fact doing.
And so then they got over a million different possibilities.
Now here's the important point, or one of the first important points.
If they had just used the Trinity program, they would have said, this is not a coronavirus, because the longest sequence was 12,000 base pairs, and that's nowhere near a match for the previous coronaviruses.
So, if it had been only the one program, there would be no coronavirus.
So, instead, they chose the longest of the sequences from the other program and said, as we have heard over and over, that's a 90% match, which isn't a match at all, to previous coronaviruses.
Therefore, it is a mutated but new coronavirus.
That is ridiculous reasoning.
But it even gets worse, because now different bio-information experts have actually taken the raw data, in other words, the little pieces, and put it into the MegaHIT program, And to their shock and surprise, they are not able to come up with the assembly of that same approximately 29,000 base pair genome.
In other words, In other words, not only was that particular genome completely arbitrarily chosen as the genome because it was the longest and the closest to previous made-in-the-same-way coronaviruses, not only was that particular genome completely arbitrarily chosen as the genome because it was the longest and the closest to previous made-in-the-same-way
They had to use basically fraudulent addition techniques or adding certain sequences to the final sequence to even come up with a genome which was even somewhat close enough so that they could say that that was a match to the previous coronavirus sequence.
But even that sequence does not even exist, even in their own program, because you cannot repeat the experiment and get that same sequence.
That's besides the whole point that that sequence was never correlated, never attempted to be correlated, in no way correlated in any way with any particle that exists in nature, or in that particular person, or that has been isolated, or causes disease, or spreads between people.
It is a complete fiction, or as they now say, it's turtles all the way down.
So in other words, using this assessment to see what Whether this is the first or second or twentieth or hundredth infection is complete nonsense, has no relevance, because there is no correlation at any time with any virus at any point in this process.
And so all the rest of the method and results with lots of charts and graphs and whether it's Your sex and Hispanic or Latino or whether you have diabetes.
None of that has any correlation with any kind of virus or infection.
Now, some people will ask, well, how come these 3 things correlate?
How come the PCR and the antigen test and the antibody, they correlate?
And.
The first important point of that is they may correlate with each other, but they don't correlate in any point with a virus, nor have they ever been attempted to be correlated to a virus.
And so the reason why they correlate with each other is they're essentially measuring different aspects of the same thing.
And again, I think this is best described by an analogy.
It's like if you say, I have three independent proofs that there's a Santa Claus.
Number one, the cookies that I left on the table are gone.
Number two, I've seen pictures of Santa Claus.
Number three, there are presents under the table.
And you could go on and on with things that all correlate with each other and you would have a 95% confidence ratio that There was, in fact, a lump of coal, and the cookies were eaten, and there are pictures of Santa Claus, and on and on and on.
At no point was there any correlation with anything real, i.e.
actually Santa Claus.
So, essentially, that's what they're doing.
These are not independent assessments any more than cookies and pictures and whether anybody was bad or not is an independent assessment correlated with the existence of something called Santa Claus.
By the way, the antigen test that was referred to has not been cleared or approved by the FDA.
It's only under the Emergency Use Authorization.
So are blood clots a unique symptom to a virus?
First of all, there is no evidence that the virus exists.
So how would you know that the virus is causing the blood clots?
I would love to hear Dr. McCullough trace those two and say that that is a new and unique symptom that couldn't possibly be caused by something else.
And in other words, if you don't know why those buildings got bombed, Then the default position is it must be the invisible exploding unicorns.
That's the thinking that's going on here.
And we heard this in a debate the other day.
If you can't tell me what else is causing people to get sick, Then my default position is I go with the dominant narrative, which it therefore must be a virus.
That is magical thinking.
The process is they are making a claim, this is a virus, that's what has to be proven, whether you can say whether you know what those symptoms are from or not.
That should be clear to anybody.
But just in case you don't know that yet, so is it the cold?
Is it the flu?
Is it COVID?
Is it RSV?
They basically have the same symptoms.
So even assessments that have a symptom survey along with the bogus antigen test, how can they possibly know that if you have a cough, it's from COVID and not the flu or a cold?
Or if you're fatigued or body aches or etc.
So what about, is there any other possible reason why people have blood clots?
Well, here's two articles just on a cursory look that show that radiation sickness has all the symptoms including damage to the endothelial lining and blood clots.
You can see this in an article called "The Commonalities Between COVID-19 and Radiation Injury." Forgetting about the fact that they had no way of knowing whether anybody had COVID-19 or not, so the paper is obviously flawed.
All they can say is both conditions initiate a cytokine storm and both conditions have symptoms of blood clots.
Here's another paper.
Again, even though it's very flawed paper, I'm sure some of you have seen this.
Evidence for a connection between Coronavirus-19 and exposure to radio frequency radiation from wireless communications.
Even though there is no coronavirus disease 19, so the paper is flawed.
But what they can tell you is that wireless radiation is a ubiquitous environmental stress.
And it creates all the symptoms and they go on to say, including blood clots.
And all the rest of the symptoms, which we erroneously ascribe to here's hypercoagulation, pairs the micro circulation.
So all this is clear.
There is a clear correlation between a variety of environmental toxins, such as pharmaceutical drugs, There is no new symptom called blood clots, which is unique to a new, quote, disease called COVID.
None of these tests, none of these studies have ever been correlated to an actual virus.
That is easy to demonstrate and easy to prove.
And so the whole narrative just falls apart.
Nobody seems to question them about the basic science.
I don't know whether it's a matter of politeness or whether they don't know the science.
They don't know how to ask the questions.
They don't know how to ask a simple question.
Dr. McCullough, can you please explain how you know these people got infected with the virus?
Can you follow that whole chain of events?
Rather than nod and say they need pharmaceutical antivirals.
And by the way, how did you demonstrate that these so-called nutraceutical antivirals, or over-the-counter antivirals, how did you demonstrate that they actually kill viruses?
And kill viruses in you?
Because I know how they demonstrate that.
They basically put it in a cell culture, and the cell culture doesn't die as quickly, and they somehow say the increased length of time before the cell culture dies somehow means they've actually killed a virus.
This is crazy thinking.
But this should be the responsibility of all ethical, responsible, informed journalists and podcasters and interviewers to ask these people every single event, how do you know these informed journalists and podcasters and interviewers to ask these people every single event, how Because I know this paradigm, this way of thinking, thinking,
this victim mentality that you've been dominated by this unseen virus and therefore have to separate and not go to events and not be around your loved ones and wear the face diaper thing and the whole bit and this victim mentality that you've been dominated by this unseen virus and therefore How do you know this is based on good science?
And they never asked that.
My call for help is this is where I need all the people who listen to me, who also listen to various podcasts and interviewers and other things that they may also respect for different views on different things.
They need to know that it's time they start holding everyone, myself included, everyone's feet to the fire and start asking the hard questions.
We need to change the way we see the world.
We need to change the way we think.
And everybody that we encounter who is in the public sphere, who is Speaking out of that paradigm needs to be challenged.
And the only way that's going to happen is if all of you get involved and say to people in a very cooperative, friendly, polite, respectful way, here's the science.
It's time for you to ask all these people who come on here, how do you know this is a virus?
What are the steps that they used?
How do you know something is an antiviral?
We need you to be our mouthpiece and our questioner and ask people this over and over again so that we finally see if they can stand up to scientific scrutiny, because at the end of the day, we know that they can't.
I was reading something in, I think it was the National Institute of Health or something like that, and they were talking allegedly about the flu pandemic of 1918-1919, and they said that they had people that had allegedly had the flu, and they were literally coughing in people's faces, and they weren't getting it.
Which is like, well, doesn't that sort of refute the whole, like, contagion thing?
I don't know.
So they did, in 1918-1919, the Boston Health Department, which we talked about in our book, They decided to see whether this Spanish flu, which was considered the worst viral infection in history, 20 to 50 million people died.
It was considered highly contagious, even though, truth be told, they never found a virus.
But they said it was contagious.
So they took 100 people at various stages of having the flu.
So they did three groups.
One of them, for 10 minutes, they coughed Open mouth into open mouth, right?
The sick person, like they were kissing, coughs right into the volunteer's mouth.
That's one group.
Another group, they just breathed into their open mouth for 10 minutes.
And the third group, they sucked the snot out of the person's nose who was sick, and they squirted it into the volunteer's nose, right?
They took the mucus, where all the so-called viruses are, squirted it up into the person's nose, and these are a hundred people, three different groups, and at the end of the experiment, one person got sick, that was in the snot group, and he got a runny nose, and that was it.
Which they said was not, it was no relation to the flu.
Now, the most interesting thing about that study was, If you or I did that study, and we're then writing the conclusion, right?
So we have to write what we found.
We might say, we found it wasn't contagious.
Right?
That's the obvious conclusion.
But that's not what the conclusion was.
The conclusion was, it must be contagious, but we didn't do aggressive enough measures to spread the disease.
And when I read that, I thought to myself, like what?
Like a lung transplant or something?
I mean, what did they think they could do that would make it spread from one person to another besides coughing in their open mouth for 10 minutes?
There isn't anything.
And so even amazingly, the facts of the story, the delusion of it must be a contagion was so deep.
That the facts meant nothing.
Over the years, I gradually, and I would say almost reluctantly, even though I've been involved in this for 40 years, looked at the evidence to see whether viruses in particular are pathogens, meaning they cause disease.
And I found, to my shock and surprise, I guess, that there is actually no evidence for that.
And I can describe exactly the steps that I went through to get to that, if that's of interest.
But that is actually what the clear science shows.
And all I can say is, I mean, I can't help what I find.
I mean, it is just, it is what it is.
And I wouldn't actually care whether it was true or not, because I had no skin in the game when I started looking into this.
But I ended up knowing how to look into it, and that's the issue here.
A surrogate test means, just to give you a very simple example, if you want to have a pregnancy test.
Now, I think this is a very clear example because in that case, you have what is sometimes called a gold standard test, which means you take, say, a four-month pregnant woman, and you do an a four-month pregnant woman, and you do an ultrasound and palpate and listen to the heartbeat.
And I think that's what I'm saying.
And if all those things are positive, in other words, you hear a heartbeat, mother's, you know, belly's swelling, and you can see the baby on the ultrasound, that's a positive confirmation that you have a pregnancy.
Now, I would also say that even then you have to be careful because you could, just because a woman's belly swells, doesn't mean she's pregnant.
And you even have to, and this may sound funny, but if you do an ultrasound, there is even the question, does doing an ultrasound, meaning exposing somebody's abdomen to high intensity sound waves, Does that create the appearance of a fetus?
Now, I would say the answer is highly, highly unlikely that no, it doesn't.
But if possible, one would want to do a control experiment and make sure that's not the case.
It may not be possible, but that is something that actually should be done.
And even the heartbeat, you know, you could be hearing something, you could be hearing the aortic aneurysm or something.
So, actually, I ran this by somebody and said, you know, the only real gold standard is when the baby comes out.
Then you know.
Now, if you have that, and then you want to do a surrogate test, which is not a test for whether there's a baby in there directly, it's a test for the level of a hormone in the blood, or a protein, or a chemical.
Now, you can do that on 100 women and say you know they all deliver babies.
And if 100% of them at two months are positive, then you can A, say this test can be used as a surrogate for finding pregnancy without have to wait for the baby.
And you know that you validated the test against something you know to be true.
And then you can also find false negatives and false positives.
So, you can do it on 100 men, and if 3 are positive, you have a 3% false positive rate.
Because it may be that somebody has a tumor that secretes, you know, HCG.
And so, you... And if you have 3 women who deliver babies and their test was negative, below a certain threshold, then you know you have a 3% false negative rate.
And when you do all those steps, validate there's a pregnancy, do it on people who you know can't possibly be pregnant, do it on people you know absolutely are pregnant, then you end up with a valid test.
Now, the problem in virology is not only have they never validated any of the tests against anything they know to be true, They don't, you don't even actually know there's a pregnancy.
You don't even know if anybody has proved that there's a baby in there.
In which case, you end up using surrogate tests like PCR tests, and antigen tests, and antibody tests, and genomes, and even I would say cell cultures.
Those are all surrogate tests because they can't do the thing that we would all use to prove it, which is isolate, find, purify the particle from a sick person.
And in a sense, that's the origin of all this trouble.
Because it turns out every time you actually do proper controls to validate a surrogate test, For a virus?
Turns out not to be specific for a virus.
You can get these sequences from breakdown of lung tissue, or bacterial tissue, or fungal tissue.
And you can get antibodies against nonspecific things, and on and on and on.
In which case you end up with an unproven assumption, which is that there is a baby in there.
You've never seen the baby, you can't prove it.
And that's the whole sort of Fallacy behind virology and the gain of function, because I think as we'll see from Mike, it's one surrogate test after another or one surrogate experiment or example after another, none of which are correlated to anything which is the particle or the issue, and so it becomes
appropriately named gain of fiction, not gain of function.
The quote bad guys made a mistake when they made this about a virus because there is no evidence that this thing actually exists.
And millions and millions and millions of people are going to understand that.
And they're going to demand a different world.
And they're going to demand that their leaders, if there are such things, actually understand that or step down.
And I think that's a great thing because we're going to hopefully take this in our own hands based on understanding the real truth here and And to me, that's a good thing because you cannot say the problem is they lie to us and treat us like children.
And then on the other hand, say, I can't tell people this because they won't understand.
I'm not interested anymore in what the politicians think or not think.
There is going to be an incredible groundswell of people who understand exactly what we're talking about, who know how to use logic and reason to realize these particles have never been shown to exist, and they're going to say, we're going to make our own way.
It's happening more and more day by day.
And everybody who doesn't get on this bandwagon who espouses truth and freedom will be, I think, inundated with questions.
And we don't believe you anymore.
And that's the way it's going to have to work out.
▲
Export Selection