Nov. 29, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
05:01
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| The entire field of virology, the bedrock of modern medicine, is built on a logical fallacy so simple it's taught in high school. | |
| Here's the deal. | |
| We're told that virologists prove a virus causes a disease through a gold standard experiment. | |
| It sounds very official, very scientific, but when you actually look at what they do, it falls apart. | |
| It starts with them taking a sample from a sick person, like mucus or lung fluid. | |
| They don't find a virus in it. | |
| They don't even look. | |
| Instead, they assume an invisible pathogenic virus is hiding in there. | |
| This is the first and most critical error. | |
| Then, they take this unpurified goo and mix it into a petri dish. | |
| This dish contains monkey kidney cells, or sometimes cancer cells. | |
| They douse this mixture with toxic antibiotics and antifungals. | |
| Then, they drastically reduce the nutrients, essentially starving the cells. | |
| They wait a few days, and guess what happens? | |
| The cells break down and die. | |
| They call this the cytopathogenic effect, or CPE. | |
| And their grand conclusion is, aha! | |
| The cells died. | |
| This is proof that the virus from the patient's sample was present and killed them. | |
| If that sounds like a huge leap in logic to you, you're right. | |
| It's riddled with logical fallacies. | |
| First, it's called begging the question. | |
| This is a form of circular reasoning where you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. | |
| They assume a virus is in the sample from the start, and then use the resulting cell death as proof of their initial assumption. | |
| It's like saying, I know ghosts are real because the strange noises in my house are caused by ghosts. | |
| The argument just goes in a circle. | |
| Second, they commit a fallacy called affirming the consequent. | |
| It follows this flawed structure. | |
| If A is true, then B is true. | |
| B is true, therefore A must be true. | |
| Here's a simple example. | |
| If it's raining, the street will be wet. | |
| The street is wet, therefore it must be rainy. | |
| But that's obviously not sound logic. | |
| A street cleaner could have come by, or a fire hydrant could have burst. | |
| In virology, it looks like this. | |
| If a pathogenic virus is in the sample, the cells will die. | |
| The cells died, therefore a pathogenic virus must have been in the sample. | |
| They completely ignore all the other reasons the cells could have died. | |
| This leads to the third fallacy. | |
| False cause. | |
| They see a correlation. | |
| They added the sample and later the cells died, and they incorrectly assume causation. | |
| But what about the toxic antibiotics they added? | |
| What about the fact that they are starving the cells? | |
| What about the stress of mixing human material with animal cells? | |
| The most ironic part is that the man who pioneered this method in 1954, John Franklin Enders, admitted in his own papers that these cell changes could be caused by many noxious agents or unknown factors. | |
| He knew that cell death alone was not conclusive proof of a virus, but the field of virology took this flawed method and ran with it, building an entire empire on its shaky foundation. | |
| This isn't just a minor technical issue. | |
| This single illogical experiment is the starting point for everything else. | |
| The electron microscope images of viruses? | |
| They're taken from these contaminated cell cultures, not directly from a sick person. | |
| The genetic sequences of new viruses like SARS-CoV-I2? | |
| They are pieced together from the genetic soup found in these same cell cultures. | |
| a mix of human, animal, and microbial material. | |
| If the foundation is rotten, the entire building is unstable. | |
| So what would real science look like? | |
| It's simple, and it's what they should have been doing all along. | |
| First, you would need to take a sample from a sick person and purify it, separating the suspected virus particle from everything else. | |
| Cell debris, bacteria, host DNA, everything. | |
| You'd have a pure sample of just one thing. | |
| Then, you would take only that purified particle and introduce it to a healthy culture of cells. | |
| If, and only if, that single isolated particle consistently caused the cells to die, while control groups remained healthy, would you have the beginning of a case? | |
| This has never been done. | |
| Not once. | |
| Instead, we have a field that has relied for over 70 years on an experiment that wouldn't pass a basic logic class. | |
| It assumes its conclusion, ignores confounding variables, and mistakes correlation for causation. |
Export Selection