Seven Reasons to Be Skeptical About the Claims of Virologists

“The way of science is paved with discarded theories which were once declared self-evident.”
― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Virologists have been getting things wrong for over a century. In science, getting things wrong comes with the territory and is forgivable. In the 19th century a sailor with scurvy might have been dumped on an island so that he couldn’t infect the other sailors. Eventually, it was learned that scurvy was caused by Vitamin C deficiency and they stocked ships with limes, thus the sailor’s nickname “limey.” Pellagra is another example of a disease once thought to be infectious though it is caused by a lack of Vitamin B3. You live and you learn.

But, when scientists stubbornly stick to incorrect theories, it is time to challenge them. I’ll discuss the cornerstones of virology and show why each of them is highly questionable, to the extent that virology begins to look like a building built on a foundation of potato chips.

1) The Spanish Flu

The Spanish Flu was caused by a virus, right? Not so fast.

The Invisible Rainbow, by Arthur Firstenberg, makes the case that there is a strong connection between electricity and health and that we first began to experience the negative health impact of electricity shortly after the world began to embrace the electric light.

The book makes a case that the flu outbreak in 1889 was related to the build out of power lines for electric lighting. In 1918 the radio era began, ushering in what was labelled the Spanish Flu. In 1957 the radar era began, ushering in the Asian flu pandemic. In 1968 the satellite era began, ushering in the Hong Kong flu pandemic.

Firstenberg describes experiments performed in 1918 attempting to prove that the flu is transmitted from person to person by normal contact. But all such experiments failed. In one experiment, a medical team from the United States Public Health Service tried to infect one hundred healthy volunteers:
“We collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way. The patient with fever, in bed, had a large shallow, tray-like arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile saline solution, using perhaps 5 c.c., which is allowed to run into the tray, and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucous through coughing and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous surface of the throat. Each volunteer received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I described. they received it into each nostril; received it in the throat and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will understand that some of it was swallowed. None of them took sick.

Dr Fauci co-authored a paper concluding: “The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria. Less substantial data from the subsequent 1957 and 1968 pandemics are consistent with these findings.” 1

2) “8-10% of the human genome is viral”

Here is the official party line: “retroviruses” synthesize an enzyme called “reverse transcriptase”, which translates their own RNA into DNA which is incorporated into the host cell’s genome. That is the official position and they go further to say that 8-10% of the human genome is viral in origin. It’s a rather odd theory that our DNA comes from viruses, but, let’s assume that it is true and see where it leads us.

If so much of the human genome originated as retroviral particles then how do we know that when we detect, for example, HIV in a patient sample, that we are detecting something from outside that is infecting the patient, rather than some DNA molecules that are part of the human genome itself? Are virologists confusing endogenous DNA from our own cells with exogenous DNA from invading microbes when “detecting viruses” with technology like PCR? Since PCR is their main tool for “detecting viruses” (it is really just looking for DNA fragments supposedly related to a virus) this is an important question.

There is considerable evidence that virologists are confusing themselves. Robert Gallo, once considered a Nobel Prize contender for the discovery of HIV, is one of the authors of a paper that concludes that it is impossible to distinguish between an extracellular vesicle (EV) – cellular material that is naturally released from the cell – and a virus.

“Here, we aimed to create awareness that virus preparations may never be pure but rather are contaminated with diverse subpopulations of EVs, and some of these EVs may be either indistinguishable from or very similar to so-called defective viruses.”

-Robert Gallo 2

An EV is material that is ejected from the cell, a normal process, possibly related to detoxification. If the EVs have some of that retroviral DNA in them, what is to keep them from being detected and mistaken for a viral infection?

3) Though virologists talk about viruses in absolute terms, they are never detected directly, but only through indirect means

Virologists rely on surrogate markers such as antibody tests and PCR tests. This is indirect evidence which could be pointing to factors other than viruses. In the early days of AIDS “HIV” was “detected” through antibody tests. The assumption was that the higher the amount of antibodies the higher the amount of virus. This assumption went against the grain from the long established presumption that more antibodies was an indicator that the body won its battle against the virus. So, why was the concept of antibodies changed to the opposite of what it once was?

A few years later PCR technology became available and was used to “detect” HIV. PCR is best thought of as a chemical manufacturing process. The keyword here is “chemistry.” No microscopes are involved. Again it is indirect evidence.

4) Virologists stubbornly ignore the simple and sensible Koch’s Postulates that could prove or disprove the virus hypothesis

Koch’s Postulates are a hundred years old and make simple, elegant sense. To prove there is a new pathogen, you must:

– Find the pathogen in all cases of the disease.
– Isolate the pathogen
– Expose a healthy subject (e.g. a monkey) to the pathogen
– Verify that the pathogen causes illness in the test subject and that the pathogen is found

Such experiments could be easily performed with a tiny sliver of the budgets spent on AIDS and COVID research. Yet, they are never done.

5) Financial Conflicts of Interest

Financial conflicts of interest cause many (most?) findings in medical science to be suspect. Consider these quotes:

“The pharmaceutical industry is manufacturing all of these medical journal articles behind the scenes for basically marketing purposes. I was astounded because I had this enormous trust in medical journals.”
– Leemon McHenry, author of The Illusion of Evidence Based Medicine 3

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
– Marcia Angells, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine 4

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
– Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet 5

“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”
– Peter Daszak 6

In Ceila Farber’s book Severe Adverse Events she characterizes the press conference in which HHS Secretary Heckler declared that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS to be science by press conference. The scientific paper supposedly supporting the claim was not even published yet but the press conference planted HIV firmly in people’s minds. To this day there remains no proof that HIV causes AIDS, yet billions of dollars are spent on research that assumes that HIV causes AIDS.

Anyone going against the tide risks career and reputation. This includes Peter Duesberg, once considered an all-star of virology. Duesberg destroyed the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis in his book Inventing the AIDS Virus. Sadly for Duesberg, Dr. Fauci responded by cutting off funding to Duesberg and he was lucky to keep his job teaching undergraduates. It was an early instance of what has come to be called “cancel culture” and, no doubt, sent a chill through the halls of academia.

Kary Mullis – winner of the Nobel Prize for the invention of PCR – says PCR should not be used as a diagnostic. (This would seem to be commonsense as PCR literally manufactures DNA molecules.) Huge profits are made by the companies that crank out these tests so, apparently, that is more important than what the inventor believes. Mullis’s conversion away from the HIV-AIDS hypothesis took its course over several years in which he searched for the scientific paper that showed HIV causes AIDS. It wasn’t available in a database search. His colleagues were unable to provide him with such a paper. He attended conferences and asked around and was never able to find such a paper.

“People keep asking me, ‘You mean you don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS?’ And I say, ‘Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant! I have no scientific evidence for it.’ I might believe in God, and He could have told me in a dream that HIV causes AIDS. But I wouldn’t stand up in front of scientists and say, ‘I believe HIV causes AIDS because God told me.’ I’d say, ‘I have papers here in hand and experiments that have been done that can be demonstrated to others.’ It’s not what somebody believes, it’s experimental proof that counts. And those guys don’t have that.”
– Kary Mullis, California Monthly, Sept 1994 7

6) Fake Pandemics

RFK Jr’s book The Real Anthony Fauci does a great job of detailing the sordid machinations of industry, government and media in creating fake pandemics. I refer you to the book for details.

Harvey Risch, epidemiologist, says about Covid, “Overall, I’d say that we’ve had a pandemic of fear. And fear has affected almost everybody, whereas the infection has affected relatively few.” He added, “By and large, it’s been a very selected pandemic, and predictable. It was very distinguished between young versus old, healthy versus chronic disease people. So we quickly learned who was at risk for the pandemic and who wasn’t … However, the fear was manufactured for everybody. And that’s what’s characterized the whole pandemic is that degree of fear and people’s response to the fear.” 8

You might wonder about pandemics in the distant past. Dr. Sam Bailey’s video What We Weren’t Taught About The Plague shows that the common explanation for the plague – bacteria spread by rats – is untenable because the same bacterium exists today, there are more rats today than ever, and people do not succumb to the Plague these days.

7) Vaccines Have Taken Credit that Belongs to Improved Sanitation and Nutrition

While many still believe that vaccines have saved millions of lives and are responsible for the elimination of several diseases in the 20th century, it is actually improved sanitation and nutrition that deserves the credit taken by vaccinations. In the chart below you will see that many of these diseases of the 20th century were nearly eliminated before the vaccines were created.9

In summary, the Spanish Flu may have little to do with viruses. The scientist who authored the paper that supposedly proved HIV causes AIDS now says it is not possible to distinguish between cell debris and viruses. Viruses are never detected directly, only through circumstantial evidence. Financial conflicts of interest in medical science are hard to deny. And vaccines get far more credit than they deserve. I would like to see the press conference announcing those findings, but I won’t hold my breath.

Sources:

1 Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (Fauci Paper)

2 Robert Gallo, et al. Extracellular vesicles and viruses: Are they close relatives?

3 Perspectives on the Pandemic | “The Illusion of Evidence Based Medicine”

4 Skeptical of medical science reports? (Marcia Angell)

5 Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? (Richard Horton)

6 The Reason for the Indoctrination and Dumbing Down of Americans Is Now Obvious: There Is No Pandemic, Only Fear (Peter Daszak quote)

7 Quotes from Dr. Kary Mullis Regarding the Baseless HIV-AIDS Hypothesis

8 COVID-19 a Pandemic of Fear ‘Manufactured’ by Authorities: Yale Epidemiologist

9 Suzanne Humphries, M.D., dissolvingillusions.com

Share this: