Response to a Virus Supporter

A virus believer wrote:

You're about as likely to convince the general public that viruses don't exist that you'll be able to convince them that gravity isn't real. It's a losing strategy.

Gravity is easily provable. It may be debatable if it is a push or a pull, but there is no debate that the phenomenon is easily observable and repeatable.

It is not possible to prove that viruses don't exist, but we can ask where is the proof that they do. It is not a losing strategy to seek the truth and very critically examine the methods that are used to tell us about reality, the threats we are subject to, and the responses we should be taking. As the days go by, it will be easier to show the public that the virus narrative does not explain what we are living through and faced with by those who have been in charge of the response.

Also, I really don't get this idea that there has been no "foundational paper" to support viruses.

The foundational papers that are often referred to, the Enders paper from the 1950s and the Wu paper for the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 have serious methodological errors. The Enders paper even states that it is not conclusive, but the process was considered good enough to begin manufacturing a quackcine, so they proceeded.

The Wu paper does not demonstrate the existence of a particle, rather it describes how many fragments were combined and declares that such a particle exists. Has anyone cross checked that result? After reading hundreds of such papers, the virus skeptics say no such paper has been found.

There are actual photos of viruses for pete's sake.

Yes, there are photos of biological structures. How do we know that they are viruses? What we do know is that they are found when cells breakdown. In Lanka's control experiments (which are not done in most viral isolations) he found the same effect without any diseased patient fluids added. This should at least raise reasonable doubt if not outright disproof of the conclusions of virologists.

There's been a vast body of scientific knowledge built up around them.

There is a vast body of work on analyzing what are thought to be viruses, but there are other cellular structures that have been observed that are the same size as the alleged viruses. (Appearances Can Be Deceiving - Viral-like Inclusions in COVID-19 Negative Renal Biopsies by Electron Microscopy) These structures have not been demonstrated to be able to pass from one person to another and cause disease.

your idea would presume that every virologist in the past 100 years was lying to help the WEF (World Economic Forum). It doesn't make sense on its face.

I am not positing that virologists are lying. They have been trained in a particular method. The have been trained to interpret what they see in a particular way.

There is often circular logic in the papers they publish. There are either no control experiments or they are inadequate. This training has told them that the results of their methodologies are verification of a hypothesis. This is what is being debated. The way that virology is being done does help maintain a narrative that the WEF is taking advantage of.

Steve Kirsch stated his 'expert' had definitive proof that SARS-CoV-2 exists. The paper is a typical example of circular reasoning. The author said he would respond to any questions. To date, I am not aware of any response to the questions that were posed. This should be easy for a veteran virologist. For more on this, see this post:

A Follow Up to the Virus Challenge

Questions for those who support the virus narrative

Why are the events we are witnessing not supporting the hypothesis that a pathogenic particle is responsible for disease?

Why is there no geometric growth in disease? Why is the 'infection rate' if there is such a thing, fairly steady in its rise and fall, like we would expect for the incidence of chronic disease except for spikes due to the impact of NPIs (non pharmaceutical interventions)? Why were alternate medications prohibited from use? If quackcines work, why the mandates? If quackcines work, why the fear of the unquackcinated? Why do the quackcines not work? Why the heavy censorship?

Why are there over 200 FOI requests that have come back from governments and health agencies around the world that state they have no record of existence of any samples of SARS-CoV-2?

• For more on this, see Christine Massey’s work here: COVID-19 FOI Responses and her substack page is https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/

If the science and medicine were clear why is there so much to question? Perhaps you are not aware of how many of the same elements are repeating in accordance with what happened with HIV. Reading RFK Jr.'s book, The Real Anthony Fauci is quite revealing in this regard and in terms of what some term the Medical Industrial Complex.

Data is available that shows that deaths are higher in regions that had stricter health measures. Why more cases/deaths in the US than in Canada? West Germany than East Germany? Are we to believe the virus respects political boundaries?

The ACM (all cause mortality) is telling us a different story than the virus narrative and it is based on hard data, assuming that data is reliable, rather than data on cases, which is not reliable whether it was fudged or not because the PCR test is inadequate and not a diagnostic tool. Deaths are higher after the beginning of the administration of the quackcine program than before.

Something is not right here. The observable evidence tells us that the pattern of deaths does not support viral activity. The papers are lacking in logic and have methodological errors. The authors do not defend them. In fact, they admit no viral purification was done.

All this is telling me and others that the measures taken and the chemicals being injected are far more likely to be the cause of illness and death than a particle that has yet to be proven to exist as a pathogenic entity that is passed from one to another.