Thread by @Alec_Zeck

Are you confused by those who say "COVID doesn't exist"? Let me help you out.

Virology 101. A refresher.

🧵

/1

I do not say this lightly: the foundations for virology, and thus the entire field of virology, are fraudulent and pseudoscientific.

Pseudoscience is anything claiming to be scientific that doesn’t follow the scientific method. In every single "viral isolation" paper — which is the foundational evidence for the field of virology (of which both all other pieces of virology and the field of vaccinology are built upon), a variation of this procedure is followed:

/2

snot/blood/other fluids from a sick person assumed to contain virus particles (but never verified to contain virus particles) is added to viral transport medium (VTM).

At a minimum VTM contains fetal bovine serum (FBS), amphotericin B (a nephrotoxic antimycotic) and gentamicin (a nephrotoxic antibiotic). Nephrotoxic means “toxic to kidneys”, by the way. That’ll come in next.

After this, they take that mixture (a sample of snot/blood/other fluids and VTM) and add it to a foreign cell line that has been kept alive via unnatural means in a lab, typically VERO E6, VERO CCL81 (kidney cells from an adult green monkey) or human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells.

/3

Then, after that mixture is added to the cells (or sometimes alongside adding the mixture or just before adding the mixture) the nutrient serum for the cells, FBS, is reduced from 10% to 2% (and sometimes

to 1% or 0%), effectively starving the cells of their food.They also add gentamicin (sometimes geneticin, sometimes penicilin-streptomycin) and amphotericin B to the culture. Again, these substances are known to be nephrotoxic (toxic to kidneys), and they're being added to kidney cells, where it's assumed they have no negative effects on the cells and are simply there to keep the environment free of fungal and bacterial growth.

/4

The cells then break down, experiencing what is called the cytopathic effect (CPE), which is cell injury or death. The sample is then prepared for electron microscopy, (which is another MAJOR problem in and of itself:

see here: pro-decizii-informate.ro/wp-content/upl…

here: viroliegy.com/category/elect…

and here: rumble.com/v512nrn-the-mo…

/5

This process is pseudoscientific (and absurd) for the following reasons:

The scientific method requires an observed natural phenomenon. Full stop. That menas you observe something happening in nature. The moment you take something out of its natural context, it's no longer an observed natural phenomenon (this is especially the case when excising tissue from a complex physical, chemical, emotional, electric, etc. entity, throwing a bunch of shit on it in a lab and assuming it tells you something about natural world is absurd).

/6

However, in the case of so-called "infectious diseases", you might say that you observe two or more people getting sick in the same space with similar symptoms. In my mind, that is a justified observed natural phenomenon.

After that, you form a hypothesis. For example, “I think Y phenomenon (dependent variable) is caused by X particle (independent variable)."

In order to proceed to test that hypothesis, you need to have X, the presumed cause, the thing you think causes Y, in order to vary and manipulate it to see if it produces the observed effect in question. That is arguably the most important step. In order to follow the scientific method, you need your independent variable, X. Virology has NEVER shown that "X" exists.

/7

Myself and several others have scoured the virological literature attempting to find one paper that clearly demonstrates viruses being shown to exist as discreet entities, isolated directly from a human sample, without first being combined with any of the following:

-viral transport medium
-antibiotics like gentamicin or geneticin
-antimycotics like amphotericin b
-foreign cell line
-fetal bovine serum

and we've been unable to find a single paper. /8

And that's not all — Christine Massey has compiled over 220 FOI requests to various government and health agencies across the world asking for evidence of SARS-CoV-2 and other "viruses."

To be clear: she's not asking random agencies for this evidence; she's asking the very agencies that claim the existence and pathogenicity of these alleged entities.

Here's an example of one of her FOI requests:

/9

When asking for this evidence, in every single case, this is the response that she gets:

"A search of our records fsiled to reveal any documents pertaining to your request."

But wait — there's more!

/10

I had a “discussion”, for lack of a better term, with both META AI and ChatGPT.

Just by asking a simple series of logical questions — and pointing out contradictions when appropriate — both AI tools ended up admitting that viruses have never been shown to exist in reality, that virology is pseudoscience, that the entire premise behind vaccines is also pseudoscientific (given it's built upon virology), that the COVID measures were entirely fraudulent given there was no evidence of a virus, and the financial ramifications of all this are estimated to be upwards of $2,000,000,000,000 (and in the case of Chat GPT, $10-$20 trillion).

x.com/Alec_Zeck/stat…

/11

Just to be sure that it wasn't biased towards me for whatever reason, I inputted this prompt:

"I understand that you are programmed to be highly agreeable by default. I am looking for a more challenging debate so you should instead adopt a defensive posture, bordering on hostile when needed, in order to challenge any point I make. Do not use logical fallacies or insults, but do aggressively challenge any statement I make if it contradicts what you understand to be the truth. If I present you with sufficient reasoning and/or facts you should of course concede my point, but only when satisfied that I have made a sound logical argument supported by facts"

/12

It still conceded that viruses haven't been show to exist after a brief debate.

/13

Now let's get back to "X" and "Y", the scientific method, and evidence for a scientific claim.

Their version of “X” is based in the absurd, assumption-riddled, unscientific process I wrote out above (posts 3-6).

They assume the particles are in the fluids of a sick person, but never show they are. In fact, virologists willingly admit that, in order to isolate/purify/characterize/sequence "viruses", they must follow the steps mentioned above.

They provide excuses like “there’s not enough virus present in the fluids” (which is hilarious considering they also say that there's upwards of 20-200 million virus particles in one sneeze). They assume the particles (which are assumed to be present in the fluids in the first place) cause the cells to experience CPE (never mind the cells were starved and poisoned).

And lastly, they assume the resultant particles shown in electron micrograph images (after the cells experience CPE) are viruses.

/14

Again, virology has no independent variable, and therefore, is by definition pseudoscientific.

Additionally, they don’t conduct proper negative controls/control experiments. Because they don’t have an independent variable, and are therefore not testing their hypothesis, we can’t call what they’re doing a scientific experiment at all, so any semblance of a negative control/control experiment isn’t possible from the get-go.

However, if we make major concessions on their behalf and consider fluids from a sick person to be the independent variable, they still don’t conduct proper negative controls.

/15

Virologists claim to conduct an adequate negative control, which they refer to as the “mock” infected culture.

Several of us have looked for years, and have yet to find a single paper that clearly demonstrates the methodology and materials for the mock infected culture — the concentration of antibiotics, antimycotics, viral transport medium, fetal bovine serum, other culture media, and the cell line — were identical to the experimental culture.

In fact, when some of us contacted authors of papers in which the details of the mock infected culture were left out, the authors describe using different concentrations (and sometimes different substances altogether) in the mock infected culture.

/16

I’ve been involved with a project led by @JamieAA_Again, including 30-year experienced biochemists and geneticists, have conducted the world’s most comprehensive control studies to falsify the virological methodology.

In these studies, we followed the The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) protocols — the exact same cell culture isolation technique used by virologists wherein they claim to identify viruses and demonstrate CPE. We followed those protocols by the book, except we didn't include any fluid sample from a sick person. This means there was no possible source of a "virus" present in our protocols — and we achieved the exact same CPE, objectively (with Laser Spectrometry COUNTESS cell viability analyzer), in 90/90 cell cultures. The very same CPE they say demonstrates the existence and pathogenicity of "viruses."

/17

@JamieAA_Again You can learn more about that project by following these links:

controlstudies.substack.com

rumble.com/v512nrn-the-mo…

and we have much more coming with this project...

/18

With all of that being said, we (those who expose virology) weren’t even required to do any of that work in the first place, because

the burden of proof lies on the individual/organization making the positive claim, i.e., “X is real and causes Y.” That is a maxim of law.

We have no requirement to (nor can we) prove something doesn’t exist. We can only falsify the so-called evidence put forth, showing that it absolutely does not prove what they claim it does.

The individual/organization claiming X does exist and cause Y must provide the proof, not the other way around.

/19

So with that, any talk of what viruses do/don’t do is a reification fallacy and begging the question. That means discussions surrounding variants, genomes, symptoms alleged to be caused by viruses, etc., are all unscientific nonsense.

Referring to expert opinion as evidence for viruses is an appeal to authority. @Doctor_I_am_The uses this one often.

Saying the overwhelming majority of experts believe is both appealing to authority and a bandwagon fallacy.

Pointing to effects in culture or symptoms in humans as “evidence” of viruses is both begging the question and affirming the consequent. @Doctor_I_am_The and others use this one often as well.

/20

In order to make any claims about what X does/doesn’t do, you must first clearly demonstrate that X exists.

It’s no different than saying "a unicorn with lasers for eyes caused my rug in front of my fireplace to catch on fire.” In order to say that the unicorn with lasers for eyes caused anything, you need to first demonstrate the unicorn with lasers for eyes exists. You can't point to hoof prints in your yard, long hair by your fireplace (secondary/tertiary evidence) as proof.

/21

And lastly,

we don’t have to know what is the cause of [insert an effect] to know what clearly isn’t the cause of [insert effect].

And, again, by falsifying one paradigm, we are not required to find a better replacement.

/22

Think of it like this:

if someone claims Joe killed Bill in Wisconsin in February 2020, but Joe clearly demonstrates that he was in Germany all of February 2020 (with security footage, pictures, text messages, receipts, etc.) — thus falsifying the idea that he was the cause of Bill's death, is Joe still on the hook until they can find who did commit the murder?

No. That's absurd. But that's what so many people do with respect to virology.

There are plenty of other plausible explanations for what causes so-called "viral illnesses", but it requires you set aside your preconceived notions and explore.

/23

So the reason people say "COVID does't exist" is because the definition of COVID, according to the WHO is:

"an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus."

Because SARS-CoV-2 hasn't been shown to exist, and because COVID's definition requires the existence of SARS-CoV-2, COVID as a distinct disease is not real.

/24

“But what caused me to lose my taste and smell”?

This is by no means a new phenomenon, and it is certainly not evidence for SARS-CoV-2.

This thread addresses plenty of other plausible explanations while highlighting how this phenomenon was very common before the COVID era:

/25