There are two types of virologists.
First,
those who claim they’re isolating viruses. I’ve written many articles
debunking their absurd stance. They define isolation as “swimming in a
soup of many substances and never separated from the soup.” In other
words, these virologists define isolated as un-isolated. You could call
this Orwellian Scientific Newspeak. Sheer nonsense.
Then
there are “the more sophisticated” virologists who say, “Viruses can
only live in liquid inside a cell. Therefore, they can never be
separated from the cell or the liquid. To demand isolation is to ask for
the impossible. We can discover the genetic sequences of these viruses
without isolating them. Forget isolation. Discovering the genetic
sequences proves the viruses exist.”
Let’s examine this second brand of virology.
Let’s
go back to the moment when scientists decided viruses existed for the
first time. After all, THEY made the original claim. The burden of proof
was on THEM. And they made that decision long before there was a
procedure called genetic sequencing.
If
isolation is impossible, if these viruses swim forever in liquid inside
cells, un-isolated, then HOW DID SCIENTISTS FIRST DISCOVER VIRUSES
EXIST?
On what basis did they make the claim?
Through direct observation? Certainly not, if the viruses can never be separated from the liquid in which they swim.
“We first discovered the existence of viruses that can’t be isolated by…”
By
what? Singing songs? Talking to an ancestor of Antony Fauci? Finding
out how much money was in the bank accounts of the Rockefeller family?
“No,
look. Here’s the way it works. NOW we say isolation of viruses is
impossible, because people are accusing us of not isolating them. But
THEN, way back in time when scientists discovered the existence of
viruses for the first time, they knew viruses HAD TO EXIST.”
“How did they know that?”
“Because all other explanations for why people were getting sick with certain diseases didn’t work, fell short.”
“I see. So there was only ONE other possibility. Viruses.”
“That’s right.”
“Do you realize what a ridiculous position that is?”
“No comment.”
And
that’s really the end of the story. There was no “original discovery”
of viruses. There was only an assumption backed up by nothing.
And
NOW, when virologists claim they don’t need to isolate viruses because
they can lay out their genetic sequences, another ridiculous situation
arises. HOW DO YOU ANALYZE THE STRUCTURE OF SOMETHING YOU CAN’T ISOLATE?
How do you describe the structure of a thing when you don’t have the thing?
You DON’T describe the structure. You PRETEND you do.
You
refer to other structures which themselves are only pretenses, and you
pick out pieces of those pretended structures and you cobble them
together, and you say, “Here it is. Here is the genetic sequence.”
This
would be like a shop owner holding out his empty hand to the mafia
thugs who showed up to collect their protection money for the week. The
owner says, “Here’s your four hundred dollars. Can’t you see it?”
After
a thug pulls out his gun, the store owner opens his wall safe and takes
out strange bills and hands them over. The bills are pieces of money
from the game called Monopoly. They’re pieces from American, French,
German, Italian, Spanish Monopoly money, taped together.
And THAT’S called genetic sequencing of viruses. Funny money.
I’ll
cover two more points. As Dr. Tom Cowan has stated, according to the
conventional hypothesis of virus infection, viruses must be breaking out
of cells and traveling to other cells. Otherwise, how can infection
spread throughout the body? But this description assumes that viruses
CAN live and thrive outside the liquid in cells.
Therefore, the claim that viruses can’t be isolated because they always live in liquid inside cells is false.
Which
would bring us back to the first type of virologist, the one who says
he IS isolating viruses---but can’t prove it, because his definition of
isolation is, “swimming inside soup and never separated from the soup.”
And
finally, what about electron microscope photos which purport to show
isolated viruses? This is a subject fraught with conflict and
misunderstanding. It is far from settled science. Many so-called viruses
in these photos are cells that are “budding,” as if something has not
yet, but is about to break out of the cell. Virologists will arbitrarily
call these somethings viruses, without visual proof.
Then
there are exosomes, “microvesicles released by cells in both
physiological and pathological situations.” They are mistaken for
viruses. There is other genetic material which can be misidentified as
viruses.
People
who wish to explore this thorny problem should read the works of Harold
Hillman, a foremost critic of electron microscopy methods, who was
exiled from the scientific community for his findings. Hillman once
wrote: “Electron microscopists have ignored the dictates of solid
geometry and most of the apparent structures they have detected are
artefacts of their preparation procedures…” In other words, the
techniques of electron microscopy create artificial entities which are
then mistaken for natural entities.
Brian
Martin, emeritus professor of social sciences at the University of
Wollongong, Australia, writes, “In one case, Hillman gave a talk to a
large audience at what he calls ‘a well known Welsh university’. The
many undergraduates in the audience seemed sympathetic to his case. A
lecturer stood up and claimed to have pictures from an electron
microscope which showed that Hillman was wrong. After the talk, Hillman
asked the lecturer to see the pictures. 'I have not got any', he said,
laughing. 'Why did you say you had in front of that large audience?'
'Because I did not want the students to be misled by you'."
And
that concludes today’s episode of Two Schools of Virology, Both Wrong,
brought to you by NIH Paper Towels, the brand that mops up every spill
but somehow never traps a virus.
~~~
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.)
(Follow me on Gab at @jonrappoport)
No comments:
Post a Comment