Debunking the Debunker!

An article was recently brought to my attention that is claimed by the author to not only ‘debunk’ the idea that ‘viruses’ are not the cause of disease, but to also ‘prove’ that SARS-CoV-2 was indeed the causative agent of a condition called ‘Covid-19’ that produced a ‘pandemic’ throughout the world beginning in early 2020.

The article, entitled Covid Misconceptions Debunked is dated 13th October 2021, so it is not a recent piece.

Although I am known as holding a strong view on the ‘no virus’ position, I am nevertheless open to considering any genuine evidence that demonstrates this position to be incorrect, although so far I have yet to find any such evidence.

However, as this article was cited as a reliable source of such evidence, I decided to read it to see if any of us had missed a vital piece of information in our research. Having read through it, I felt it incumbent on me to address the problems, or some of them at least, with the claims the author makes in his article.

So, where to start?

The very first paragraph provides a good overview of the author’s approach,

“The main problem with the alternative media’s response to the covid crisis was that they confused contrarianism with critical thinking. When it was announced in early 2020 that there was a pandemic - the alt media en masse simply took the stance - "no there isn't - if the TV and the MSM News says there is, then it stands to reason that the opposite is true." - This is not critical thinking, it’s not even free thinking - it’s a mantra.”

I would point out that those of us who spoke out on various ‘alt media’ channels, did not do so from a position of contrarianism, we spoke out from a position of our research findings.

What he writes is not an accurate description of what happened, nor is it an accurate depiction of the ‘alt media’, because it is not a single ‘entity’ that acted in unison, unlike the mainstream media.

In addition, the ‘alt media’ did not immediately refute the claims about a pandemic simply because the mainstream media claimed this to be the case. I would add that there are many elements within the ‘alt media’ that still refuse to address the ‘no virus’ issue, so the blanket claim that THE alternative media refused to accept that there was a pandemic is incorrect. It is also disingenuous to state that everyone in ‘the alt media’ merely claims that whatever the MSM says is untrue. Yes, a lot of it is untrue, but many of us are aware that there are often some truths carefully nestled deep within the lies. That’s why their ‘stories’ become confusing, because they do contain some truth and many people intuitively recognise that truth and assume that the rest is also true.

I would add that, in another, but related, article written by the same author, he states that he is not taking all his information from the MSM, but from his own experiences, because he has ‘…spoken with nurses on covid wards, biochemists in labs, care home workers and the anaesthesiologist from Nottingham's main hospital.’

However, as we will see, he does take the vast majority, if not all of the information he cites as evidence from mainstream studies published in mainstream science journals.

In a further paragraph of the debunking article, he states,

“So as the evidence stacked up that some sort of worldwide pandemic might be afoot the alternative media doubled and tripled down - swearing blind that no such virus had been proven to exist, or that mainstays of medical procedure used for thirty years were now not fit for purpose, that they knew of absolutely no one that had been affected by this so called disease and that the whole thing was pretty much a hoax. Some even went so far as to convince themselves that viruses themselves don't exist - bless your heart.”

I find the ‘bless your heart’ to be incredibly patronising - what do you think?

Also, his assertions about the alt media are a gross exaggeration. The ‘alternative media’ did not swear blind that no virus existed; that position was only held by a few of us at the beginning of 2020; we were very small in number.

I am not going to discuss every single paragraph of this article to show where the author is not entirely correct in his statements or, in some instances, completely wrong.

I will, however, because this is the crux of the article, refer to what he calls the ‘misconceptions’.

This is his list,

• The virus doesn’t exist and has never been proven to exist

• Sars Cov 2 has never fulfilled Koch’s postulates

• Viruses are actually exosomes

• Viruses themselves don’t exist

• The PCR tests don’t look for viruses

• The Inventor of the PCR said they were not suitable for looking for disease of any kind

• The tests give over 90% false positive results

• Sars Cov 2 was taken off the HCID register and therefore is of no significance

• People are dying with the disease and not of it

• The tests are run at too high a CT rate

• Death certificates have been faked and death rates artificially inflated

• FOIA requests show that the virus doesn’t exist and no one has a sample

• It’s just the flu

• Asymptomatic spread is a myth

• Masks don’t work and can be dangerous

• It has a 99.9% survival rate

• Not that many people died

He follows this list with the comment that,

“Every single one of these is false – and provably so.”

And this is what I would like to address because it seems that some people are citing this article as their evidence for believing that ‘viruses’ really are ‘pathogens’.

I do not intend to address each one individually because they all rest on the fundamental assumption that a ‘virus’ was proven to exist and proven to be the cause of the health problems referred to as ‘Covid-19’ that produced a ‘pandemic’. Without this foundational claim, there is nothing on which he can base all his other so-called ‘misconceptions’.

One minor point I would raise is the reference to SARS-CoV-2 having been taken off the HCID register, this is an error; SARS-CoV-2 is the name given to the ‘virus’ - the name of the ‘disease’ is ‘Covid-19’ and it was the disease, ‘Covid-19’, that was taken off the HCID register. No I’m not being petty, but just highlighting that the author is also prone to mistakes - and this is by no means the only one he makes.

In another section of the article, he attacks the FOI requests submitted by Christine Massey and states that,

“The request asks to see the isolated virus. But they used the different usages of the word isolated to trick people into thinking that such a request could not be fulfilled as the virus didn’t exist. But their request couldn’t be fulfilled – as they requested – because it was impossible.

They used the common usage of the term isolated – meaning alone – completely alone. Not the scientific usage of the term – which means to culture the virus to prove its existence. As they state in the request, “in the every-day sense of the word”.

Now here's the disingenuous trick. You can't photo a virus on its own it needs a host to exist. Viruses are inert without a host cell. They need a host cell to exist – but that wouldn’t be isolated in the common usage. So it's a silly word game.”

It is not a ‘silly word game’ nor a ‘disingenuous trick’.

The misuse by virologists of the term ‘isolation’ is intended to confuse people, to ‘baffle them with science’.

Nevertheless, Neil asserts, as if proven to be true, that viruses ‘…need a host cell to exist.’ Which is merely parroting the mainstream science claims, but this has not been proven, because a virus needs to be studied as a distinct entity so that its unique characteristics can be ascertained and recorded - in other words, it needs to have been isolated from everything else.

It is interesting that Christine Massey has continued to submit FOI requests and continued to receive replies that ‘no record can be found’. And even more interesting is that her work is increasingly recognised as pertinent and important, as can be seen by her very recently published article, 25th September 2024, entitled It’s official: No records of the “COVID virus”.

What seems to be Neil’s main point of criticism against the ‘no virus’ position is contained within this comment,

“Now before we start – do I think that Covid is a terrible world ending event? No. But it isn’t nothing – and pretending it is nothing hasn’t helped and won’t help. You should be holding the government to account – they are using this crisis to destroy and privatise the NHS and denying the existence or potential consequences of this disease actually helps the government accomplish this whilst insulating them from criticism for their failures.”

He clearly feels that the perpetrators should be held accountable and that if there is no such thing as a ‘pathogenic virus’ then this argument falls away and they cannot be held responsible.

But he is missing the point. If there was no such thing as ‘Covid’ and no evidence that there is such an entity as a ‘pathogenic virus’, then this is an even greater and more serious issue. In fact, on this basis, that there is no such thing as a ‘pathogenic virus’, there is far more that the perpetrators can be held responsible for than if it had been a ‘real’ pandemic.

One of the key issues underlying the discussion about the existence of any ‘pathogenic virus’ is the issue of ‘isolation’, which Neil Sanders describes as follows,

“Isolation is the process of culturing the virus on a host cell and then removing its genome to prove that you have a newly found entity.”

That is indeed the medical establishment’s definition of ‘isolation’, but this is a sleight of hand, because the methodology used by virologists does not ‘prove’ any such thing.

Neil is simply relying on mainstream ‘science’ to prove its own claims. An appropriate analogy would be accepting the claim that their food is healthy and nutritious from the CEO of McDonald’s.

I think it’s reasonable to say that it would be more appropriate for us to at least attempt to obtain independent evidence from a third party before accepting such a claim at face value.

Unfortunately, Neil relies totally on mainstream studies as his ‘evidence’.

He also employs ad hominem attacks, as in this example with reference to Dr Andrew Kaufman.

“Kaufman lied and told the alt media that the virus had never been isolated. Strangely he used the actual paper that showed the first isolation of the virus – this one. It’s even in the title of the paper!”

This is actually more than just an ad hominem logical fallacy, I would suggest it is tantamount to defamation.

I would add, however, that just because a study paper uses the word ‘isolation’ in the title, that does not provide ‘proof’ that the study authors actually performed genuine ‘isolation’.

This is just another logical fallacy; it’s called affirming the consequent.

It is widely believed that the ‘peer review’ process is the ‘gold standard’ that provides protection against bias or errors within published scientific study papers. However, there is ample evidence that this is not the case; this process is highly flawed, a situation that is even acknowledged by many who work within the mainstream system.

The best-known example is Dr John Ioannidis MD, who, in his 2005 article Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, states that,

“…for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

This bias is definitely prevalent with respect to virology and the idea that ‘viruses’ have been isolated and proven to cause disease.

But it is increasingly clear that the problem is far more than a mere bias in favour of study articles that claim ‘viruses’ are the cause of certain conditions, it is the perpetuation of an outright lie, because its foundational claim has never been proven. There is no evidence that the particles that are called ‘viruses’ are pathogenic and can be transmitted between people to cause illness.

As Mike Stone writes in his excellent article, ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies,

“Beneath the surface of its seemingly rigorous methodologies, virology rests on a foundation built upon flawed logic. At the core of virological research lies the assumption of an invisible pathogenic entity, with the “gold standard” cell culture experiment frequently portrayed as conclusive evidence of “viral” existence and pathogenicity. Yet, when one examines the methods closely, this experiment at the very heart of the field is fraught with logical fallacies that permeate deep into the core of virology—namely begging the question, affirming the consequent, and the false cause fallacy.”

With reference to some examples of the ‘false cause’ logical fallacy, Mike Stone writes,

“In these cases, people are assuming a connection between two events simply because they occurred one after the other or closely together in time. This same flawed reasoning is evident in the cell culture experiments performed by virologists. They assume that adding unpurified lung fluid or nasal mucus from a sick patient to a culture of monkey kidney cells, followed by the observation of CPE, implies that a “virus” was present in the sample and ultimately caused the CPE. This reasoning ties back to the fallacy of begging the question regarding the existence of the “virus” in the first place, as well as affirming the consequent by using the effect (CPE) as proof of the supposed cause (the “virus”). It's a tangled web of circular reasoning, with no direct proof of any entity described as a pathogenic “virus” before any experiments or observations take place.”

CPE means cytopathic effect, which refers to structural changes in a cell.

A further flaw in his argument is that Neil claims that the evidence to support the germ theory has existed unchallenged since it was first posited by Louis Pasteur,

“You see the idea was floated that viruses and germ theory itself was flawed. Had someone noticed a flaw in the over 150 years of experiments showing how viruses and germs work? No. Had someone repeated the rabies experiments and noticed something amiss? No. Had someone demonstrated that the normal accepted laws of virology or germs had been shown not to work on all occasions? No. What happened is that someone put a quote on the internet. Sorry if that sounds glib and dismissive but that’s what happened.”

But again Neil is incorrect, that is not ‘what happened’; it was not simply a case of someone posting something on the internet.

He also claims that,

“…Louis Pasteur was the founder of what is known as germ theory, his experiments proving how viruses work and leading to the invention of vaccines, antibiotics, a greater understanding of disease and the ways that hygiene and medicine can treat or prevent the onset of many diseases. He pioneered the understanding of how killing germs can avert disease which led to greater understanding of sanitation, public health and much of modern medicine.”

This is not true, and provably so.

In his 1995 book The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, historian Dr Gerald Geison refers to his investigation of Louis Pasteur’s work that involved a comparison of his personal notebooks with his published papers. He discovered that there were significant differences between what Pasteur allowed to be published and what he had written in his private papers. With reference to one set of experiments, Dr Geison states that,

“…Pasteur deliberately deceived the public, including especially those scientists most familiar with his published work…”

Louis Pasteur is not the hero we are told he is!

With respect to Neil’s claim that no one had noticed the flaws in the ‘germ theory’, this too is incorrect, and provably so.

In his 1926 book, Toxemia Explained, Dr John Tilden states,

“Germs as a cause of disease is a dying fallacy.”

In other words, the flaws in the germ theory HAD been noticed, almost 100 years ago. And Dr Tilden is not the only dissenting voice over the course of the past 150 years.

Dr M.L. Leverson MD gave a lecture in London in May 1911, in which he discussed his investigations that had led him to the conclusion that,

“The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of these unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infectious and contagious disorders are caused by germs.”

Dr Beddow Bayly also exposed the lack of any scientific basis for the ‘germ theory’ in his 1928 article that was published in the journal London Medical World; he states that,

“I am prepared to maintain with scientifically established facts, that in no single instance has it been conclusively proved that any microorganism is the specific cause of a disease.”

These are just a few of the examples I found in my research; research that began many years before 2020 and the so-called ‘pandemic’.

I don’t presume to know Neil Sanders’ reason for writing his article and I will not speculate on what he hoped to achieve. But I will say that he failed spectacularly to ‘debunk’ the no virus position. He provided no evidence that any particle that has been labelled a ‘virus’ can cause any illness.

What I find strange is that Neil Sanders is well known for writing about ‘mind control’, and yet he has failed to thoroughly investigate the situation regarding ‘viruses’. He has utterly failed to see that people have been put under a form of ‘mind control’ to make them believe that there are invisible particles that have been labelled ‘viruses’ and can make people ill, and that this idea can be used to control us.

I know I have written many articles on the topic of the unproven ‘germ theory’, I do so because I feel it is important, and the reason it’s important is to show people that there is nothing to fear from these narratives about so-called ‘infectious diseases’, whatever label is given to them and whatever stories we are told about how they can ‘spread’.

References for further reading:

It’s official: No records of the “COVID virus”.

FDA fails another "virus" FOIA challenge: can't cite scientific evidence of "SARS-COV-2" or contagion... or valid tests

ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies