Read or download the full paper here.
Compiled by Mike Stone, author of ViroLIEgy.com, for Planet Waves FM and the Chiron Return investigative team.
Virologists create their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfill its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have 'viral' diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. (Abstract)
No direct evidence, 209 inquiries
As of 11 Sept. 2022 and following extensive enquiries through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests coordinated by Christine Massey, not one of 209 mainly health or science institutions in over 35 countries have been able to provide direct evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus. (Page 5)
It is a game of deception, whether realised or not. It is a game of deception, whether realised or not. It simply involves the assertion that a virus was in the sample, blaming the breakdown of experimentally stressed cells in the test tube on the imagined virus, and then declaring that some of the vesicles (whose biological composition andfunction were not established) were the viruses. (Page 8)
No sense of irony
As is typical, there seemed to be no sense of irony for them that the purported human respiratory virus cannot be shown to 'infect' the relevant cell type, let alone the relevant species. And their experiments were once again invalidated by the absence of appropriate control cultures. (Page 9)
It appears more likely that the virologists are distancing themselves from their own techniques
In May 2020, a publication appeared in the journal Viruses that claimed,"Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension." 'Nowadays’ means in contrast to the past and it is unclear how such an observed technical change may be reconciled with biological laws. It appears more likely that the virologists are distancing themselves from their own techniques in order to avoid refutation of their own postulates. They may have to accept that the reason differential ultracentrifugation is not able to separate viruses from other vesicles is because their assertion that viruses are present in the sample is ill-founded.
(Page 10)
At the heart of the matter is a simple concept
Virology invented the hypothesis of viruses so whatever method it employs in an attempt to prove their existence, it must satisfy that definition. At the heart of the matter is a simple concept and we need to see evidence that alleged disease-causing particles cause new particles that are clones of the former. Claiming that detected proteins and nucleic acids are of a specific viral origin is not possible unless the alleged viral particles have been truly isolated by purification and shown to have these key biological characteristics. (Page 11)
You won't get a visible band
In response to an email enquiry, Dr Marica Grossegesse from the Robert Koch Institute responded that, "We purified SARS particles by density gradient. However, just from the cell culture derived virus, as you wrote. The challenge with purifying SARS from patient samples is that you won’t get a visible band." (Page 13-14)
There has never been a physically isolated particle
SARS-CoV-2 remains nothing more than a hypothetical computer construct, assembled from genetic fragments of unproven provenance. There has never been a physically isolated (i.e. purified) particle shown to be responsible for the production of identical particles or a particle shown to be the cause of pathological effects in any human or in an experimental animal model. (Page 14)
The complete absence of the scientific method
It is hard to know exactly what to call virology, but it is not science. The current practitioners are engaging in some form of algorithmic or statistical speculation added to circular reasoning and confirmation bias, with a complete absence of what should be the corresponding process of refutation that lies at the heart of the scientific method. While the abandonment of the scientific method may be unnoticed or accidental by lower level participants, there are almost certainly conspiratorial motivations at higher levels of the global hierarchy. (Page 14)
Has virology ever been a scientific pursuit?
It is thus a reasonable question to ask has virology ever been a scientific pursuit? With regard to the scientific method, the virologists create unfalsifiable hypotheses by setting up paradigms where any number of observations, whether it be illness or alleged test results can be attributed to their ‘viruses’. The observations are passed off as proof of virus existence in the manner of a circular loop of reasoning that no longer requires the demonstrable existence of a virus. Any claims of reproducibility, for example, in the form of a PCR process or a purported viral genome, are simply more circuits of the same loop. (Page 15)
The lack of valid control experiments
Historically, virology has been characterised by a lack a valid control experiments and none of its foundational claims have been established through proper exercise of the scientific method. (Page 15)
No further tolerance should have been extended to virology’s unscientific experiments
In 1954, when John Enders and Thomas Peebles claimed they had propagated the measles virus in human and monkey kidneys cells, no further tolerance should have been extended to virology’s unscientific experiments. Enders and Peebles added throat washings and blood to their cell cultures and on observing CPEs, or dying and breaking down cells in their test tubes, concluded that the in vitro appearances, 'Might be associated with the virus of measles'. They did warn that, "Cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in the monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors.” (Page 17)
Dr Stefan Lanka has documented the history of these unscientific practices
The virologists however, have continued to repeat the uncontrolled methodology of Enders and to this day claim that such CPEs are incontestable evidence of viruses. Dr Stefan Lanka has documented the history of these unscientific practices, and in 2021 demonstrated that CPEs could be induced in cell cultures by the laboratory process itself. (Page 18)
Virology disqualifies itself from the scientific method
As this essay outlines, the virology establishment will not divulge or carry out these required experiments, seemingly in order not to refute itself. It intentionally limits itself to ongoing opportunistic fishing-expeditions backed by confirmation bias, thus disqualifying itself from the scientific method due to its inconsistency with the hypothesis-driven and falsifiable approach described by Popper. (Page 19)
A scientific theory demands evidence
Because a scientific theory demands evidence that has repeatedly been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, it is clear that 'viruses' never even reached the stage of a theory. According to the science, they remain mere speculation. (Page 20)
Guilty of failing to perform any valid controls
FOIA requests have revealed that New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), who have claimed isolation and genomic sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 particle in the Antipodes, are also guilty of failing to perform any valid controls. In the tradition of Enders, they have not paused to check whether the CPEs they witnessed, or genomes they assembled via computer simulations, could also be created in valid control comparisons. That is, by performing experiments with other human-derived specimens, from both well subjects and unwell subjects who are said not to have the alleged disease COVID-19. (Page 20)
The World Health Organization (WHO) cannot point to one valid positive control experiment
As has become apparent, the WHO cannot point to one valid positive control experiment, yet on February 11, 2020 they named the new disease they had invented, “COVID-19” with the associated claim that it was caused by a novel coronavirus. They have provided the green light for anyone around the world to “find” SARS-CoV-2 in their backyards without the need for valid control experiments either. (Page 21)
Shotgun sequencing and subsequent artificial assembly
With all of the failures to culture postulated viruses, modern virology now favours direct metagenomics of crude samples, often with shotgun sequencing and subsequent artificial assembly of these genetic fragments to create new in silico 'viruses' out of thin air. This invention then provides other virus hunters with predesigned PCR primer panels so that they can also discover the same sequences and claim it is the same virus. (Page 21-22)
Nobody else has performed these required scientific experiments either
Despite the resources available to them, ESR apparently do not believe in the necessity to check for themselves whether SARS-CoV-2 can be shown to exist. On 19 July 2022, in response to an OIA request they stated that, 'ESR has not performed any experiments to scientifically prove the existence of SARS-COV-2 virus and can therefore not provide you with any records'. On 17 August 2022 in response to another request, they admitted that, 'ESR has not performed any experiments to scientifically prove that [the] SARS-COV-2 virus causes COVID-19 and can therefore not provide you with any records'. Nobody else has performed these required scientific experiments either. (Page 22)
More circular reasoning
In summary, it engages in more circular reasoning: no protein has been shown to come from a virus, including the nucleocapsid protein in this case. It was simply asserted that they injected “viral” proteins into animals and in response the animals produced other proteins that are claimed to be “antibodies.” However, a virus was neither shown to exist, nor required to exist for this sort of exercise. (Page 25)
The most flawed aspect of the animal experiment was that it did not follow the scientific method
However, the most flawed aspect of the animal experiment was that it didnot follow the scientific method as it lacked controls. That is, a comparable group of monkeys was not subjected to an internal assault with the same composition and volume of biological soup, sans the alleged 'virus', being poured directly into their lungs. (Page 26)
None of the studies show the actual existence of an infectious particle they are purporting to test
Unfortunately, such unscientific methodologies are sadly replicated in allsuch animal studies that have been reviewed. Not one of themdemonstrates: (a) a natural method of exposure utilising the samples alleged to contain viruses, (b) valid “mock-infections” (for example, the disingenuous use of phosphate-buffered saline only), or (c) animal-to-animaldisease transmission. That is of course in addition to the foundational issuethat none of the studies show the actual existence of an infectious particle they are purporting to test. (Page 26)
Why not simply aerosolise a sample into the animal cages so they inhale it?
Additionally, if the 'viruses' are so infectious, why not simply aerosolise asample into the animal cages so they inhale it? Once again such experimentsare avoided in order for the virologists not to refute themselves with regard to claims of contagion involving the imagined particles. (Page 26)
A lot or a little?
We are led to believe that inside a host such as a human, the viral particles are produced in such great numbers that they can rupture the very cells containing them, while at the same time they are present in such tinyamounts that virologists say they can’t be seen in any patient specimens. (Page 26)
So why can no viral particles ever be found?
Essentially, the virologists have offered multiple hypothetical pathogenetic mechanisms for a particle hypothesised to exist in an organism such as a human. And again, even if these speculative mechanisms were at play, itwould require enormous numbers of cells to be affected to produce symptoms. But enormous numbers of cells would result in astronomical amounts of viral particles coming out of them — so why can no viral particlesever be found? Virology has a habit of diverting attention away from such aspects that raise doubts about its phantasmal model. (Page 27)
Genetic fragments of unknown origin
In The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity we documented the invention of SARS-CoV-2 by Fan Wu’s team who assembled an in silico 'genome' from genetic fragments of unknown provenance, found in the crude lung washings of a single ‘case’ and documented in, A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. (Page 28, link)
The treasure chest of virological nonsense
The GISAID database is the treasure chest of this virological nonsense and by 29 August 2022 had over 12.8 million claims of having ‘found’ SARS-CoV-2. However none of them can point to an actual virus, they are simply calling ‘bingo’ by assembling similar sequences which they have aligned with Fan Wu et al. and other previous assemblies, no actual virus required. (Page 28)
The general medical community acknowledges that no 'pathogen' is identified in around half of the cases.
It should also be noted that while the author does not make pronouncement as to the cause of any case of pneumonia or acute febrile respiratory syndromes, the general medical community acknowledges that no 'pathogen' is identified in around half of the cases. So what reason did Fan Wu et al.
have to suspect that their patient was harbouring a brand new virus? (Page 29)
PCR itself cannot identify the origins of the sequences
This is a sleight of hand as the PCR simply amplifies pre-selected sequences and has no capacity to confirm a previously unknown genome. As PCR expert Stephen Bustin has explained, "PCR requires you to know what the sequence of your target is...so once you know that there’s something in your sample, then you would try to isolate it, yes. And then once you’ve isolated it, then you sequence it again, or PCR it up." In other words, PCR itself cannot identify the origins of the sequences and the methodology of Fan Wu et al. did not establish the origin of their described sequences. (Pages 29-30)
A virus is claimed to be a tiny replication-competent obligate intracellular parasite
A virus is claimed to be a tiny replication-competent obligate intracellular parasite, consisting of a genome surrounded by a proteinaceous coat: it is an infectious particle that causes disease in a host. All Fan Wu et al. had wasa 41-year-old man with pneumonia and a software-assembled model' genome' made from sequences of unestablished origin found in the man’s lung washings. (Page 30)
These alleged genomes are also simply in silico constructs that have never been proven to exist
These alleged genomes are also simply in silico constructs that have never been proven to exist in their entirety in nature, let alone been shown to come from inside a virus. (Page 31)
The virus genomes have become what is possibly the greatest illusion in virology
The virus genomes have become what is possibly the greatest illusion in virology, an illusion which propagates a belief that viruses are indeed being shown to exist. The virologists themselves don’t seem to appreciate the fatal flaw in their methodologies even when they state it themselves." (Page 31)
How can metagenomics be used to establish the sequence of a previously unknown genome? The more important limitation with ‘viral’ sequencing is that the process itself does not determine the provenance of the genetic fragments, so howcan [metagenomics] be used to establish the sequence of a previously unknown genome? (Page 31)
None of the virologists are demonstrating that the sequencesare viral in nature
Additionally, it is nonsensical to arbitrarily declare that sequences are viral by a process of elimination, that is, based on the fact that they do not have a previously conflicting assignation on the genetic databanks. None of the virologists are demonstrating that the sequences are viral in nature whenthey assemble the very first template and declare they have discovered a pathogenic virus. At no stage are any of them purifying alleged viral particles to prove their relationship with the sequences. And yet the first invented de novo genome becomes the touchstone with which other virus hunters will align their own in silico genomes or design ‘confirmatory’ PCR protocols.(Page 31-32)
No way to directly verify the size of the sequence
Virologists do not have any laboratory techniques that can directly check whether there even exists a complete 30 kilobase RNA strand in any of their samples. (Page 32)
Not on direct evidence of a virus but on detection of sequences of unestablished provenance
In other words, their declaration of discovering a viral genome was based not on direct evidence of a virus but on detection of sequences of unestablished provenance aligned to yet more fictional ‘virus’ templates.(Page 35)
The bat virus story has been in play since the 2003 SARS 'outbreak'
Of note, the bat virus story has been in play since the 2003 SARS 'outbreak' and apparently after thousands of years, the human race is now under constant threat from viruses percolating in Chinese bat caves. (Page 35)
Unfortunately, this zoonotic folklore has spread from the virology literature into the imagination of the public
They duly warned the world that, “genetic diversity exists among zoonotic viruses in bats increasing the possibility of variants crossing the speciesbarrier and causing outbreaks of disease in human populations.” Unfortunately, this zoonotic folklore has spread from the virology literatureinto the imagination of the public. (Page 36)
No demonstration that any sequence comes from a virusIt should be clear at this point that each coronavirus genome has beentemplated against other so-called genomes without the virologistsdemonstrating that any of the sequences come from a virus. (Page 36)
Virology’s fictional genomic inventions have been relied upon to create wholly unnecessary medical and political interventions
The danger to humanity is that the putative coronavirus genomes that have been templated out of the virologists’ speculations are now used as templates to create and inject products into hapless recipients who were conned and gulled into believing that virology’s latest invention was real.That is, virology’s fictional genomic inventions have been relied upon to create wholly unnecessary medical and political interventions. The dangerous and highly experimental mRNA and nanolipid biotechnology has killed more people than all other vaccines combined over the last 30 years, and we have only just begun counting. (Page 38)
CDC appear[s] completely ignorant to the fact that they are not following the scientific method
In other words, the CDC appear[s] completely ignorant to the fact that theyare not following the scientific method or they have realised that the game isup and are engaging in disingenuous responses. Either way, they cannot betaken seriously as a source of reliable scientific information if they are also promoting uncontrolled experiments as proof of viruses. (Page 41)
Source: https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/farewell-to-virology-excerpts.pdf
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(74%25).png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(51%25).png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(72%25).png){kind=tracking}
