Scrutinizing the method of virus discovery

I use *thing* here because before you can name a real thing you need to characterise it. If it is fiction that is no problem.

The Theory

Let’s say you want to prove the theory that ’n thing smaller than a bacteria can enter a cell of a creature, duplicate itself there while compromising or destroying a cell. Then these duplicated things are released from the cell and go to other cells doing the same. The duplication of this process inside a living creature would then start to manifest in symptoms of pain in discomfort.

These are things not observed with the eye but just a theory that needs to be proven. In order to prove you first have to have the thing and make sure it is the thing to study and experiment with it. Without it, you have nothing to experiment with.

“The Experiment”

Now what happens is a Thingologists assume they have a thing in a sample of soup* obtained from a body with symptoms. They then put this soup through a filter and then assume what comes out is a purified thing. They then place this thing in a tissue culture soup (another kind of soup) and then poison and starve it and voilà you have an experiment which both “proves” an isolated thing and that the thing is the cause of disease – cytopathic effects.

The reason why they use tissue culture is to reduce the number of variables (reductionism) so as to better control all the variables. But by doing this they have substituted a model for reality as found in nature. As some will know this model have been falsified by demonstrating that the cytopathic effect (harming of cells) is not caused by the assumed thing but by other things (toxins) and the absence of things (food) in the model experiment. See here


What thoughts remain of the thing? The thing is harmless. As harmful as a horror movie called THE THING! The difference between thingology and toxicology is then that in thingology they never isolated a thing and in toxicology, they have isolated toxins and poisons. There is therefore the possibility of experimenting with toxins and poisons but not with things because things have never been demonstrated to exist. It boils down to if you can’t directly observe the theory you try to prove it by indirect means. These indirect means is the cell culture experiment which has been falsified. Yet they stick to their I-Say-So-Science. Confirmation bias is the explanation of their behaviour.

People who dismiss virus sceptics out of hand because the right experts are not on board do not realise or suppress the truth that the whole field of infectious diseases is a fraud. It’s no point in seeking advice from people in that field because it is a fraud in itself, whether they know it or not. They have gone through a special kind of brainwashing during their medical/scientific education and need to unlearn what they have been told. It’s a hierarchy of education that was corrupted at the top and the lie fizzled down to the populace.

*soup is a name to describe the range of things present from a tissue/mucus sample from a body

Similar Posts