Masters of Health Magazine April 2024 | Page 11

We have pointed out that although the

above-mentioned developments appear

fraudulent, they were simply smaller

offshoots of a foundational scientific fraud

known as ‘virological science’.3, 4, 5 These

lesser offshoots can be referred to as

“downstream” aspects that become logically

redundant when the premises upon which

they relied are presently shown to be

non-existent or at the least, apparently unverifiable hypotheses.

 

So what is the alleged scientific evidence

that underpins the concept of a ‘pandemic’

regardless of the shade in which it is being

painted? And how does its subsequent

examination disqualify virology as a science?

 

Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia states that a

pandemic is, “an epidemic of an infectious

disease that has spread across a large region,

for instance multiple continents or

worldwide, affecting a substantial number of

individuals.”6 (emphasis added) An epidemic

is defined as, “the rapid spread of disease to

a large number of hosts in a given population

within a short period of time.”7 An infectious

disease is one that involves, “the invasion of

tissues by pathogens, their multiplication,

and the reaction of host tissues to the

infectious agent and the toxins they

produce.”8 (emphasis added) Furthermore, it

is stated that, “an infectious disease, also

known as a transmissible disease or

communicable disease, is an illness resulting

from an infection.”9

 

These alleged “pathogens” include viruses

which are said to be submicroscopic particles

that have specific physical and biological

properties, including replication-competence

and the ability to transmit between

organisms such as humans to cause disease.

(The arguments about whether they are true

micro-organisms, dead or alive, etc are

further downstream considerations and of no

consequence compared to the pivotal

question of their existence.) While many

people take the existence of viruses as an

established scientific fact, my experience

indicates that most people, including those in

…one of the pivotal issues with

virology was that it invented itself as

a field before establishing if viruses

actually existed. It has been trying to

justify itself since its inception: In

this instance, a virus particle was

not observed first and subsequently

viral theory and pathology

developed. Scientists of the mid and

late nineteenth century were

preoccupied with the identification

of imagined contagious pathogenic

entities…The extant presupposition

of the time was that a very small

germ particle existed that may

explain contagion. What came

thereafter arose to fulfil the

presuppositional premise.10

What has taken place for over a century has

been a series of pseudoscientific practices,

including the continued use of a reification

fallacy - that is, assuming viruses have a

physical existence despite the fact that they

remain a hypothetical construct. In other

words, “the error of treating something that

is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing.”11

 

It can be shown that the virologists have

painted themselves into a corner and the

paradigm that they have created has them

snared. If the discipline of virology is said to

be a branch of natural science, then its

practitioners are reliant on empirical

evidence gained through observation and

experimentation. Within this framework of

the scientific method lies the requirement to

generate a hypothesis (that is necessarily

falsifiable) and then to test it with

experiments. The experiments in question

the health community, have not critically

examined the cited evidence to verify for

themselves whether the relevant

methodologies that were utilised qualify as

scientific. It remains largely unappreciated

that viruses were not discovered and then

studied - they were imagined. Virology went

on to invent itself on the basis of these hypothetical particles: