The citation of indirect observations such as clinical conditions, apparent clusters of illness, antibody assays, genomics, proteomics and tests such as the polymerase chain reaction cannot stand as evidence of viruses because the claimant is starting within a loop of circular reasoning in which they have already assumed virus existence. None of these observations can possibly provide the required evidence to verify the virus model. The original sin involved the reification fallacy. Unfortunately for humanity, the virologists’ imaginings about their particles spread to enough minds to bring the world to its knees in 2020.*26 A petard has been created but who will it ultimately hoist?
For 'tis the sport
to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and 't shall go hard 27
References & Notes
1 Ghebreyesus, T., “WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020,” 11 Mar 2020: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (archived)
2 Law, R., “WHO and the pandemic flu ‘conspiracies’”, 6 Jun 2020: https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/who-changed-definition-influenza-pandemic
3 Engelbrecht, T., et al., Virus Mania, 3rd English Edition, Books on Demand, 2021: https://drsambailey.com/shop-2/
4 Bailey, M. & Bevan-Smith, J., The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity, 11 Nov 2021: https://drsambailey.com/the-covid-19-fraud-war-on-humanity/
5 Bailey, M., A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), 15 Sep 2022: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
6 “Pandemic,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic (accessed 10 Mar 2024)
7 “Epidemic,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic (accessed 10 Mar 2024)
8 “Infection,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection (accessed 10 Mar 2024)
9 Ibid.
10 Bailey, M., A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), 15 Sep 2022: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
11 “Reification (fallacy)”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) (accessed 10 Mar 2024)
12 Bailey, M., A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), 15 Sep 2022: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
13 “mock-infected,” GenScript: https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected
14 “mock-infected,” North Western University: https://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-M/mock-infected.html
15 *There is no evidence that any micro-organisms per se have “pathogenic” abilities to invade healthy tissue and cause disease: https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/germ-theory/why-pathogens-dont-exist/, however experiments with valid controls are possible with bacterial and fungal cells so the hypothesis can be tested.
16 *As of the 23rd of March, 2024, biostatistician Christine Massey has collated official responses from 222 medical and science institutions confirming that none have evidence of the alleged ‘SARS-CoV-2’ virus ever being found in a human: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/ (accessed 30 Mar 2024)
17 Welton, J., A manual of logic, Volume 2, 1905: “Petitio principii is, therefore, committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.”: https://archive.org/details/amanuallogicvol00weltgoog/page/n298/mode/2up
18 *There are in fact two instances of the petitio principii fallacy being committed during this process: the first is that viruses are present in the ‘viral illness’ sample and the second is that no viruses are present in the ‘mock-infected’ sample. This essay outlines why neither determination can be made by the cell culture technique.
19 Cowan, T., et al., “The ‘Settling The Virus Debate’ Statement,” 14 Jul 2022: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
20 *Critics of the cell culture technique have stated that control experiments have occasionally been performed and as they also produced cytopathic effects this refuted the virologists’ own experiment. (For example in this video that analysed John Enders’ 1954 ‘Cytopathogenic Agents from Measles Cases’ paper, @1.18.25 https://odysee.com/@spacebusters:c9/Final-The-End-of-Germ-Theory:8) However, the analysis neglects the correct definition of ‘mock-infected’. In order to be properly controlled in this setting there needs to be manipulation of one independent variable (the “cytopathogenic agent” or “virus”), something that the virologists are unable to do as this essay outlines. Additionally, Enders stated that, “a second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells,” implying that a different “virus” was already present in the cell line or had contaminated that particular culture. Thus it was never considered to be a control and the technique could be “maintained”. Despite Enders clearly not having a valid control the author would agree with these critics that it is still further evidence against the utility of the cell culture technique. Note 18 summarises the fatal logical flaw in the cell culture technique regardless of the results.
21 *The virologists have failed on this front as well: there is no evidence that any “purified” particles derived from cell cultures can satisfy Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates for pathogenicity. Furthermore, the introduction of “sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens” by Fredricks and Relman in 1997 cannot be used to establish the existence of viruses and the authors themselves conceded that, “with only amplified sequence available, the biological role or even existence of these inferred microorganisms remains unclear.”: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC172879&blobtype=pdf In any case, note 15 outlines the foundational issue: the scientifically-formulated Koch’s postulates were never demonstrated for any microbe, even those that can be shown to exist. See also https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/germ-theory/kochs-postulates-germ-school-dropout/ and https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/germ-theory/tb-cows-lies-and-koch-ups/
22 Bailey, S., “Electron Microscopy and Unidentified ‘Viral’ Objects,” 16 Feb 2022: https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/covid-19/electron-microscopy-and-unidentified-viral-objects/
23 Ibid.
24 Hillman, H., Certainty & Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques, Surrey University Press, U.K, 1972. For a summary see here: https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/certainty-and-uncertainty-in-biochemical-techniques.htm
25 *Among the other questionable elements in the cell culture techniques employed by the virologists is the selection of cell lines that may be: (a) unrelated to the diseased cell type in the organism, (b) chromosomally abnormal, and (c) from another species. In further circular reasoning, it is conspicuous that such cells have been chosen because they have a propensity to react in the way desired by the virologists. Fatally for the technique, it has also been shown that CPEs can be a result of the process itself with no introduction of external specimens. See: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
26 *The presumption of “viral” illnesses and contagiousness is part of a trail of suffering induced by the conviction that ‘germs’ cause disease. This history of misplaced beliefs is outlined in The Final Pandemic - An Antidote to Medical Tyranny, 2024, particularly chapters 2 and 3: https://drsambailey.com/the-final-pandemic/
27 Shakespeare, W., The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, 1603
“sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens” by Fredricks and Relman in 1997 cannot be used to establish the existence of viruses and the authors themselves conceded that, “with only amplified sequence available, the biological role or even existence of these inferred microorganisms remains unclear.”: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC172879&blobtype=pdf In any case, note 15 outlines the foundational issue: the scientifically-formulated Koch’s postulates were never demonstrated for any microbe, even those that can be shown to exist. See also https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/germ-theory/kochs-postulates-germ-school-dropout/ and https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/germ-theory/tb-cows-lies-and-koch-ups/
22 Bailey, S., “Electron Microscopy and Unidentified ‘Viral’ Objects,” 16 Feb 2022: https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/covid-19/electron-microscopy-and-unidentified-viral-objects/
23 Ibid.
24 Hillman, H., Certainty & Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques, Surrey University Press, U.K, 1972. For a summary see here: https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/certainty-and-uncertainty-in-biochemical-techniques.htm
25 *Among the other questionable elements in the cell culture techniques employed by the virologists is the selection of cell lines that may be: (a) unrelated to the diseased cell type in the organism, (b) chromosomally abnormal, and (c) from another species. In further circular reasoning, it is conspicuous that such cells have been chosen because they have a propensity to react in the way desired by the virologists. Fatally for the technique, it has also been shown that CPEs can be a result of the process itself with no introduction of external specimens. See: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
26 *The presumption of “viral” illnesses and contagiousness is part of a trail of suffering induced by the conviction that ‘germs’ cause disease. This history of misplaced beliefs is outlined in The Final Pandemic - An Antidote to Medical Tyranny, 2024, particularly chapters 2 and 3: https://drsambailey.com/the-final-pandemic/
27 Shakespeare, W., The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, 1603
record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/ (accessed 30 Mar 2024)
17 Welton, J., A manual of logic, Volume 2, 1905: “Petitio principii is, therefore, committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.”: https://archive.org/details/amanuallogicvol00weltgoog/page/n298/mode/2up
18 *There are in fact two instances of the petitio principii fallacy being committed during this process: the first is that viruses are present in the ‘viral illness’ sample and the second is that no viruses are present in the ‘mock-infected’ sample. This essay outlines why neither determination can be made by the cell culture technique.
19 Cowan, T., et al., “The ‘Settling The Virus Debate’ Statement,” 14 Jul 2022: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
20 *Critics of the cell culture technique have stated that control experiments have occasionally been performed and as they also produced cytopathic effects this refuted the virologists’ own experiment. (For example in this video that analysed John Enders’ 1954 ‘Cytopathogenic Agents from Measles Cases’ paper, @1.18.25 https://odysee.com/@spacebusters:c9/Final-The-End-of-Germ-Theory:8) However, the analysis neglects the correct definition of ‘mock-infected’. In order to be properly controlled in this setting there needs to be manipulation of one independent variable (the “cytopathogenic agent” or “virus”), something that the virologists are unable to do as this essay outlines. Additionally, Enders stated that, “a second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells,” implying that a different “virus” was already present in the cell line or had contaminated that particular culture. Thus it was never considered to be a control and the technique could be “maintained”. Despite Enders clearly not having a valid control the author would agree with these critics that it is still further evidence against the utility of the cell culture technique. Note 18 summarises the fatal logical flaw in the cell culture technique regardless of the results.
21 *The virologists have failed on this front as well: there is no evidence that any “purified” particles derived from cell cultures can satisfy Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates for pathogenicity. Furthermore, the introduction of