If viruses don’t exist, then how can we see them?

Two papers show viruses that are large enough to be seen with an optical microscope. A third paper shows all of Koch’s postulates satisfied for SARS-CoV-2 published in Nature. We’re done.

BY: Steve Kirsch

Executive summary

This is my last post on this. I want to be perfectly clear what my position is.

The answer is yes, viruses exist and SARS-CoV-2 exists. People who tell you otherwise are misinformation spreaders.

If Tom Cowan et al. want isolated virus, Kevin McCairn would be happy to do the work and it will cost far less than the amount that Christine Massey has already admitted that they have pledged ($500K) for their challenge. However, they refuse to fund this work. This is how they keep their narrative going. Sam Bailey makes cute videos and never mentions all of the offers to do the work.

They are afraid of a public livestream debate… with just two people on our side vs. their entire team

Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey, Christine Massey, and all the other co-signers of their “Settling the virus debate” challenge are badly misinformed and refuse to being held accountable for their misinformation. The discussion is not with me; I have two friends (Kevin Mckernan and James Lyons-Weiler) that will show anyone watching a livestream who is telling you the truth. Cowan et al. can pick their FIVE strongest scientists to debate them. So 2 from our side and 5 from their side. If they want more, that’s fine with us (they will need all the help they can get). What could be more fair? But none of the virus deniers will agree to a public livestream discussion. They stopped responding to my emails as soon as I challenged them to defend their views on camera in a livestream. You can see some of the emails I’ve sent them below. We know they got previous emails since the contents show up in Sam’s latest video. They refuse to accept.

Since they refused my attempts to debate them, I even tried to entice them by offering them a chance to win from $200K to $1M if they win the debate in front of a panel of mutually selected judges. They have the funds so that isn’t the issue. It is baffling to me that they would not want to instantly double their money. The only reasonable hypothesis for turning down my generous offer is that they know they would lose. It’s a tacit admission that they have no confidence at all in what they’ve been telling people.

It is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that you can observe by reading the 1,500+ comments on this post.

Do you think I’m wrong? You can win up to $1M!

If you think I’m wrong about the virus existing, you can win $1M. Here’s the term sheet that explains everything you need to know to double your money.

Do you see Sam Bailey offering the opposite offer? Heck no. If she did, I’d accept it.

One of us is confident in our beliefs. The other is not confident at all.

How science works: the burden is on them to show their novel hypothesis is superior to the current working hypothesis. They haven’t done that.

The current working hypothesis is that viruses exist. It fits 100 years of observations. If you want to say it’s wrong, you have to show that your NEW hypothesis explains the existing data better than the old hypothesis. That is how science works.

The burden is on Cowan et al. to show that the current hypothesis is inadequate to explain the observations and that it should be replaced by their new improved hypothesis which fits the observations better. They never meet that burden.

It’s ridiculously easy: All they have to do is show that the last 100 years of published papers on viruses are more likely explained by their hypothesis. No new experiments are needed.

The problem is that they don’t offer an alternate hypothesis that fits the observed data as well as or better than the current hypothesis! They have nothing.

They can’t even explain even a simple case where a family member gets COVID and then, all of a sudden, other people in the same household get the same illness. None of their explanations (and they offer hundreds of potential causes) can explain even this simple example. They want you to believe the unique gene sequences come from 5G or soda. It’s unbelievable that people actually take them seriously.

How people are being misled into thinking science works the way THEY say it does

Instead, they are misled into thinking that because they claim that “no virus particle has been isolated” based on the dictionary definition of isolation (instead of the virology definition), that that is proof that viruses don’t exist.

Further, they require that the isolated particles are used to infect “test subjects” which I assume are lab animals. But it’s a human virus. So why are we testing it on lab animals? We won’t be able to get an IRB to approve infecting humans. And infecting humans is hard and would require a huge quantity of virions to achieve success; very likely more virions that can be successfully harvested and preserved for the experiment.

Even worse, they require each test subject to have identical sickness. Virology requires no such thing. My wife and I are completely different. We have different immune systems. I’m male, she’s female. We have different immune histories. We have different health issues. She got COVID first and lost her taste. I picked it up from her, and didn’t lose my taste. So this proves virology doesn’t exist?!?!

And finally, the next impossible challenge. The virus isolated from test subjects must be identical to the original particles. I can guarantee you this is never true. This virus mutates in everyone and everyone gets many mutations. If virus in=virus out as they claim, there wouldn’t be any variants at all.

So their challenge is based on a fairy tale world that virology works they way they think it does. They don’t understand virology, so they make these rookie errors.

Why aren’t they specifying any tests for THEIR hypothesis?

Did you notice that they have no test whatsoever to validate that their replacement hypothesis is true? Whoops! A slight oversight!

The test for their hypothesis is simple: fit the observations over the last 100 years better than the current hypothesis.

They can’t do this at all.

The bottom line

You get the idea. Unless THEIR experiment is done to THEIR specification using THEIR judges, then virology is a hoax.

Their experiment as specified is impossible to do because it was designed to fail for the reasons I just pointed out. It’s a completely disingenuous challenge designed to fool the public. They did the same publicity stunt when they did a FOIA to the CDC asking for an isolated virus.

They want you to cast aside 100+ years of scientific studies, all of which are consistent with the “virus theory” because they can’t find an experiment which meets their requirements. Science doesn’t work that way. Science is a “best fit” of a hypothesis to data. Their hypothesis that “other things” caused the observed effect is ludicrous.

Claiming isolation is required to prove viruses exist is like saying the Higgs Boson doesn’t exist because you can’t isolate it. Yet all the theory and the observations are consistent with the Higgs Boson. It took 40 years to “prove” it exists.

It’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist because you cannot isolate it.

Creating an experiment that is hard to pull off technically is not proof of non-existence. It is simply proof that some things are harder to do than other things. If I cut up a newspaper into tiny pieces the size of a letter and then ask you to prove that a newspaper existed by re-assembling the pieces, that would be extremely difficult to accomplish, but it doesn’t prove that the newspaper that was torn up never existed.

More importantly though, this is not how science works (which I have already explained above in the section “How science works”).

I challenge anyone who thinks viruses don’t exist, not just the co-signers

I’ve also offered to bet $1M to ANYONE who thinks I’m wrong, but sadly there were no takers. That document explains why using financial risk is so effective in finding the truth.

Why there aren’t “isolated” viruses available at ATCC (by their definition)

Nobody does the isolation work today because nobody needs an “isolated virus” to develop assays. With the invention of genetic sequencing, the SARS-CoV-2 products from ATCC are more than adequate to meet all the needs of scientists around the world. It’s only Tom Cowan et al. who have a unique need for an “isolated virus” which is isolated to THEIR specifications.

Do they ever explain to you why ATCC only offers just 15 purified virus products? Here’s why:

Obtaining these essential materials can be challenging as the process for culturing, purifying, and titering a viral preparation can be time consuming and costly, requiring technical expertise, specialized equipment, and a broad range of supporting biomaterials and reagents.

Even if Cowan paid their expenses, ATCC wouldn’t get an ROI on the work, so it’s unlikely that they would do the work. Have they even asked? If not, why not?

Of course they haven’t asked ATCC. If they had, they’d publicize it! So since they won’t ask, I just sent in a quote request for a purified virus to ATCC.

This shows that they are disingenuous in their claims about wanting to isolate the virus. If they want it so badly, they should pay for it because nobody else needs it so nobody will pay for it.

If ATCC won’t do the work, I assure you that Kevin McCairn will do the work. Why aren’t they funding him or asking for a quote? Answer: because they know they are wrong.

Finally, did you notice that “they” aren’t offering to bet me or debate me? There’s a reason for that.

I’ve reached out to them, and all I get is silence. We are ready to go whenever they are.

Documents I’ve written related to this topic

1. If viruses don’t exist, then how can we see them? (this document)
2. The very disingenuous “Settling the virus debate” challenge from Tom Cowan, Mark Bailey, Sam Bailey, Andrew Kaufman, Christine Massey, and others
3. Rumble video of Patrick Gunnels admitting bacteriophages have been isolated (these are viruses)
4. Sanger sequencing vs. NGS
5. If you think the SARS-CoV-2 virus or virology is a hoax, READ THIS NOW
6. Settling the virus debate challenge from Dr. Sam Bailey
7. Does anyone want to debate “Does the virus exist?”
8. Has the virus been isolated?
9. Do you know why they NEVER want a live debate?

So you can see, I’ve not avoided the topic, but at this point, I’ve made my case and you are welcome to your opinion.

Why did I spend so much time on this?

A large number of people have been successfully duped into believing viruses and virology are scams.

But this can easily be disproved by science. VERY easily. The virology explanation fits the facts. Their “viruses don’t exist” hypothesis leaves everything unexplained. It couldn’t be simpler.

Yet the virus deniers cannot be moved off “the virus has to be isolated based on a layman’s definition of “isolate” or it doesn’t exist.” This is stupid. That’s not how science works.

Yet, when presented with the facts, people reject them and stick with their beliefs.

The vaccines are a much more complex issue because the data is more complicated.

If we can figure out how to red-pill the people who are bought into the “there is no virus” story, then we may have a technique to red-pill people who think the vaccines are safe.

The problem I have with the vaccine crowd is that they refuse even to engage in dialog. The virus deniers are happy to engage in dialog, but just as dogmatic in their beliefs. So the virus debate allowed me to engage in changing people’s beliefs on a small scale. It was pretty eye opening as I expected this to be much easier than it appeared.

Do I have any doubts I got it wrong? Nope.

The fact that nobody will take my money suggests that they have no conviction in their beliefs. Yet, even without that conviction, it appears that nothing will change their minds. That was counter-intuitive to me.

If you were a virus denier and you have now changed your mind, please indicate that in the comments. I bet the number changed is near zero which suggests to me that logical arguments and data are not persuasive.

It reinforces the old Mark Twain quote:

It’s Easier To Fool People Than To Convince Them That They’ve Been Fooled.

And yes, you were fooled by that because Mark Twain never said that. Think I’m kidding? Here’s the reference.

What did I learn

1. No amount of evidence and explanation will make a difference to people dug in their beliefs, even if the arguments are simple and clear. The evidence for viruses is overwhelming: it fits all the observed data, bacteriophages have been isolated, there is a peer reviewed paper published in Nature proving Koch’s postulates, larger viruses can be observed under an optical microscope, there is no alternate hypothesis that fits the observations. None of that makes a difference to people bought into that narrative.
2. People who promote false views invariably shy away from debates. Some people are brave enough to engage, but when the going gets tough, they disengage. We saw this with Patrick Gunnels where as soon as I pointed out bacteriophages are viruses he told me never to contact him again.
3. People who promote false views will never risk any money in a challenge that is adjudicated.
4. The method used to mislead people is simple: Establish credibility in some area where you are actually telling the truth. Then you get a loyal following. Then you spin a false story that SOUNDS plausible but where people have limited expertise. So you “teach” people that if the virus hasn’t been isolated, it doesn’t exist. Or that you can get any genetic sequence you want because tiny pieces of RNA can be assembled into anything. Or that Sanger sequencing is unreliable. So you are perceived as an “educator” by leveraging the credibility you previously achieved. Once people are locked into the narrative, it’s hard to pull them out.
5. It’s even more effective if you produce an entertaining video about it such as this Sam Bailey video on virology where she positions herself as the expert in the field and she’s telling you what is REALLY going on. It promotes her book. By mixing in snippets of the truth (like that the PCR test being inaccurate but without telling you the whole story), she has just enough seemingly credible content that she positions herself as the expert who is going to enlighten you with the magician’s secrets! Pay no attention to what virologists tell you! They are misleading you! This method works remarkably well. Even though she’s misleading everyone, she gets comments like this one (with 186 likes): “Outstanding. You might be the most dangerous person to the orthodox medical establishment in existence. Bravo. I have such a deep respect for what you are doing.” Wow. I didn’t read all the comments, but they all appeared to be glowing! At this point, her followers are so loyal that she could debate us, lose badly on every single point, and her followers will believe she won the debate. I’m totally serious about that! How did Sam Bailey become an “expert on virology” and how did she form her views? She got that knowledge by reading the views of other misinformation spreaders rather than acquiring the knowledge through actually doing the work herself. Her book then propagates the misinformation to others in the guise of helping people to understand what is really going on. The cycle keeps going on and on like that. Few people have experts they can call to show them how they’ve been fooled.
6. The previous steps work remarkably well due to the Dunning-Kruger effect. The people who you educated now are “experts” and look down on people who are the real experts in the field. Masks are a good example where people are absolutely convinced that they are the “smart” ones in the crowd even though they’ve never read any of the clinical trial data.

So although I couldn’t shift anyone’s thinking as per 1, at least I verified that 2 – 3 hold as a way to assess truth and that 4 is true for any deception.

Bottom line:

1. It’s Easier To Fool People Than To Convince Them That They’ve Been Fooled.
2. Money is a simple, efficient way to determine who the truth tellers are. See the term sheet which explains in detail the advantages of this method.
3. One guy with a few followers can cascade into tens of thousands of believers in nonsense.
4. The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well. Read the comments here.

Why I didn’t just ignore them

While I would like to do that, the mainstream doctors, media, etc. consider us all crackpots.

So if I ignore them, then the mainstream docs can say: “See? You didn’t debate them! Why should we debate you?”

And they would be right.

So I listened to what they said, I read what they wrote, and I’ve written 6 articles in response and challenged them to a friendly debate. And when that didn’t work, I sweetened the offer with an opportunity to win $1M.

I’m not sure what else I can do to get these people in a public livestream debate to settle the issue.

Two papers show viruses that are large enough to be seen with an optical microscope

If viruses don’t exist, how can we see them?

These two papers show recently discovered viruses that are big enough to see and which have distinct shapes that can be easily observed:

1. Thirty-thousand-year-old distant relative of giant icosahedral DNA viruses with a pandoravirus morphology
2. The rapidly expanding universe of giant viruses: Mimivirus, Pandoravirus, Pithovirus and Mollivirus. The image above shows light microscope and electron microscope images of the same virus.

If you think these papers are fake, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence of fakery. Generally, fakery doesn’t last too long in top journals, e.g., the faked HCQ paper in the Lancet. Baseless accusations won’t cut it with my readers. If you have proof either of these papers were faked, let’s see the proof.

READ THE REST AT STEVE KIRSH’S NEWSLETTER:
If viruses don’t exist, then how can we see them? (substack.com)

Martin comments: Actually I couldn’t put it better than Jon Eisen’s comment to me; “I hope the deafening silence from the “no virus” people means they are quietly considering the evidence.”

So. Anyone out there up for the challenge?