The writer is unwilling to say there is no Covid-19 virus (SARS-Cov-2), but notes that the usual science needed to prove the existence of the virus appears to be lacking.
Has the existence of “the Virus” been established according to a universally acknowledged set of scientific procedures that must be observed to establish the existence of any and all other viruses?
From the sounds of it, the answer is a resounding no.
Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Sally Fallon Morell, are among those who have noted in a paper published last year that in demonstrating the existence of a new virus, samples must, firstly, be taken from the blood, phlegm, or other secretions of hundreds of people exhibiting symptoms that are “unique and specific enough to characterize an illness.”
Then, “without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the virologist macerates, filters, and ultracentrifuges, i.e. purifies the specimen.” This, the authors explain, is a “common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages [viruses that infect bacteria and reproduce within them] and so-called giant viruses [a virus larger than typical bacteria].”
Thirdly, once virologists perform this procedure, they are then able to “demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles.” The latter are “the isolated and purified virus.”
Fourthly, upon determining the purity of these particles, virologists are able to examine their “structure, morphology, and chemical composition [.]”
Fifthly, “the genetic makeup” of the particles [the virus] “is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from” them and “using genetic-sequencing techniques” that have long been in existence.
Finally, an analysis must be conducted to prove that “these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin” as viruses are held to be and not just “the normal breakdown of products of dead and dying tissues.”
The authors conclude: “If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, genetically-sequenced an exogenous virus particle” (all emphases in the foregoing quotations added).
They add that nowhere in the literature does it show that any of these steps have been taken with respect to SARS-CoV-2.
Neither—and this is crucial—have the scientific steps for determining that SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of a disease, COVID-19, been taken. What are these steps? There really isn’t much to it:
A group of healthy subjects, typically animals, is first exposed to “this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted.”
Subsequently, virologists will wait to determine whether these subjects fall ill with “the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings [.]” If so, “one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease.” In other words, the “infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent” will have been demonstrated.
Again, according to the authors, nothing like this has been performed to show that there is a virus, SARS-CoV-2, that causes what has become known as COVID-19.
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that — scientifically — the reality of Covid-19 turns out to be an illusion, but I am incompetent to judge the observations given here. I welcome comments that explain or put them into perspective.
11 thoughts on “The Scientific Method and Covid-19”
Those steps might have been appropriate a decade ago, but SARS-Cov-2 was not only sequenced but a vaccine had been synthesized in about 2 weeks. Future viral outbreaks will be handled in the same way.
Big Pharma got this right, the majority of the deaths are the fault of bureaucracy,
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Those steps might have been appropriate a decade ago, but SARS-Cov-2 was not only sequenced but a vaccine had been synthesized in about 2 weeks.”
How is it possible to (genetically) sequence a virus that has not been isolated and purified in something like the old process?
How they are doing it is beyond my expertise, but they clearly are doing so. They are even accurately defining variants and determining their susceptibility to vaccines based on a handful of cases.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your perspective seems to be that the new technology for virus identification and characterization is reliable. I appreciate your comments to help me understand the article.
The proof they are right is all the vaccinated people not dying or being hospitalized.
CRISPR, or related technological growth from it, comes to mind as a possibility to speed the process away from the old technology Mr. Roberts’ post appears to refer to.
The article doesn’t actually describe “old technology,” but the presumed significance of isolating and purifying a virus to verify its reality as a disease agent. Dr. Tabor is confident that SARS-Cov-2 has been identified and characterized reliably using techniques that do not isolate and purify the virus, and he may be correct.
It’s not really a contest between old and new technologies. The issue is whether the detection of SARS-Cov-2 has been rigorous in terms of the scientific method.
“The article doesn’t actually describe “old technology,””…
I disagree. It does not take into account the new way of doing old science. In that manner, it relies on old tech. – IMO
Disregarding the effectiveness in new technology when applied to the scientific method is backwards thinking.
RE: “It does not take into account the new way of doing old science.”
How so? The article directly questions “the new way of doing old science.”
And questions its effectiveness. I think Don addressed it well and the idea that the virus doesn’t even exist because 50 year old scientific methods were not used because the newer is better is in line with living in the 1950’s when it comes to other issues.
Doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result comes to mind.
Republicans are fond of saying, “Ya can’t fix stupid,” so they turned their attention to smart. By electing Trump the party officially became irreparable.
LikeLiked by 1 person