Below is my response to Malcolm Glass’s comment on Facebook (link). His comment is provided at the end of my response.
Thank you very much for taking the time to evaluate my view critically and for explaining your understanding of the subject.
In short, your narrative does not accurately describe my position. Your description is similar to those who consider there is no or limited need to know or understand science to resolve the virus or virology issue. A straightforward discussion (based on so-called logic) could easily and effectively resolve the issue. No true! If that had been the case, the problem would have been resolved a long time ago.
Unfortunately, both groups (virus and non-virus) have been arguing about science (without understanding it) and have failed to resolve the issue. My view is that if one wants to discuss science, then say so. Do not hide it under the rug of logic or high school stuff.
Medical experts did not receive billions of dollars in grants or funding to work with logic or high school-level material. They were supposed to be working in ultra-high-level scientific research positions. This is what they show in their laboratory pictures and journal articles. Do you realize how much medical experts, physicians, and medical scientists charge for their services and scientific research? Try finding it out and remember it (science) all based on the credentials, knowledge, and expertise of having an undergraduate non-science degree, such as an M.D.
They are working with science, and the opponents are trying to prove them wrong with their science, as I stated above, having “science” credentials from an undergraduate non-science degree.
Therefore, ensure you understand this aspect of how they attempt to protect their elite “science” status with a flawed logical narrative. I do not buy their argument at all – they are wrong and dishonest. It is a jungle of dishonesty out there.
Responding to some specific comments:
“… they meant that one shouldn’t think that taking the no-virus position was a sign of scientific literacy.”
That is what I meant. This is in response to the views of some experts, as my view of “no-virus” aligns with theirs, suggesting that science is unnecessary in addressing the virus issue. You are also referring to this argument. Incorrect view!
Mainstream medical experts often argue that highly advanced and sophisticated techniques are now available to establish the existence of the virus; therefore, traditional approaches are deemed unnecessary or invalid. To make their claims valid and stronger, they use science (chemistry) jargon like PCR, DNA, RNA, mRNA, proteins, spike proteins, modeling culturing, etc., to confuse the other party (who lacks the needed scientific experience to rebuttal effectively) and often get quieter or quit without explaining themselves with appropriate arguments or science.
BTW, If P (viruses exist), then Q (viruses can be purified from the sample), Not Q, therefore Not P. To mainstream medical experts, this (your) approach is considered traditional; it has been claimed that it does not work or apply in modern times. In their view, they have not denied “science” but rather created a science called elite (medical) science, which others, in particular medical experts in the non-virus camp, do not understand.
Drs. Kaufman, Cowan, and others like them fall into this category, according to mainstream or elite science experts. Therefore, as they have not studied science, they could not or will not be able to counter the science fraud happening in the medical “science” area.
Saying that (actual) science is not needed to counter the issue of virus existence is a flawed approach and is based on ignorance and incompetence.
Interestingly, to lend a claim or debate more scientific credibility, they began discussing germs and germ theory, discrediting it and implying that there is no evidence of the existence of viruses (germs) or their ill effects. What kind of science or rebuttal is this? What does germ theory have to do with viruses (isolation, purification, characterization, etc.)? It indicates that they lack scientific expertise and competency in logically and critically evaluating the issue and addressing it.
On the other hand, I described the non-existent virus case based on valid scientific principles, suggesting that the existence of viruses must be evaluated based on true science (chemistry), starting with an evaluation of the test or testing methods.
The virus’s existence, its isolation, pandemic, and even vaccine development are all based on testing, specifically PCR or antigen testing. Not only do I possess extensive training and expertise in science, but I also specialize in testing and have worked in this area for almost my entire professional life (over 50 years). Upon examining the virus testing, it becomes immediately clear to me that the tests are either invalid or fraudulent.
The reason is to have a test for something; it must first be validated against reference to that something, in our case, the virus. However, these tests have never been validated against the virus – because the virus does not exist or there is no sample of the virus available. Please reread it – the tests have not been validated as the virus sample is unavailable. Saying it another way – the virus does not exist or has not been isolated.
This is equivalent to a scientific checkmate against the claim of virus existence. There is no escape from it. The entire scenario of viruses, vaccination, virology, medical science, and pandemics collapses, as all depend on testing and testing methods that are not valid or validated. Game over!
I hope you will understand why understanding or knowledge of science is crucial in addressing viruses and their associated issues. There is no need for debate, argument, or discussion. Only the scientific part of testing is to be evaluated and audited by the court of law, not by peers (medical experts) or the FDA/CDC, but by external and independent experts in true science (chemistry). Most likely, it will take one or two court hearings, and we will be done with viruses, vaccination, virology, and medical science (or, rather, the fraudulent aspects of these fields) for good. Let us do it or request for it.
“I mean, all you have to really know is that there exist techniques such as centrifugation and ultra-filtration for purifying particles from samples, and that viruses are purported to be of a size which ought to be separable by these techniques.”
I am sorry, your view is incorrect. These are very crude techniques and are not capable of achieving the separation needed for the isolation of viruses or particles of that type.
Medical scientists or biology/virology experts have very high expectations, albeit in ignorance, of this technique, which does not work for virus isolation. However, it arguably contributed to the potentially disastrous contamination in vaccine manufacturing, as I described here (link).
@ “Another thing is, that I’m not convinced that life actually *can* be reduced to chemistry …”
That is a topic for another time. However, briefly, when we discuss the existence of viruses, isolation, etc., we are not talking about life. We are discussing the isolation and extraction of substances (in this case, viruses), which must be addressed in the science of substances (chemistry) rather than biology or so-called medical science.
Ultimately, I have no issue with doctors selling products; in fact, I would be glad to help them in their endeavors with the knowledge and expertise I have. However, my concern is with their promotion and marketing efforts, at least as implied to be science-based, which are not only incorrect or false but also hinder highlighting the flaws in the medical field and delaying addressing the issues; viruses/virology is one of them.
Below is Mr. Malcolm Glass’s comment:
Saeed Qureshi
I’m still confused as to your precise meaning because, taking your words literally, they meant that one shouldn’t think that taking the no-virus position was a sign of scientific literacy.
I would agree with that, but having only a very sketchy knowledge of science that’s supposed to be diploma level, but is really, if I’m honest, high school level at best, I think that critical thinking is sufficient to understand the gist of the no-virus argument, and this is where I’d agree with Tom Cowan.
I mean, all you have to really know is that there exist techniques such as centrifugation and ultra-filtration for purifying particles from samples, and that viruses are purported to be of a size which ought to be separable by these techniques.
Then, when you further understand that by definition, viruses ought to be present within sample in their hundreds of thousands as they make their way to hijack new cells having burst out of prior ones which were hijacked by a virion and used to replicate itself, then the excuse that they need to be ‘cultured’ just disappears.
It really comes down to modus tollens, If P (viruses exist) then Q (viruses can be purified from sample)
Not Q, therefore Not P
In the same way, if a bison is in my bathroom, I would be able to detect it, I’m not able to detect it, so there’s no bison in my bison.
It really is as simple as that as far as I’m concerned, and it’s not difficult to see how circular the cytopathic effect and virus genomic sequencing are either once you understand a couple of basic facts such as that antibiotics kill cells and that both damaged cells and PCR itself can create novel RNA sequences.
It’s true that the *more* technical knowledge you have the better, but I think the idea that you have to have a stipulated level of scientific proficiency to understand the circular thinking within virology just encourages people to think that it’s all beyond them and it’s better to just listen to the experts. That thinking of course, is prevalent in alternative media with the twist in the narrative that science has become corrupted and ‘dissidents’ ones like Judy Mikovits are the ‘real’ experts.
I understand you to be saying that the very term ‘medical expert’ is a misnomer and biology should be left to chemists, but, while there’s some legitimacy to that I don’t think it’s really an advantageous approach because, as I say, I think people *can* understand what a scam virology is with just a little bit of knowledge and critical thinking, and most people aren’t chemists.
Another thing is that, as I’m sure you know, most scientists defer to the opinion of scientists in other fields out of a generalised loyalty to ‘science’ and a belief in the importance of specialisation.
In the factories I worked in during the tailend of COnVID, the engineers were the most committed mask-wearers.
Another thing is, that I’m not convinced that life actually *can* be reduced to chemistry and in my opinion, not only should vitalism have never been abandoned, but it’s making a quiet comeback thanks to the efforts of Michael Levin and others.
I’m just an aging dropout and dilettante, but those are my thoughts on the matter.