Do Viruses Exist?

Peloni. Despite significant efforts to put this debate to rest, the dispute over the existence of viruses persists.  Indeed, there are those who would prefer to hear no more of the challenges being made to an entire field of science, and yet those scientists and physicians who are voicing these challenges refuse to surrender their views that the field of virology has not been supportably proven as factual.  Dr. Eve Rowell, an Assistant Editor here at Israpundit and herself a retired physician, has embarked on a two article review of the perspectives which carry this debate onward, and what follows below is the first of these articles which describes the No Virus challenges.   Her summary of the views contrasting these views, and which balance the debate will be published here in the coming days.

By Eve Rowell MD    4 June 2024

This is the first of two articles on virology.This article discusses the ides of those physicians and scientists who critique the methodology used in viral research to prove the existence of viruses and who have attempted to prove that a specific virus is the cause of a specific disease or illness. In the next article I will explore criticisms made by Jeremy Hammond, an independent journalist who disagrees with those who have been critical of the methods employed by virologists.

As a retired physician I recently came across a paper by Dr. Mark Bailey called “A Farewell to Virology.”1 Throughout my medical school education in the 1970’s we were taught the germ theory of disease and it was questioned by no one.

In reading this paper I was surprised to read what seemed to me as reasonable arguments making the case that the field of virology had never used the scientific method to back their claims for the existence of viruses as the cause of illness.

Essentially what I learned I can summarize for you in the notes that follow.

In order to prove that a microorganism is the cause of a disease:

1. a scientist must isolate the organism, that is, separate the organism from all other cells and particles.This is done by taking fluids from a sick patient that are thought to contain the disease-causing organism and examining the fluid to find a microorganism that you think is the cause of the disease.

2. After isolating the microorganism, the organism must be purified to make sure there are no other agents in the isolate that could potentially be disease causing.

3.After purifying the organism, it must be visualized, and in the case of viruses due to their size, this means visualization under electron microscopy.

4. Once it had been isolated, purified, and visualized, the organism must then be injected into another organism and cause the disease from the original patient.

In the case of viruses, these steps have never been accomplished.

Instead, what has passed for viral research is the following:

Fluid taken from a diseased person is filtered, centrifuged, and then a certain density gradient is inoculated into cell culture.  The virologists call this process “isolation.” (They mean they have “isolated” the virus from the patient), and “purification” (by filtering and centrifuging the sample).

The cells most often used in cell culture are Vero, [monkey] kidney cells.  To the cell culture along with the fluid from the diseased person, are added antibiotics, often Gentamicin, anti-fungal agents, and fetal bovine serum, and then the cells are starved of the nutrition that they need to survive.

In a period of time, the cells in the cell culture die and break down. The antibiotics often used such as Gentamicin or Amphotericin happen to be known toxins to kidney cells.  When the cells break down, there can be seen under the microscope “cytopathic effects” or CPE.  These are products of cell breakdown, such as extracellular vesicles.  Virologists believe that the virus is in this cytopathic mixture of cell breakdown products, because they believe they put it there, when they put the fluid from a sick person into the cell culture.

This mixture is then centrifuged.  A viral particle is thought to be of approximately the same density gradient of an extracellular vesicle.  So after centrifugation, extracellular vesicles and purportedly viral particles would be found mixed together.

This gradient is then visualized under electron microscopy and photographed.

Here are some of the scientific problems with this type of experiment. (We are leaving out the problems inherent in using electron microscopy.)

In order to prove that a virus is in the cell culture mixture after the cells break down, you have to prove that you haven’t caused the cells to die by any other means. In other words you have to isolate the virus as THE ONLY CAUSE of the cell breakdown.

In order to do that, you must do a control study in which you do exactly the same thing to another cell culture that you did to the first one, only this time you do not put in the fluid from the sick person.

Not a single viral study has done a control.

Drs. Sam Bailey, and Mark Bailey MD, as well as other physicians have contacted virologists and have asked them for the details of their studies, including details concerning their use of a control but to date have never received a single response indicating that a control study was utilized.

How do the virologists prove that a specific virus has caused a disease?

Besides not using one or more controls, which is required for scientific validity, virologists take samples of fluid from a patient and find fragments of nucleic acid in there. Nucleic acids are the building blocks of RNA and DNA. Humans and the cells in the cell culture (the monkey kidney cells) have fragments of nucleic acids so their presence in the cell culture breakdown products does not prove these are nucleic acid fragments from viruses.

They then use a computer program to add to these nucleic acids and build what they believe to be the viral RNA or DNA from a series of nucleotide bases coming from the computer. They then prime a PCR test with these sequences and then this is their proof that the virus exists and has caused the disease.

As Dr. Bailey writes: “ Not one of the 209 health or science agencies [they contacted] has been able to provide proof that SARS COV2 exists. The 209 institutions were asked to produce any documents demonstrating, “the purification of ‘SARSCoV-2’ said to have caused disease in humans… directly from a diseased human…”2

Virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success.3 They have never been able to find viruses in the blood, or in other fluids from a living human. They only “find” the viruses when they use cell cultures in a lab.

In addition, scientists have been trying to infect other animals with what they claim to be viruses, but have never been able to show that they caused the disease in another animal. There have been hundreds of attempts to transfer this “infectious” or “contagious” viral disease agent, and there have been zero successes.4

A question arises: if viruses are not the cause of disease what is the cause of the cold, the flu, AIDs, measles, etc?

All diseases that have been considered to be due to infectious particles have causes that can be discovered by looking beyond the germ theory and the viral paradigm. Environmental factors, toxins, social, and emotional factors have been suggested as playing various roles in the cause of disease. For example, in the case of rabies, is there nothing in the saliva of dogs that could be disease causing other than a purported virus? Both Pellagra and Beriberi were once thought of as infectious diseases until they were found to be due to nutritional deficiencies (niacin and thiamine deficiency respectively).

The fact that the cause of a given disease is not yet known, is not a reason to explain the disease by a cause that has never been proven.

1 A Farewell to Virology, Expert Edition, by Mark Bailey M.D.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Dissolving Illusions:  Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History, By Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk