20 Comments

Nothing will satisfy the "virus doesn't exist" mob. This even includes some who are very well known in exposing medical disinformation (generally on the side of truth). None of these aggressive loud-mouths have any knowledge of virology or molecular biology. Lack of knowledge is understandable and not in itself a "sin". Rudely and hatefully attacking those who do have the knowledge (earned through decades of producing original science data, analysis, and publication) shows severely flawed character. Those screaming the loudest, those hurling insults and worse, have no clue what is a virus, how viruses replicate, how PCR and sequencing function, etc. Nobody knows everything. I don't. When someone reveals information of which I am not knowledgeable, I take it in, evaluate it as best can, but never ruthlessly attack those who have extensive knowledge, making a fool of myself when I don't know what I am talking about.

Expand full comment

I am not going to waste time and energy getting into a debate with the "no virus" mob. I have done this previously with very good intent, with the erroneous conviction that I could help them to understand the reality of viruses. This resulted in one of the mob leaders messaging me back, telling me to eff off. Another made false allegations on the internet and doxxed me. Then I put together a short explanation of only one of several lines of conclusive evidence for the proven existence and pathogenicity of viruses. Koch's Postulates (1884) have exceptions since scientific knowledge has grown so much during the past 140 years. I just checked and Wiki has a good summary of this. For any who may benefit I shall post one of several lines of evidence here. I do not wish to debate as it is akin to debating flat Earth, is frustrating, and pointless. No one has yet refuted this phylogenetic method.

UPDATED 11_15_23

“There is no virus” is a psyop, which seems intended to confuse, to “muddy the waters”, to divide, conquer, and discredit those who challenge the official narrative. The virus is real and infectious, and is not an influenza virus. Please note that the evidence I provide here does not indicate that a severe pandemic occurred. The evidence suggests it may not be more lethal than the flu. These issues are not the subject of this post.

PHYLOGENETIC TREES ARE PROOF POSITIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SARS-COV-2 VIRUS: The evidence presented here indicates only that SARS-CoV-2 does exist and my own personal experience is that the infection in some individuals is quite serious. It damn near killed me, did apparent permanent damage, severely sickened my daughter until I found her a doctor that prescribed ivermectin (she recovered in hours), severely sickened and damaged some friends. This is not “sniffles” as some have said. Easiest way to prove the virus—do an internet search for "phylogenetic tree of SARS-CoV-2". You will find that many independent research groups from many nations around the world have amplified, sequenced, and analyzed full viral nucleotide sequences of variants from tissues of patients and deceased, deposited these sequences in public data bases, and published analyses in peer reviewed journals. These are independent research groups using standard methodology and this cannot be faked (not on this global scale). I am a professional molecular phylogenecist and I have generated and published many such analyses over the years and taught this methodology to graduate students. For the most part, people who promote this "no virus" trick have never done this kind of work, which includes intense educational background, many years at the lab bench including PCR and nucleic acid sequencing, data analysis, and publication. Their misguided followers have never done this either. Those who say proof of virus is not a valid question have zero real world experience or comprehension in molecular phylogenetics, or any related science for that matter, and spread disinformation. Without comprehensive real-world, productive experience they cannot and will not knowledgeably address my point about proof of the virus using phylogenetic analyses. I will be glad to debate those with extensive expertise, but I cannot imagine that there is such a person, as anyone who fully understands what I am saying will agree with me. If you wish to challenge my comment, please begin with a valid refutation of my phylogenetic method of proof so as not to waste time and space advising me to read articles or visit a website, etc.

ISOLATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SARS-COV-2 VIRUS: PCR primers isolate the viral genetic material. Transmission electron microscopy provides images. DNA sequencing identifies the isolated PCR product. Just as PCR and sequencing isolate and identify the viral genetic material, the same methodology is used in crime labs in every state, federal government, and around the world to isolate and identify genetic material from a contaminated crime scene to either exonerate or convict an accused suspect. In forensics, both direct nucleotide sequence and short tandem repeat (STR) analyses are used. STR analysis provides the number of tandem repeats at each locus, from which the nucleotide sequence is inferred. The validity of this methodology is established and accepted by the entire global scientific and legal system. If PCR and sequencing is reliable enough to isolate nucleic acid in order to identify a criminal perpetrator, the same method is also reliable enough to isolate and identify virus genetic material. If a critic does not accept this reality, then by default they do not accept forensic analysis. There are many convicts in prisons around the world that must be released if forensic methodology is flawed. If forensic methodology is not flawed, then virus genetic analysis must be accepted. It is the same methodology. One cannot have it both ways.

Expand full comment

Kudos to the "virus doesn't exist" mob. It propelled, perhaps in part, Mckernan and his associates to undertake this amazing endeavor. The "virus doesn't exist" mob, actually everyone of us, owes a big thanks to Mckernan et al here irrespective of what the outcome is. I cannot wait to see part 3!

Expand full comment

Pretty awesome.

But why not wait for flowering to finish before publishing the results to demonstrate pathegenicity?

Expand full comment

"There is no “its never been isolated” *canard* with synthetic genomes."

Kevin, what is the need for making inflammatory statements towards critics of "virus theory" (who are obviously correct in this instance) in this report on your experiment?

Isolation is a SUBTRACTIVE process, that of removing one thing from others for the purpose, in this case, of observation and experiment. It is not a manufacturing process via cell culture. (It's also not a synthetic manufacturing process, as is being done in your study) Isolation of a *wild* viral pathogen has NEVER been done in a way that allows us to observe, characterize, and study the exact particles that are theorized to have invaded a host organism and hijacked it's cellular machinery. (Even though, according to the virus hypothesis, the host tissue samples would, by necessity be enormous and biologically ideal CELL CULTURES)

Or which part of that is wrong and why?

Expand full comment