Five Simple Questions For Virologists
https://drtomcowan.com/blogs/blog/five-simple-questions-for-virologists?_kx=FIaHVD2GQ8tc9ce2pH2yxfdCeEkoq1iM_8smgwZO2Q5pGRyj-IjcsV3_MFFyr8vt.TVKZzX
By Tom Cowan on October 13, 2022
Hello, everyone. Almost three years into the "great virus
debate," we're still awaiting answers to questions we have for
virologists. I thought this would be a good time to put forward in
one place the five most basic unanswered questions, with the hope
that any virologist will reply with answers. I'm happy to share their
answers with my audience.
Question One: When attempting to prove the
existence of any "thing," we follow certain procedures.
First, we define the thing we are looking for, then we go to the
natural habitat of that thing and attempt to find it. If we find it
and we isolate it (meaning, separate it from its environment so we
have it in pure form), this step allows us to find out what the thing
is composed of and what it does. It works very well with trees,
frogs, bacteria and even nanoparticles.
Can you give us a reference in which this step has been
done for any pathogenic virus, and, if this reference doesn't exist,
explain why not?
Question Two: Virologists claim that the "viral
culture" experiment proves the existence of the virus. In that
experiment, an unpurified sample is taken from a sick person and
mixed with fetal bovine serum, toxic antibiotics, and a starvation
medium. It is then inoculated on a highly inbred cell culture, which
results in the breakdown of the cells (called "cytopathic
effect”). This process is called "isolation" of the
virus.
Can you define what the term "isolation" means
to you, and whether you agree that the above process is a
scientifically based isolation procedure?
Question Three: The scientific method at its core
means the choosing of an independent variable (that which you wish to
study) and a dependent variable (the effect this independent variable
causes). By this widely accepted definition of the scientific method,
one would need to isolate and test the virus and only the
virus as the independent variable. So, a proper experiment would be
to isolate a pure virus from a sick person that you allege is made
sick with this virus and inoculate this and only this virus
onto the cell culture and see whether it causes the CPE. Then, of
course, one would run a control experiment: The identical steps would
be taken, except no virus would be added to the culture.
Can you point us to a study in which this clear experiment
has been done? If it doesn't exist, please explain why. If
the reason is that you can't find the purified virus in any fluid of
any sick plant, animal, or human, then are you willing to acknowledge
that the only experiment one could do to
prove the existence of these viruses simply can't be done? If you
agree that this experiment can't be done, could you please refer us
to a paper that shows how a "viral culture" is
experimentally validated with proper controls
at every step of the experiment?
Question Four: It is often claimed by doctors and
scientists that every nook and cranny of our bodies is teeming with
viruses. These viruses, it is claimed, make up what is called a
"virome." Some claim there are 10 to the 48th
number of viruses in our bodies.
If this is true, when you inoculate unpurified lung
samples onto cell cultures, presumably containing gazillions of these
viruses, why is the only virus that "grows" the one you're
looking for, i.e., SARS-CoV-2? Why aren't these other viruses seen,
photographed, and found in the broken-down cell culture?
Question Five: Finally, can you offer
other examples of "things" that are claimed to exist solely
through the finding of pieces of that
thing? To be clear, if no records of a purified virus such as
SARS-CoV-2 exists, by what logic or scientific principles can one
claim to prove that any piece, such as an antigen or genome, has come
from that "thing?"
All the best,
Tom
|
