Virus Skeptics Vs Believers SHOWDOWN: Let's Settle This w/ Series of Blinded Experiments

There is a camp of people who doubt the existence of viruses and/or doubt that viruses cause disease. This camp includes dr. Sam Bailey, dr. Tom Cowan, dr. Stephan Lanka, dr. Andrew Kaufman, and dr. Lee Merritt.

There have long been calls for debates between the 'doubters' and the 'believers'. However, the debates very rarely happen, and when they do, it leads nowhere.

NB: To my knowledge, it's always the narrative followers who refuse these debates. Both the elite virus doubters and also elite 'anti-vaxxers' are ready and eager for a debate at any time. I do want to give dr. Malone et al. lots of credit, not only because of all the great things they've done, but also for choosing the right priorities. In this struggle for freedom and considering their severely lacking time and energy, debates on the existence and pathogenicity of viruses should not be their highest priority in my opinion. Not because this is not essential, but because other activities are significantly more important and urgent.

Rather than verbal debates, it would be much better to conduct thorough scientific experiments. The doubters have already long ago defined what they consider to be adequate scientific evidence to demonstrate not only the existence of viruses, but also that specific viruses cause specific diseases. The proof is as follows:

1. Find the relevant pathogenic particles in the tissue or fluid of a sick person
2. Find the proteins and characterize the proteins and genetic material in the particle
3. Prove that the genetic material codes for the found proteins
4. Show pictures of the isolated particle
5. Prove that the JUST particle in question (so not the particle combined with dozens or hundreds of other particles) causes the same disease in a laboratory animal

The problem is that these experiments are impossible according to virologists. This has led to a stalemate. Now the doubters have decided to meet the believers halfway by proposing a series of experiments that *are* possible.

The plan is to collect mucus from the following 4 different people:

1. healthy person
2. person with lung cancer
3. person with influenza A
4. person with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID)

The sample taken from each person is subdivided into 20 parts that are then independently analyzed by 20 different virology laboratories.

The samples are sent without any information (i.e. 'blind') to the laboratories. Each and every sample is to be analyzed in exactly the same way. This will also be monitored by independent observers.

If virologists are right, the results will be as follows:

1. No pathogenic viruses should be observed in groups (1) and (2). In group (3) only influenza A should be observed, and in group (4) only SARS-CoV-2.
2. The results of all laboratories must match for each sample.

In part 2 of the experiment, the participating laboratories are asked to analyze the genetic code of the viruses. The results should be as follows:

1. All labs should come to exactly the same genetic code with the same sample, because the theory says it's impossible for a person to carry multiple variants at the same time.
2. In the samples of healthy people, no viral genetic code should be found at all.

The results should give us an idea whether :

1. Virology is a real science or a pseudo-science
2. The procedures used in virology are scientifically robust or not

An interesting question is whether virology labs are willing to cooperate (for a fee) in this experiment. If they really operate scientifically, no lab would decline participation. After all, true science has nothing to do with dogma and politics, and is solely concerned with the search for Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

When the results are in, they should be published in a scientific journal. A debate is no longer necessary.

Funds will be raised for this experiment. If trillions are spent on measures dictated by virology, then it should be no problem to invest a few thousand to prove that both virology and the procedures used in virology are solid.

I think the described experiment and proposal is a fantastic plan, and eagerly look forward to both the response from the laboratories and the experimental results.

Regarding the virology debate, I am agnostic. However, from studying what the doubters say, I agree that virology seems to have feet of clay. It all looks very scientific and thorough superficially, but when you dig deeper, it's a strong understatement to say that the science is severely lacking.

For example, control experiments and replication are lacking everywhere, and virology depends on extremely loose definitions (e.g. what it means to 'isolate' viruses). This makes it impossible to conclusive prove that a certain particle by itself causes a specific disease. Correlation is not causation after all. When the virology community is confronted with these kind of criticisms, their answers leave much to be desired.

SEE ALSO

Is virology wrong? - Dr. Andrew Kaufman & dr. Stefan Lanka debate dr. Wolfgang Wodarg
https://rumble.com/vu7tt6-is-virology-wrong-dr.-andrew-kaufman-and-dr.-stefan-lanka-debate-dr.-wolfga.html

Addressing Dr McCullough, Dr Malone and Dr Cole's SARS-CoV-2 claims: Where's the evidence?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9Mee0oHfBTGz/

SOURCE: https://rumble.com/v194jd9-virus-skeptics-vs-believers-showdown-lets-settle-this-w-series-of-blinded-e.html