The COVID-19 event has brought a new awareness to many people about the fields of epidemiology and virology which most of us have largely assumed to be unproblematic examples of sound science with which we have had little cause or standing to debate the ‘experts’.

However, if the past three years has taught us anything it is that vastly too much of what we have been told by politicians and ‘experts’ has turned out to be false and, in many cases, deliberately deceptive. The draconian measures many governments instituted in a largely vain attempt to control spread of the purported SARS-COV2 virus have been widely discredited as being ineffective and lacking scientific evidence or justification—including lockdowns, face masks and social distancing.

Fundamental to the entire covid-19 narrative is the assertion that there is such a thing as a virus and that this virus has been isolated and characterised as the purported SARS-COV2. But, what is the evidence for this assertion and do viruses even exist?

Given that the existence of viruses is taken for granted as an unproblematic fact by most people in western society, it may come as a shock to find that there is a growing body of scientists and lay people who are seriously questioning what can only be called the viral hypothesis. Not being qualified in these fields, I have opted to provide an overview of a book and an essay covering alternative views on the subject. Both of these are authored by published medical and scientific professionals.

Virus Mania

The book Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense (3^rd Ed.) by Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr Claus Köhnlein, Dr Samantha Bailey, and Dr Stefano Scogilo challenges the mainstream narrative on infectious diseases, questioning the existence of many of the viruses that are said to cause pandemics and epidemics, and the accuracy of the diagnostic tests used to identify them. The authors argue that the medical industry, with the support of governments and the media, has created a culture of fear and hysteria around these alleged viruses, leading to unnecessary and harmful public health interventions. The authors question the idea that vaccines have been the primary reason for the decline of infectious diseases and argue that:

1. The success of vaccines in preventing and eradicating diseases has been overstated, and that other factors such as improved sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition have played a greater role in reducing disease rates.
2. The efficacy of vaccines has been exaggerated, and many vaccines have not been rigorously tested for safety and effectiveness.
3. The side effects and adverse reactions of vaccines are underreported, and the risks of vaccination are greater than the benefits.
4. The concept of herd immunity, which suggests that widespread vaccination protects unvaccinated individuals from disease, is flawed and not supported by scientific evidence.

Through the various chapters in Virus Mania, the authors dissect and dismantle many common claims by virologists and epidemiologists concerning their claims about a host of supposedly viral diseases, including HIV, hepatitis C, BSE, SARS, H5N1:avian flu, cervical cancer, swine flu and measles. Apart from the aforementioned concerns about vaccines, the authors point out some disturbing issues with the way virologists have approached the question of proving the existence of a virus.

Specific criticisms include:

• The way that virologists have approached the question of proving the existence of a virus. The authors suggest that the traditional methods used to isolate and identify viruses, such as electron microscopy and viral culture, are unreliable and subjective. They argue that virologists have not provided convincing evidence that viruses are the cause of many diseases, and that there is often a correlation between the presence of a virus and the occurrence of a disease, but not necessarily a causation. They suggest that virologists have relied too heavily on assumptions and correlation-based studies, and have not rigorously tested their hypotheses.
• Failure of virologists to take into account the complexity of the human immune system and the role that it plays in responding to infectious agents. They suggest that the immune system may be responsible for many of the symptoms attributed to viral infections, and that the presence of a virus may be a secondary factor rather than the primary cause of disease.
• Lack of adequate proof that viruses are the cause of many diseases, and that the traditional methods used to isolate and identify viruses are unreliable. They argue that a more rigorous and evidence-based approach is needed to determine the role that viruses play in human health and disease.

The 3^rd edition, which was published in 2021, includes an extensive new Chapter 12 Total Corona Mania: Worthless PCR Tests, Lethal Drugs—and Mortality Data that Makes a Viral Case Impossible. In this chapter, the authors argue that the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been based on flawed testing and inaccurate mortality data. They suggest that the PCR tests used to diagnose COVID-19 are unreliable and can produce false positives, leading to an overestimation of the number of cases. They also suggest that the mortality data used to calculate the death rate is inaccurate and does not take into account the many factors that contribute to mortality. The authors further argue that the drugs being used to treat COVID-19, such as remdesivir and dexamethasone, are ineffective and even dangerous, with little evidence to support their use. They suggest that the focus should be on preventing and treating underlying health conditions that increase the risk of severe illness from COVID-19, rather than relying on unproven and potentially harmful drugs.

Overall, the authors suggest that vaccines have not played as significant a role in the decline of infectious diseases as is commonly believed, and that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. Their contention is that under the influence of 19^th century researchers, such as Louis Pasteur, an erroneous model of infectious disease was advanced based on misconceptions about the roles of bacteria and fungi in the human and animal ecosystem. Rather than seeing bacteria and fungi as part of the natural terrain of life, these were posited to be problematic pathogens—with each disease being caused by a unique pathogen, which had to be eliminated to effect a cure. The concept of a virus (meaning poison) was developed to explain diseases for which no bacteria or fungus could be identified as the ostensible cause.

A Farewell to Virology

Dr Mark Bailey’s essay “A Farewell to Virology (expert edition)” challenges the validity of the virus hypothesis, and argues that viruses do not cause disease in the way that is commonly understood in the field of virology. The essay presents technical arguments to support this claim and critiques the scientific literature that is commonly cited in support of the virus hypothesis.

Dr Bailey argues that the virus model invented by virology has consistently failed to fulfill its own requirements. He suggests that virology’s claims that viruses cause disease are not supported by scientific evidence, and that virologists have failed to obtain viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have viral diseases. The essay goes on to claim that virologists have created their own pseudoscientific methods and changed the dictionary meaning of words to support their anti-scientific practices. For example, virologists have redefined the term ‘isolation’ to include methods that do not require the physical existence of viral particles, which makes it possible to claim that a virus has been isolated even when it has not.

Circular reasoning

Dr Bailey asserts that virologists’ methods constitute circular reasoning because they assume that viruses exist and cause disease, and they use this assumption to guide their research so that they use techniques designed to find evidence of the existence of viruses, rather than techniques that are based on a neutral search for truth. In this way, when virologists use techniques such as PCR and immunohistochemistry to detect the presence of viral particles or viral proteins, these techniques are based on assumptions about the nature and behavior of viruses. If these assumptions are incorrect, then the results obtained through these techniques will also be incorrect.

Dr Bailey also argues that virologists use circular reasoning when they attempt to isolate viruses from samples. According to him, virologists assume that certain particles are viruses and then attempt to isolate those particles from samples. However, the techniques used to isolate these particles often involve the use of chemicals, enzymes, and other agents that can alter the particles and create artifacts that are mistaken for viruses. As a result, the ‘isolates’ obtained through these techniques may not be true representations of viruses.

Lack of proper controls

Dr Bailey asserts that virologists do not use proper controls in their research methods. According to him, controls are an essential component of any scientific experiment because they allow researchers to distinguish between true effects and artifacts. However, virologists often fail to use appropriate controls in their experiments, which leads to inaccurate results and flawed conclusions.

Dr Bailey gives several examples of how virologists fail to use proper controls in their research. For instance, he notes that virologists often use uninfected cells or tissues as “controls” in experiments to detect the presence of viruses. However, uninfected cells or tissues are not true controls because they may contain genetic material or proteins that can be mistaken for viral particles or viral proteins. As a result, the results of these experiments may be inaccurate and misleading. Dr Bailey also notes that virologists often use non-specific or irrelevant controls in their experiments. For example, they may use antibodies that are known to bind to multiple proteins as a control for an antibody that is supposed to be specific for a viral protein. However, this approach does not provide a true control because the non-specific antibody may bind to other proteins that are present in the sample, leading to false positive results.

Dr Bailey asserts that virologists’ failure to use proper controls in their research methods leads to inaccurate results and flawed conclusions. He argues that virologists need to use appropriate controls in their experiments to ensure that their results are valid and reliable.

SARS-CoV2 fraud

As a case in point, Dr Bailey argues that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is claimed to be responsible for COVID-19, remains nothing more than a hypothetical computer construct, assembled from genetic fragments of unproven provenance. According to the essay, there has never been a physically isolated or purified particle shown to be responsible for the production of identical particles or a particle shown to be the cause of pathological effects in any human or animal model.

The essay goes on to claim that virologists, along with the World Health Organization (WHO) and its adherents, have engaged in scientific and intellectual fraud by declaring that an infectious particle called SARS-CoV-2 is causing a disease pandemic. This claim was based on what the essay alleges is a lack of concrete scientific evidence to support the existence and pathogenicity of the virus, and an over-reliance on computer models and assumptions.

Overall

Overall, Dr Bailey’s essay is a critique of virology and its methods, arguing that the field has failed to provide scientific evidence to support its claims about the role of viruses in disease. The essay also suggests that virologists have resorted to pseudoscientific methods and practices to support their claims, which raises questions about the validity of their work. The consequence of these factors is that the field of virology has contributed to fraudulent medical practices and created unnecessary fears about viral diseases.

Conclusion

We need to explore what the scientific critics of virology (and there is a growing body of them) have to say, because if they are right—and it seems to me on balance that they may very well be—then the whole pandemic narrative collapses. In doing so, it is imperative that we step back from ‘consensus’ thinking (aka group think) and fairly evaluate and consider what the critics have to say. In my observation most of these critics are not doing it for the money—there’s no money in opposing the narrative of big pharma—rather, in most cases opponents of the narrative face severe loss of professional and academic standing.

Note: This article has been written using ChatGPT to distil and summarise aspects of the works being reviewed.