Crazz Files

Exposing the Dark Truth of Our World

Dear Virology: Do You Have ANYTHING Other than Insults, Logical Fallacies and Lies to Back Up Your Claims?


Recently overheard conversation between virologist and normal person with an honest job:

Virologist: There are leprechauns living in my closet.

Normal person: Really? Can you show me?

V: No, they’re invisible.

NP: Can I reach into your closet and feel around for them?

V: No, because when you try to touch them they instantly transform from solid to a gas.

NP: OK, so let me get this straight. You’re saying there are leprechauns living in your closet, but it’s impossible to see or feel them.

V: Correct.

NP: So how, exactly, do you know they exist?

V: Well, I once left some cheese in the closet. The next morning, it was gone. That means the leprechauns ate it. It’s called the “lepropathic effect.”

NP: Are those mice droppings I see over there?

V: Where?

NP: There.

V: Yeah.

NP: You have mice droppings in your closet, which means mice are getting in here. Mice eat cheese. But you’re claiming when you leave cheese here and it’s gone the next morning, it’s proof that invisible, phantom leprechauns live in your closet?

V: That’s right.

NP: Are you on drugs? Seriously, that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!

V: I’ve got images of leprechaun footprints taken through my really powerful magnifying glass to prove it! Here, look at these!

NP: Yes, I see them … but they’re not ‘leprechaun’ footprints. They look just like mouse paw prints.

V: [Explodes with rage] You’re a leprechaun DENIER! You’re a donkey that DOESN’T UNDERSTAND leprechology! You and the rest of the no-leprechaun crowd are soooo ANTI-SCIENCE!! It’s SELFISH PEOPLE LIKE YOU who PUT EVERYONE ELSE AT RISK!!

NP: [Calls 911 for paramedic assistance] Hi, I’ve got a guy here having some sort of mental episode. There are mice getting into his closet, but he insists they’re leprechauns. I tried to explain it was mice, but he’s become very agitated and hostile.

911: He wouldn’t happen to be a virologist, by any chance?

NP: Yes, how did you know?

911: Oh, you wouldn’t believe how many calls we get about those guys. Listen, he can’t be helped. Best thing you can do is just get out of there. And for heaven’s sake, if he offers you any “antiviral” drugs or “safe and effective” gene therapies, run like your life depends on it!

NP: Gotcha, thanks for your help!

Pseudoscientists are a predictable lot. They routinely spout untenable nonsense and frequently get away with it, because most people aren’t well-schooled in the fundamentals of logic and reason, let alone science.

As their beliefs gain an increasingly larger audience, pseudoscientists start to assume an air of invincibility and omnipotence. The very fact their ideas have such widespread acceptance is, in their minds, further proof of their veracity.

People whose beliefs thrive largely because of ignorance, popular consensus and authority appeal tend to do poorly when challenged on scientific grounds.

At first, they’ll attempt to address critiques with more pseudoscience. This, however, results in an argument that becomes increasingly untenable, self-contradictory and often downright absurd. Frustrated by the results of their self-defeating attempts to expound on The Science™, they quickly revert to their natural environment:

The gutter.

They abandon all pretense at science, and unleash a barrage of anti-logic and ad hominem attacks. This barrage will feature lies, dishonesty, smug condescension, red herrings, appeals to authority – everything except irrefutable evidence of the controlled scientific kind.

Unable to refute important criticisms, they will talk as if their beliefs are self-evident and beyond challenge. You will be called a “denier” and “conspiracy theorist” for having the temerity to question their very questionable claims.

They will retort that you have no formal scientific qualifications (i.e, you don’t have a piece of paper saying you spent several years at a government/globalist-controlled inculcation facility that receives large amounts of money from drug companies).

Angry at being outpointed by a person who didn’t spend hundreds of thousands on college debt and Che Guevara t-shirts, they’ll insist you don’t “understand” the topic. This is a sly attempt to reframe your ability to see through their BS as an inability to comprehend supposedly complex topics.

Another awe-inspiring attack on yours truly that fails to refute even a single point I raised in my previous article. I stand truly humbled. Not.

Pseudoscience, by the way, often appears “complex” because lies invariably require more lies to fortify the original untruths. The end result is a web of bollocks so intricate that, if you sit back patiently, will eventually ensnare the pseudoscientist in his or her own nonsense.

When that happens, pseudoscientists get really frustrated. They’ll call you names, declare that arguing with you is not worth their time, and then reproduce a quote that has nothing to do with the topic at hand:

This person has a PhD and runs a virology blog. Yet the best she can do to defend the virus paradigm is call skeptics “donkeys” and post quotes about the shortcomings of democracy by a science-fiction writer. Oh, and did I mention she takes Steve Kirsch seriously? You’re in great hands, virology LOL

A Not-So-Nice Attempt to Undermine Critics of Virology

One of my valued readers recently posted a link to a Substack post by a guy called Matthew Aldred titled Viruses and DNA Are ‘Just’ Models?

The post’s subtitle reads “And governments sprayed toxins on people to make them think they had COVID?”

So before I even start reading the post, it’s clear its intent is to portray virus skeptics as a bunch of cuckoo conspiracy theorists.

This intent is confirmed when he includes a partial transcript allegedly reproduced from a podcast discussion featuring two virus skeptics. I say allegedly, because we’re not told where this podcast can be found, we’re not told when it took place, and we’re not told who the participants are.

We are simply presented with a rambling, incoherent transcript that does a good job of making the mystery guest appear rambling and incoherent.

What the transcript does not do is address the actual and inherently-flawed research that virology uses to claim the existence of viruses like Sars-Cov-2.

And neither does Aldred.

This evasiveness, this willingness to cast aspersions without actually addressing the relevant research, is a hallmark of Aldred’s post. In fact, it is so consistent of virus believers in general that they may as well register it as a trademark.

There are countless pro-virus posts I could highlight as examples of pseudoscientific hack jobs. The reason I chose this one is because the author seems at pains to present himself as an impartial commentator. This claim to impartiality, and the author’s professed disdain for the often uncivil nature of internet discussions, may disarm and lure some folks into dropping their intellectual guard. After all, how can you not trust a guy who says he just wants to get at the truth and wonders why we can’t all just get along?

I don’t know Aldred from a bar of soap, so cannot claim to know his motives. Maybe he is a nice guy. Maybe he really does believe himself to be impartial.

What I can say without a doubt is that his post, be it by accident or design, is a catalog of logical fallacies and sleight of hand, the kind that allow charades like the Great COVID Con to gain traction.

The post is a virtual masterclass in fuzzy logic, the kind used to defend untenable pseudoscience like the Sars-Cov-2 charade. Deconstructing that fuzzy logic, and exposing its mechanics and inherent fallacies, is like the research version of building situational awareness. You can recognize an assailant’s intent ahead of time, and take the appropriate action.

Fuzzy Logic Tactic #1: Making Untenable Claims then Switching the Burden of Proof to Skeptics

Aldred begins his post with a bold-type disclaimer:

In this article, I critique the trend of presenting speculative ideas with scant evidence as undeniable truths, particularly focusing on claims that ‘viruses are not real’. I examine a podcast that was sent to me and discuss the broader implications of the theories it presents. I argue that while scepticism is necessary, it’s unwise to completely dismiss established scientific concepts withoutsubstantial evidence.

Before the article even gets going, he hits us with the ol’ switcheroo. With effortless sleight of hand, he has just transferred the burden of proof from virologists to those skeptical of virology.

In his view, it’s not virology that lays claim to undeniable truths based on scant evidence – it is those of us who identify the huge cracks in virology’s foundation.

It bears reminding that virology, to this day, still cannot even begin to physically isolate an alleged ‘virus.’

It is virology that claims you can ‘isolate’ an RNA- or DNA-virus by adding things like culture medium, bovine fetal serum and cell lines, which inevitably contaminate the mixture with extraneous RNA and likely DNA.

This is the very opposite of isolation!

It is virology that makes the self-serving and highly convenient claim that viruses can’t be isolated like bacteria can, because a virus needs a living host to survive and replicate.

Michael Palmer, MD and Suchairt Bhakdi are textbook classic purveyors of this ruse, writing “Viruses, by their very nature, can only multiply within living cells but not in pure culture.”

“The legend that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated,” they continue, “is founded solely on the rigid demand that such isolation be accomplished without the use of cell cultures.”

Viruses can’t party hardy without first shacking up in a living cell, they claim, and therefore it’s “rigid” and unreasonable to expect scientists to isolate a virus in pure cell culture.

A most curious claim, because during the COVIDiot years we were instructed to spray and wipe down everything in sight until our surroundings reeked like a hospital.

Which begs an obvious question: Why did we need to disinfect inanimate objects to guard against a pathogen that can only survive and replicate inside living hosts?

The Sars-Cov-2 virus, claimed people from the CDC and Fauci’s NIAID masquerading as scientists, “can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days.”

Listen virus-believers, you can’t have it both ways. Either a virus can survive outside a host, or it can’t. The Experts™ themselves have proclaimed in a leading medical tabloid that the ‘Sars-Cov-2 virus’ can survive on plastic and stainless steel “up to 72 hours after application.”

Their words, not mine.

Yet we’re supposed to believe, despite having up to a 72 hour window to do so, none of the world’s sophisticated microbiology labs has been able to take a single electron micograph happy snap of a single Sars-Cov-2 virion without first mixing non-purified patient samples with a bunch of other RNA- and DNA-containing material?

To illustrate just what an utter load of tripe the virus paradigm is, here’s none other than Robert W Malone trying to answer what should be a simple question:

“How would you explain the virus?”

As you watch the video, keep in mind this is a guy who has an MD, BS in biochemistry, MS in biology, attended Harvard Medical School for a postdoc, taught pathology at two universities, received $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the US military for assorted shenanigans including vaccine development, and who proclaims himself to be the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. He’s also made countless media appearances and charges $10,000 a pop to give speeches, so it’s fair to say Malone feels right at home in front of a camera.

With a background like that, few people should be as eminently qualified as Sly Malone to explain what a virus is.

So let’s take a moment to learn from the great one:

Even in the invigorating mountain air of beautiful Andalucia, Tio Roberto can’t even begin to offer a coherent explanation of what a virus is.

“This particle is really … self-replicating … genes … … that aren’t really alive. Uh, they exist as a parasite, in the way they become alive when they get into our cells.”


“It is a parasitic relationship, we … I like to say we are the food for the virus.”

“I think it’s really good to think of this as a, um, a virus is a parasitic gene that, um, isn’t truly alive but is at the boundary of living and non-living.”

Parasites operating on the boundary of living and non-living, huh?

Sounds more like a government department to me.

“A virus is even closer to a pure gene parasite. That’s, that’s really what they are.”

I think it’s fair to say Sly has no clue what a virus is. Let’s not be too hard on the guy – after all, it’s hard to describe something that doesn’t exist.

Unable to quit when he’s behind, Malone then objects to the objection that there is no Sars-Cov-2 virus by droning on about cell culture and isolation, not once mentioning that the cell culture ‘isolation’ experiments do not isolate anything but in fact add a bunch of other stuff to a patient sample that itself is already comprised of countless substances apart from an alleged virus.

Man Offers €100,000 to Prove Existence of Measles Virus; Virologists Stay Quiet

In November 2011, German biologist Stefan Lanka publicly issued a bold challenge. He offered the hefty sum of 100,000 Euros to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus.

If the science behind virology was as well “established” as we’re repeatedly told, this should have constituted a quick and easy opportunity to score a large sum of money. Yet not one of the world’s countless virologists, microbiologists, or vocal health authorities took up Lanka’s offer.

The only response came from a cocksure medical student called David Bardens, who submitted six studies he erroneously believed to constitute proof of the measles virus. Lanka reviewed the studies and correctly pointed out they proved nothing of the sort. Bardens then tried to sue for the money, but the German courts eventually ruled in Lanka’s favour.

Documented liars like Steve Kirsch claim Lanka only won because of a legal technicality (Lanka actually required only one study and, not unreasonably, demanded that study not only establish the existence of a measles virus but also document its size. None of the six studies submitted by Bardens met this clearly stipulated requirement). The reality that Kirsch and his ilk refuse to discuss is that, irrespective of whether they included morphological details or not, none of the six studies Bardens served up even begin to prove the existence of a measles virus.

In fact, the seminal 1954 ‘isolation’ paper by Enders and Peebles almost undermined the entire virus charade. They admit in the paper that “an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells” also demonstrated the cytopathic effect! Rather than entertain the possibility that the cell culture isolation charade was untenable, they simply declared, without any evidence whatsoever, that this unexpected ‘cytopathic effect’ was due to an unknown “agent” and then quickly moved on like nothing ever happened.

The world of virology learned a valuable lesson: Never perform true control procedures during the cell culture isolation gig, because it could undermine the entire ruse.

This is the inherently absurd, self-contradictory field of claptrap that Aldred deems an “established scientific concept.” He further excoriates us not to dismiss it without“substantial evidence,” never once addressing the reality that virology itself asks us to accept the presence of highly contagious pathogens without anything resembling substantial evidence.

Remember the invisible leprechaun scenario at the start of this article? Using Aldred’s logic, in such a scenario the onus is on the disbelieving normal person, and not on the deluded virologist, to disprove the existence of invisible leprechauns.

No. If you claim the existence of something that has never been seen before, you prove it.

Fuzzy Logic Tactic #2: Gaslighting

Successful advertisers know you don’t sell products by presenting people with a list of unassailable facts and figures. Nope, you need to press their hot buttons, and the way to do that is by triggering an emotional response.

That’s why car advertisements don’t recite a list of impressive specifications. Instead, they feature attractive couples with Colgate smiles, happy families driving along while everyone stares in envy, and blokey blokes with huge grins blasting up and down muddy countrysides while the ad soundtrack blares “You can go your own way!”

The message is: Buy our vehicle and you’ll get the pretty girl, have a picture perfect family, and be a trail-blazing maverick who lives life on his own terms. And everyone will look on in envy and admiration while you do it!

It’s complete bollocks, of course – but it works. This kind of messaging bypasses our rational faculties and triggers our emotional hot buttons, often to the point where we’ll go into heavy debt just to scratch that emotional itch.

“Yeah I get that, Anthony,” I hear you saying, “but what have car adverts got to do with the topic at hand?”


Car manufacturers, you see, are hardly the only ones who know how to trigger our hot buttons.

People who promote fake pandemics are also experts at bypassing people’s rational faculties.

Attempts to appeal to people’s rational faculties during CONVID were quickly drowned out by rabid objections that anyone who refused to mask up and get poison-pricked was a selfish, heartless, evil granny-killer that deserved to be locked out of society.

News outlets routinely ran heart-breaking stories of people who were once amazingly healthy until they were cruelly struck down by ‘COVID.’ No mention was made of the inconvenient fact that what really struck these people down was state-sanctioned murder, which included administration of drugs like midazolam and remdesivir, regular use of what should be last resort mechanical ventilation, and unlawful DNR (do not resuscitate) orders.

It was a global gaslighting campaign that used emotional hotspotting to shut down rational discussion and instead cast the lone voices of reason – skeptics – as cold-blooded, tinfoil hat-wearing, menaces to society.

And it worked. Spectacularly.

So along comes Aldred, telling us to “beware of those handwaving away scientific models of reality that help us make good predictions, especially when it comes to important matters that keep us alive.”

Translated: Virologists are keeping us alive, and by challenging them you virus skeptics are placing lives at risk!


I’d like to see Aldred explain, in his own words, how the ‘scientific model’ of virology – which would have us believe resistance to disease comes from a syringe as opposed to healthy lifestyle habits – is keeping people alive?

The bulk of the population-wide decline in measles mortality, for example, happened long before kids ever starting getting pricked with who-knows-what. Below are the trajectories for measles mortality in the US, UK and France, with the introduction of the measles vaccine overlaid on each graph.

I think it’s fair to say that, if you want to reduce death from a disease, first port of call for advice should not be people who think the key to public health is turning young kids into pin cushions.

As for COVID, I’d love someone to explain how virology’s disgustingly reckless ‘scientific model’ of Sars-Cov-2 – which eagerly welcomed and even gushingly praised a complete abandonment of the usual safeguards to protect against dangerous and ineffective drugs – kept anyone alive?

During the Pfizer vaxxx clinical trial, more people died in the gene therapy group than in the control group, and global estimates of excess post-vaxxx mortality run as high as 35 million lost lives.

Now, name me even a single anti-vaxxxer who can boast that kind of body count?

I’ll wait.

The reality is that virology now has the kind of body count history’s bloodiest tyrants would be proud of.

Other blockbusters from Virology’s Great Hits! include azidothymidine (AZT), a product of the early-1980s psy-op known as HIV/AIDS (funded by GloboPedo, produced by Fauci and Gallo Records). Despite all the hooplah, clinical trials found no reduction in mortality from AZT. People who got suckered into using this highly toxic drug, however, did find plenty of side effects.

Another virology blockbuster, courtesy Bill & Melinda Productions, is the disgraceful polio vaccine rollout that caused almost 500,000 Indian children to suffer paralysis. While shamelessly dishonest ‘fact check’ outfits like Politifact would prefer you believed this never happened, it sure as heck did (Politifact is owned by Poynter who, by way of amazing coincidence, just happens to count the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations among its funders).

Dhiman et al 2018 documented 491,000 additional cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis in India between 2000-2017. The rise and decline in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis in India aligned neatly with the increase and subsequent decrease in polio immunization rates.

Once again, it’s not virus skeptics who murdered up to 35 million people. It’s notvirology skeptics who are committing democide, and scarring survivors with everything from Guillain Barré Syndrome to myocarditis.

It’s not virus skeptics who caused almost 500,000 poor Indian kids to suffer paralysis, or convinced people with ‘HIV/AIDS’ to take a drug that offered no mortality benefit but lots of severe side effects.

The brains trust that enabled those criminal acts, in case anyone needs reminding, was Team Virology.

I’ve barely scratched the surface of harms caused by this branch of pseudoscience. Suffice to say, it’s much easier to cite the lives ruined by this charade, than to cite lives saved from pathogens never shown to exist except by some voodoo ritual known as “cell culture isolation.”

Virologists: So confident in their science, their inventions require immunity from prosecution.

Fuzzy Logic Tactic #3: Pointing to ‘Experts’ for Validation, Without Offering Your Own Coherent Discussion of the Evidence

Aldred’s post reaches comedic levels when he writes:

“If you feel strongly that viruses are flawed science or even a conspiracy, please write a concise defence of your position in the comments section below (please avoid ‘just read so-and-so’s book’ or ‘watch so-and-so’s video’; I have the arguments from all the usual suspects and have yet to find a concise, coherent, and convincing case against viruses).”

Aldred is specifically demanding you do not simply defer to other people’s material when making your case for the no-virus argument.

Yet that is exactly what he does when making his own case. At no point in his article does he actually discuss the highly problematic research claiming to demonstrate viral isolation.

I and others have presented detailed explanations of why these experiments are untenable; Aldred offers no counter-discussion of why we might be wrong.

He makes bold claims that he fails to expound upon. Instead, he simply links to external sources, as if including a hyperlink is proof in itself.

“Here’s another article on this subject by Michael Palmer at his new substack,” he writes, linking to an article that again fails to dissect the isolation studies. It simply declares that Sars-Cov-2 has been isolated “numerous times.”

Continuing the game of Chinese Whispers, Palmer and co-author Bkahdi do as Aldred does and shun the opportunity to discuss these studies. Once again, they hyperlink the responsibility away to external websites. That’s fine for a Twitter post, but when you present yourself as an authoritative commentator and write an article making definitive claims, the onus is on you to explain your stance in a manner that shows you have a sound understanding of the topic. Making a claim like “yes, Sars-Cov-2 has been isolated,” then failing to address even a single criticism raised by skeptics hardly fulfills that obligation.

“An overview of such studies,” write Palmer and Bkahdi of the so-called ‘isolation’ experiments, “has been provided by Jefferson et al” and a “solid study that correlates virus isolation, PCR and clinical findings in a series of hospitalized COVID-19-patients has been published by Wölfel et al.” (Bold emphasis added – correlation does not equal causation).

Those of us who call Palmer and Bkahdi’s bluff and retrieve the full texts of the Jefferson and Wölfel papers quickly confirm the emperor has no clothes.

All the studies reviewed by Jefferson et al and conducted by Wölfel et al involve the same old anti-isolation, cell culture flimflammery that gives rise to this controversy in the first place.

You can see right here for yourself that Wölfel et al’s ‘isolation’ involved the usual charade of mixing non-purified patient samples with culture medium containing, among other things, 10% fetal calf serum, and Vero E6 (African green monkey kidney cells).

I’ve discussed at length on this site why African green monkey kidney cells (aka Vero cells) are virology’s first choice of cell line for ‘isolation’ experiments, instead of more intuitive options like human lung cells. Unlike many other cell lines, Vero cells can be relied upon to deform and die off during the experiments, allowing virologists to claim a “cytopathic effect.” They then declare this cytopathic effect to be caused, not by their hand-picked choice of a purpose-bred cell line, but by a ‘virus.’

To top off the absurdities, Wölfel et al confirm the presence of Sars-Cov-2 in their utter non-isolate via “SARS-CoV-2 specific real-time RT-PCR using the SARS-2-CoV E assay.”

In plain English: Nothing was ever isolated. To the contrary, they added more stuff – including RNA- and DNA-containing bovine fetal serum – to the non-purified patient samples. When purpose-bred cells guaranteed to deform showed the “cytopathic effect,”they declared it was due to a virus.

They then used the purpose-built PCR test designed to find Sars-Cov-2 in just about anything – including papaya, quail and goat – to proclaim that this virus was the mythical Sars-Cov-2.

It bears reiterating that the handball strategy is a key fuzzy logic technique routinely used by pseudoscientists. They link to external sources, knowing full well most people won’t click through and read those sources. In Aldred’s case, this typically involves clicking through three links to finally get at the source document – something I dare say most people won’t do.

Such a strategy allows people to make a bold claim and be seen to be providing evidence for it, when in reality they’re doing no such thing.

Another example of the handball charade occurs when Aldred writes:

“Ralph Baric’s work involves real viruses in gain-of-function research,” he declares. “You can isolate these viruses too. Also, scientists do indeed create viruses from scratch.”

Once again, Aldred offers no elaboration of these bold claims, simply hyperlinks to external sources – the very thing he forbids others from doing.

Clicking on the astounding claim that “scientists do indeed create viruses from scratch” takes one to a rather unhelpful press release from none other than the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health – a major player in the Great COVID Con.

Clicking through from that press release to the Science paper brings one to an abstractof a 2002 paper, the full text of which is hidden behind a paywall. Science, however, has made the full paper available at another location.

That full text reveals the study was funded by “the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency” aka DARPA, another major perpetrator of the Great COVID Con.

Hiding such information from your readers doesn’t do much for your credibility, but things get even more curious.

The DARPA-funded researchers claim to have created a synthetic ‘poliovirus.’ If a virus is a living entity, then what these researchers have effectively claimed is to have created a synthetic life form. Now that would be truly revolutionary – if it were true.

What the researchers really created was a chemical, and they actually admit it several times during the paper. However, they claim this chemical is “self-replicating” and“infectious.” Despite this, to “infect” mice with this chemical they had to first inject it directly into the brains of the hapless critters.

To what should be no-one’s surprise, intracerebral injection of mice bred to be genetically susceptible to this bollockery caused “flaccid paralysis or death,” although “a larger inoculum” of the synthetic chemical was required to achieve this effect than stock-standard ‘poliovirus.’

I’d bet good money Aldred never read this study. It doesn’t prove the existence of ‘poliovirus,’ and it sure as heck doesn’t prove the existence of Sars-Cov-2. All it proves is that US military-sponsored researchers can claim to have created a chemical compound that, when injected directly into the brains of susceptible mice, causes neurological symptoms and death.

Gee, whoever would’ve guessed injecting synthetic chemicals into an animal’s brain could cause symptoms of nerve damage and death?

What, exactly, does this have to do with the claim that we humans transmit live ‘viruses’ to each other via sneezing, coughing, touching, fornicating, etc, etc, etc?

Where, exactly, is the epidemic of ‘viruses’ caused by people injecting lab-made chemicals into each other’s brains?

A revealing clue to the study’s true purpose can be gleaned in the closing paragraph, when the researchers write:

“As a result of the World Health Organization’s vaccination campaign to eradicate poliovirus, the global population is better protected against poliomyelitis than ever before. Any threat from bioterrorism will only arise if mass vaccination stops and herd immunity against poliomyelitis is lost. No doubt technical advances will permit rapid synthesis of the poliovirus genome, given access to sophisticated resources.

The potential for virus synthesis is an additional important factor for consideration in designing the closing strategies of the poliovirus eradication campaign.”

That paragraph serves several useful purposes for the parasite class. It praises the evil WHO for eradicating poliovirus via vaccines, even though we know the threat from polio was overwhelmingly removed before polio vaccines were released.

It paves the way for development of toxic bioweapons that can be conducted under the guise of defending against bioterrorism.

It provides fodder for future man-made virus and “gain of function” stories that can be positioned as an alternative and suppressed explanation for pre-orchestrated pandemics. These alternative explanations can then be strategically ‘unsuppressed’ at key time points, like during a vaxxx rollout.

It reinforces the inherently absurd mass vaccination and herd immunity paradigms, which hold that people who have taken an allegedly highly effective life-saving drug are in danger from those who haven’t. In a sane world, that would be known as a failed drug.

Fuzzy Logic Tactic #4: Hypocrisy & Double-Standards

We’ve already seen how Aldred demands others adhere to a higher standard of evidence than he believes he is obliged to.

“I’ve no problem with someone speculating that viruses might not be real,” writes Aldred,“but I object when they claim with absolute certainty that this is the case.”

Interestingly, Aldred has no problem with virologists claiming with absolute certainty that viruses exist, when they cannot provide any proof.

Any last shred of credibility evaporates when Aldred does exactly what he accuses the ‘no-virus’ skeptics of: Namely, asserting something without evidence.

He writes:

“When multiple independent studies consistently support the existence of something—like the SARS-CoV-2 virus—it becomes scientifically prudent to accept its existence based on this substantial evidence, although this will probably evolve as new data emerges.”

Here, we see Aldred claim “multiple independent studies” consistently support the existence of Sars-Cov-2, but again he offers no discussion whatsoever of those studies.

To describe those studies as “independent” when they were in fact conducted in a suspiciously similar manner by interrelated organizations like the Chinese CDC, US CDC and Australia’s Doherty Institute is an insult to one’s intelligence.

The Chinese were the first to claim ‘isolation’ of the mythical ‘Sars-Cov-2.’ Shortly afterwards, the Doherty Institute in South China Melbourne, Australia loudly boasted it was the first entity outside of China to isolate the Woohoo virus.

Any discussion of whether Sars-Cov-2 exists must discuss these studies and the numerous absurdities and inconsistencies contained within them.

Aldred won’t touch them. Neither do pandemic shills like Steve Kirsch or Robert Malone or virologist Ian M. Mackay (a WEF ‘agenda contributor’) or Imperial College-indoctrinated Dr Siouxsie Wiles, all of whom rabidly insist Sars-Cov-2 has been isolated.

That’s okay. I’m happy to discuss them. In fact, I already have, at length:

The Great Covid Con: Sars-Cov-2 Doesn’t Exist & Has NEVER Really Been Isolated

“Sars-Cov-2” Does Not Exist (Part 2): Why Chinese Researchers NEVER Isolated the Virus

The Doherty study was an utter joke. They couldn’t find anything that looked like a coronavirus during their cell culture escapade, so they squirted some trypsin – a protein-digesting enzyme – into the mix, and when particles in that mix developed ragged edges they promptly declared them to be the spikes of a coronavirus!

Aldred expects us to accept rubbish like this as proof of a ‘novel’ and deadly coronavirus?

The Doherty researchers also admit they conducted no control procedures during their genetic sequencing caper, and their ‘isolation’ endeavor involved no control procedure using samples from healthy control subjects.

When asked if they tested for other ‘viral’ genomes, the Doherty researchers even admitted: We did not look for other viral genomes. Our assembly was performed against the released Wuhan-1 reference sequence as we were looking for Sars-CoV-2.” (Bold emphasis added)

I don’t know how much more obvious it gets: Come hell or high water, the Doherty researchers were going to find ‘Sars-Cov-2’ – even if they had to handsculpt it with trypsin and willfully blind themselves to the possibility that other ‘virus’ genomes may be present.

To refuse to accept such anti-scientific rot as evidence of anything is not being a “denialist” or “conspiracist” – it simply means you refuse to be a gullible idiot.

Ditto with the various papers released by the Chinese who claim to have first isolated Sars-Cov-2. As I outline in some detail, those papers are a vague, incoherent and suspicious mess, and when I emailed three of the researchers to get some clarification, the answer was … total silence.

It’s all well and good to post URLs to other writers who agree with you, but when the actual researchers of the studies claiming isolation of Sars-Cov-2 either confirm lack of control procedures or refuse to even respond to you, that speaks volumes.


As a person who values truth way above appearing right all the time, I’m happy to be proven wrong.

I’m more than happy to accept that viruses exist – if someone can show me isolation and transmission studies confirming as much that aren’t laughable garbage.

Until that happens, you virus believers can stop trying to gaslight me and others who refuse to believe your anti-scientific hogwash. When you call us “deniers” and“conspiracists”, all you’re doing is showing off your scientific ineptitude and your penchant for projection. It’s most unbecoming.


1 thought on “Dear Virology: Do You Have ANYTHING Other than Insults, Logical Fallacies and Lies to Back Up Your Claims?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © Crazz Files | Newsphere by AF themes.