A wonderfully, unbiased article just came out that is definitely worth reading.  In it, the author states that spreading “misinformation” is a deliberate, willful act and that historically brilliant academics have defended their ideas, right or wrong, to the end.  This is not a malicious act.  They truly believe their views.  This is not misinformation.  The author uses the Bradford-Hill criterion to examine the “no virus theory” and ultimately concludes the theory has too many holes to be scientifically viable; however, he admits it is up to the “no virus” theorists to enlist the researchers and scientists to prove their theory.

The understanding of viral isolation is admittedly far above my pay grade.  My first introduction to the topic was through the book “Virus Mania: How the Medical  Industry Continually Invents Epidemics Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense” by Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Kohnlein.  Then I became acquainted with and read the works of David Crowe, RIP.  The information is eye-opening to say the least and would explain many things if proven. While the jury’s still out for me, many of the things presented – particularly the corruption of Big Pharma, governments, mainstream media, and the blatant use of the faulty PCR for diagnosis (as stated by none other than the PCR inventor, Kary Mullis), are true. 

But viral isolation remains a controversial topic and one that needs to be addressed and proven.  I admire and respect the people on both sides of the argument, so it really does require public debate with unemotional scientific facts, which the following three articles present.

Lastly, as Lyme/MSIDS patients, we are well aware of scientific controversy.  Lymeland is full of it – from faulty testing created by corrupt insiders due to vaccine investments and patents, to biased research done by a conflict-riddled Cabal, to faulty treatment guidelines – also created by this Cabal based upon the biased research. COVID has shown the world the corruption in science as well as in institutions receiving government money, which was all based on faulty models, as numerous studies have had to be retracted and papers written showing the members of the COVID treatment panel receive funding and gifts from Big Pharma, which has influenced their decision making.  As it is with COVID, so it is with Lyme.  Top scientists embarrassed and alarmed by agency failure to follow science have come forward anonymously and are leaving in droves over the blatant corruption.  Their anonymity is due to fear of professional repercussions as those who speak against the accepted narrative are hunted down and persecuted similarly to Lyme literate doctors.

The witch hunts are very, very real and are not new.

It’s an ugly, never-ending circle that is completely behind patient suffering and misery, purposefully there to protect insurance companies from having to pay for a lengthy, chronic illness.  These corrupt leaders also don’t want to admit Lyme/MSIDS is persistent due to “vaccine” development which is the cash cow in the Pharmaceutical industry which pays out big dividends to investors, of which are members of Congress, other politicians, and those in academic research institutions who all stand to gain from it. 

If they lied about Lyme/MSIDS, they most probably have lied about many diseases including COVID.

All that said, the following three articles are in opposition to the tenets of the no virus theory and are important reading.


Debunking the ‘Statement on Virus Isolation’


by Sep 5, 2022

The “Statement on Virus Isolation” by Kaufman, Cowan, and Morell, who claim that SARS-CoV-2 “does not exist”, is contradicted by their own cited sources.

In their “Statement on Virus Isolation“, propagators of the claim that SARS-CoV-2 “does not exist” Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell cite three sources to support their argument. In this video (also on Rumble), I demonstrate their lack of credibility by showing how their claims are contradicted by their own cited sources.

Here are their three cited sources:

I also mention these source from the literature:

And here are some related articles and videos:




Yet Another Final, Respectful Response to Virus Denialism.

Tom addressed some, well one of my points that show that their paradigm is falsified by data. Here is my response to his failed rebuttal video.

Virus denialists have a large following. Tom Cowan, in particular, believes that we need to be able to use our own senses to know something exists. This is a simplifying but empirically impoverished viewpoint on what we can know via Science.

Tom took to Bitchute in a video to respond to eight points that I posted on the matter.

He did not address eight points. Here, without adding to disunity, I rebut (again, and likely for the last time), the claims by providing scientific evidence.

An Aside

As an aside, understand that I am reluctantly taking my time to write this article, because I know that those promulgating virus denialism will not pay heed to any scientific evidence I provide that demonstrates the falseness of their claims.

When I have debated virus deniers in the past and provided references to studies that directly rebut their false claims, they have ignored the scientific evidence I provided and continued to make the same statements – the very next day. I know this because after I debated a virus denier in a recorded debate, I happened to also be in a zoom meeting the next day with one of the participants in the event. They acted as if the studies I sent to them did not exist and simply repeated the same faulty claims that were made by my opponent the day before.

In his Bitchute, it is interesting that Tom skipped over my Point #1: that Koch himself failed, using his own criteria, to identify now-known pathogens. This is a rather important point, and Tom’s failure to address it speaks volumes.

In my response, I will simply provide studies that show that the specific claims about SARS-CoV-2 virus by virus deniers like Cowan are factually incorrect. The studies I show are representative of a much, much larger body of published science that shows the basic claims being made are false.

I will not speculate on the motivation of those who would care to continue to ignore studies. They themselves can address that obvious question.

Koch’s Postulates

Koch developed rules to follow by which one can determine if a pathogen is responsible for a disease. The reader should be aware these were published in 1884; Koch updated them to relax the first postulate when he discovered asymptomatic transmission. Also, Koch’s postulates fail to apply to typhoid fever, diphtheria, leprosy, relapsing fever, and Asiatic cholera specifically because it is difficult to create ‘the disease anew’ in animals upon infection (Ref).

Koch’s postulates were addressed head-on for the SARS virus in 2003. See

Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus.

As originally written, Koch’s four criteria were:

(1) The microorganism must be found in diseased but not healthy individuals;

We know that asymptomatic COVID-19 infection can occur. Koch himself had to modify his postulates after he discovered asymptomatic infections could occur.

(2) The microorganism must be cultured from the diseased individual;

SARS-CoV-2 has, in fact, been cultured. It’s a matter of routine:

Wurtz N, Penant G, Jardot P, Duclos N, La Scola B. Culture of SARS-CoV-2 in a panel of laboratory cell lines, permissivity, and differences in growth profile. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Mar;40(3):477-484. doi: 10.1007/s10096-020-04106-0.

“In the present work, we tested 4 strains of SARS-CoV-2 locally isolated on a panel of 34 cell lines present in our laboratory and commonly used for the isolation of human pathogenic microorganism. After inoculation, cells were observed for cytopathic effects and quantitative real-time polymerase reaction was used to measure the virus replication on the cells. We were able to obtain growth on 7 cell lines, 6 simian, and the human Caco-2. The cytopathogenic effects are variable, ranging from lysis of the cell monolayer in 48–72 h to no cytopathic effect in spite of intense multiplication, as in Caco-2 cells. Interestingly, effect and multiplication varied widely according to the strain tested.”

Sung A, Bailey AL, Stewart HB, McDonald D, Wallace MA, Peacock K, Miller C, Reske KA, O’Neil CA, Fraser VJ, Diamond MS, Burnham CD, Babcock HM, Kwon JH. Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in Viral Cell Culture in Immunocompromised Patients With Persistently Positive RT-PCR Results. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022 Feb 2;12:804175. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.804175.

“Viral RNA and cultivable virus were recovered from the cultured cells after qRT-PCR and plaque assays. Of 20 patients, 10 (50%) had a solid organ transplant and 5 (25%) had a hematologic malignancy. For most patients, RT-PCR Ct values increased over time. There were 2 patients with positive viral cell cultures; one patient had chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with venetoclax and obinutuzumab who had a low viral titer of 27 PFU/mL.”

Even the important study showing that use of too high RT-PCR cycle thresholds led to false positives used the ability to create a culture and infectiousness from clinical samples

Singanayagam A, Patel M, Charlett A, Lopez Bernal J, Saliba V, Ellis J, Ladhani S, Zambon M, Gopal R. Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19, England, January to May 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020 Aug;25(32):2001483. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.32.2001483.

(See link for article)

I highly recommend reading the entire article which is extensively footnoted.


For more:

%d bloggers like this: