An independent journalist by the name of Jeremy Hammond recently wrote an article with the title “Answering Tom Cowan’s ‘Five Simple Questions for Virologists’” where he gave his answer to the 5 points originally made by Dr Tom Cowan.
Thank you for this detailed response to Hammond. You are more even-tempered than I could be. On the (in)validity of the controls, I had taken up that point in his article's comment section, as I had got distressed seeing Hammond patronize Christine Massey and call her FOIA results a "hoax." He seems to be a garden-variety bully.
He's also not very bright. He quickly resorted to his usual tactic of demanding that anyone who fundamentally disagrees with him "demonstrate good faith" by agreeing with his rubbish. Finding no agreement, he banned me.
I'll repeat here my last comment to Hammond:
"You are just gaslighting by repeating your refuted points with more words surrounding them each time. But you can demonstrate some good faith by acknowledging that you materially misquoted Christine Massey by deleting “in the Methods section” from what she wrote.
"You seem keen to promote the belief in the Convid virus. But your arguments are not convincing. If you would like to convince people who disagree with you about, for example, the issue of control experiments in virology, which leads to the larger question of whether virology is a science or pseudoscience, then those people need the details of the alleged control experiments so that they can form their own judgment.
"Thus, at the risk of telling you how to do your job, you could bring forth a full description of Harcourt et al.’s so-called control. What exactly did they do? Where is it described? (Being mentioned in the Results section doesn’t count as a description of a procedure.) Their lab notes on this point would make a good start. Somehow these notes are not being released despite multiple FOIA requests, perhaps because they don’t exist or because they reveal that the controls were nothing of the sort.
"I am by no means telling you what to do. It’s up to you. Ban me from commenting, don’t ban me, it doesn’t matter to me. But don’t be surprised if your claims that “they used a control” are not believed — except by people who already believed them."
Good comment of yours. I made my comment not so much for his benefit as that of his followers that may be in a state of confusion because the arguments are quite deep and I don't think even Hammond understand what he is actually saying. He can't see the unproven assumptions he is making for example when he refers to the definition of a mock-control, how can anyone actually verify that they actually do what people assume they do unless they describe the process of their mock-control which they never do. At best they write a limited description, at worst they do not even include a control of any kind, not even a mock-control.
Yes from the beginning is was assumed that what couldn't be seen was causing the disease.
If they want to use CPE as evidence clearly they have to do appropriate controls, even the ones they do use are not treated in the same way. An adequate control would be a sample from sick patients with the same severity of symptoms, hopefully containing a similar amount of biologically active substances, though not thought to be sick from 'what couldn't be seen'. Cells are constantly signalling and altering each others gene expression. It's a whole big thing.
Even if only 'what couldn't be seen' caused CPE it still wound't mean it was a virus. It would have to be correlated with all others with 'what couldn't be seen' and not occur in healthy people with 'what couldn't be seen'. Experiments on transmission of both 'what couldn't be seen' and also disease symptoms would also have to be shown between 'hosts' and then from them to other hosts.
If it can't be seen or found in nature then we can't do experiments with it because how can we know that we have what we think we have if we can't see it or find it?
It's enough to make the brain explode isn't it! Why do we think anything is there when nothing unexplained is happening requiring further investigation. Why choose virology type experiments to investigate what wasn't happening?
An invisible enemy is the best kind. That way, you can keep coming up with new versions of it and ways to fight against it, because you can make up whatever you want.
The key is to make it believable and then just keep repeating the story over and over and over. Make it the dominant world view, so no one questions this enemy. They have made it the dominant world view.
A very profitable story, in more ways than one, and as is evident, difficult to undo, but it is weakening.
This is wonderful work, John, as always. I was wondering if I might republish this with a link to the original here on my blog at https://snooze2awaken.com ...
About three years ago, I supported Hammond with a small monthly donation. As I became better self-educated on the virus subject, I began to question his logic. Within a few sessions of this, he banned me and I then stopped sending him funds. He has no medical background. And it seems his info comes from the AMA and it's ilk. Who cares what he thinks anyway?
And the thing is... Even if they did purify a "virus" and did controls and it caused cpe .. That still DOES NOT prove it causes a respiratory disease which is better associated with a toxic assault and mucus production and blood poisoning...
EXACTLY. The standard of proof is very high especially when there are other obvious (but not necessarily well- researched) causes for illness. The pathogenic germ hypothesis is a great coverup of actual healing therapies to toxicity and malnutrition.
"Thus, we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate." E Loeffler 1898. Principles of Virology 4th edition, Flint, Skalka et al, 2015
Kudos to everyone who has been trying to unravel the assumptions & flawed logic in what has passed for "virology" over the last 150 or so years. Unwinding it, & getting other people to consider the possibility we have been misled, is VERY difficult.
Since that time, "viruses" have been lumped in with bacteria, fungi & other micro-organisms under the general banner of "microbes" or other such terms. Thus they've been hidden in with other potentially pathogenic micro-organisms, & very few people will bother to question or seriously look at the question of what "viruses" really are.
This is why consensus is so concerning. They tell you everyone agrees so you must, too. But they won't tell you who disagrees or why they disagree. Those people are shoved out of the circle so that all who remain are in consensus. It's also why I fear collectivism. Thank you, CJ Hopkins, for opening my eyes to the truth about collectivism.
That too! Unfortunately many of my health freedom, vaccine-risk aware friends are unaware ot the fact that by refusing to acknowledge that "the thing" doesn't exist and "the bio-engineered thing" doesn't exist, they are doing a disservice to themselves and the people they are trying to educate and forewarn by perpetuating the viral theory myth. Without the viral theory myth, future plandemics can't be rolled out.
I would suggest a panel is set up with a group of those who believe viruses are real and cause disease and those who don't. Then they can take the Milton Rosenau experiment and step through it line by line. That would be interesting to see how they then claim viruses cause disease. After all the Spanish Flu to these flakes is the same as the Mona Lisa to professional artists.
Even if some people would get ill it wouldn't prove that "viruses" are real anymore than it would prove that fairies are real, an effect cannot prove a cause much less the existence of a specific thing. It could be many reasons why people would start expressing symptoms none of which require the existence of a "virus". To prove that "viruses" are real requires one to first find them directly from nature as in directly from the fluids of a sick host without the sample first being combined with other material like a tissue culture. This is something that they have never succeeded with and the "virologists" even go as far as to say that it's outside of what is possible in "virology" which in my view ends all doubts and debates right then and there.
Thank you for this detailed response to Hammond. You are more even-tempered than I could be. On the (in)validity of the controls, I had taken up that point in his article's comment section, as I had got distressed seeing Hammond patronize Christine Massey and call her FOIA results a "hoax." He seems to be a garden-variety bully.
He's also not very bright. He quickly resorted to his usual tactic of demanding that anyone who fundamentally disagrees with him "demonstrate good faith" by agreeing with his rubbish. Finding no agreement, he banned me.
I'll repeat here my last comment to Hammond:
"You are just gaslighting by repeating your refuted points with more words surrounding them each time. But you can demonstrate some good faith by acknowledging that you materially misquoted Christine Massey by deleting “in the Methods section” from what she wrote.
"You seem keen to promote the belief in the Convid virus. But your arguments are not convincing. If you would like to convince people who disagree with you about, for example, the issue of control experiments in virology, which leads to the larger question of whether virology is a science or pseudoscience, then those people need the details of the alleged control experiments so that they can form their own judgment.
"Thus, at the risk of telling you how to do your job, you could bring forth a full description of Harcourt et al.’s so-called control. What exactly did they do? Where is it described? (Being mentioned in the Results section doesn’t count as a description of a procedure.) Their lab notes on this point would make a good start. Somehow these notes are not being released despite multiple FOIA requests, perhaps because they don’t exist or because they reveal that the controls were nothing of the sort.
"I am by no means telling you what to do. It’s up to you. Ban me from commenting, don’t ban me, it doesn’t matter to me. But don’t be surprised if your claims that “they used a control” are not believed — except by people who already believed them."
Good comment of yours. I made my comment not so much for his benefit as that of his followers that may be in a state of confusion because the arguments are quite deep and I don't think even Hammond understand what he is actually saying. He can't see the unproven assumptions he is making for example when he refers to the definition of a mock-control, how can anyone actually verify that they actually do what people assume they do unless they describe the process of their mock-control which they never do. At best they write a limited description, at worst they do not even include a control of any kind, not even a mock-control.
Yes from the beginning is was assumed that what couldn't be seen was causing the disease.
If they want to use CPE as evidence clearly they have to do appropriate controls, even the ones they do use are not treated in the same way. An adequate control would be a sample from sick patients with the same severity of symptoms, hopefully containing a similar amount of biologically active substances, though not thought to be sick from 'what couldn't be seen'. Cells are constantly signalling and altering each others gene expression. It's a whole big thing.
Even if only 'what couldn't be seen' caused CPE it still wound't mean it was a virus. It would have to be correlated with all others with 'what couldn't be seen' and not occur in healthy people with 'what couldn't be seen'. Experiments on transmission of both 'what couldn't be seen' and also disease symptoms would also have to be shown between 'hosts' and then from them to other hosts.
Jo
If it can't be seen or found in nature then we can't do experiments with it because how can we know that we have what we think we have if we can't see it or find it?
It's enough to make the brain explode isn't it! Why do we think anything is there when nothing unexplained is happening requiring further investigation. Why choose virology type experiments to investigate what wasn't happening?
They aren't even experimenting or trying to investigate anything in reality, they just practice self deception by doing pseudo-scientific experiments.
Yes, and play with circular arguments and words https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/isolation-means-you-have-isolates
An invisible enemy is the best kind. That way, you can keep coming up with new versions of it and ways to fight against it, because you can make up whatever you want.
The key is to make it believable and then just keep repeating the story over and over and over. Make it the dominant world view, so no one questions this enemy. They have made it the dominant world view.
A very profitable story, in more ways than one, and as is evident, difficult to undo, but it is weakening.
This is wonderful work, John, as always. I was wondering if I might republish this with a link to the original here on my blog at https://snooze2awaken.com ...
Yes, feel free to republish it.
Thank you! 🙏
About three years ago, I supported Hammond with a small monthly donation. As I became better self-educated on the virus subject, I began to question his logic. Within a few sessions of this, he banned me and I then stopped sending him funds. He has no medical background. And it seems his info comes from the AMA and it's ilk. Who cares what he thinks anyway?
It's not so much of what he thinks, it's more about what the people who read his articles thinks which is why I chose to respond.
Yes. I agree. More like he is controlled opposition without even realizing it.
Covid is a smoke screen for radiation sickness (5G)
And the thing is... Even if they did purify a "virus" and did controls and it caused cpe .. That still DOES NOT prove it causes a respiratory disease which is better associated with a toxic assault and mucus production and blood poisoning...
EXACTLY. The standard of proof is very high especially when there are other obvious (but not necessarily well- researched) causes for illness. The pathogenic germ hypothesis is a great coverup of actual healing therapies to toxicity and malnutrition.
"Thus, we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate." E Loeffler 1898. Principles of Virology 4th edition, Flint, Skalka et al, 2015
Kudos to everyone who has been trying to unravel the assumptions & flawed logic in what has passed for "virology" over the last 150 or so years. Unwinding it, & getting other people to consider the possibility we have been misled, is VERY difficult.
Since that time, "viruses" have been lumped in with bacteria, fungi & other micro-organisms under the general banner of "microbes" or other such terms. Thus they've been hidden in with other potentially pathogenic micro-organisms, & very few people will bother to question or seriously look at the question of what "viruses" really are.
They won't realize it, because it's like believing that fluoride is good for you.
Believing something based on what others say is a great way to reduce your intelligence.
It's evolutionary, the group mind. Unfortunately the group no longer needs to think much, they just perform tasks masquerading as experiments.
This is why consensus is so concerning. They tell you everyone agrees so you must, too. But they won't tell you who disagrees or why they disagree. Those people are shoved out of the circle so that all who remain are in consensus. It's also why I fear collectivism. Thank you, CJ Hopkins, for opening my eyes to the truth about collectivism.
Without the "thing" how can you test for the "thing"?
Obviously you can't just like you can't weaponize something that you haven't found.
That too! Unfortunately many of my health freedom, vaccine-risk aware friends are unaware ot the fact that by refusing to acknowledge that "the thing" doesn't exist and "the bio-engineered thing" doesn't exist, they are doing a disservice to themselves and the people they are trying to educate and forewarn by perpetuating the viral theory myth. Without the viral theory myth, future plandemics can't be rolled out.
I would suggest a panel is set up with a group of those who believe viruses are real and cause disease and those who don't. Then they can take the Milton Rosenau experiment and step through it line by line. That would be interesting to see how they then claim viruses cause disease. After all the Spanish Flu to these flakes is the same as the Mona Lisa to professional artists.
Even if some people would get ill it wouldn't prove that "viruses" are real anymore than it would prove that fairies are real, an effect cannot prove a cause much less the existence of a specific thing. It could be many reasons why people would start expressing symptoms none of which require the existence of a "virus". To prove that "viruses" are real requires one to first find them directly from nature as in directly from the fluids of a sick host without the sample first being combined with other material like a tissue culture. This is something that they have never succeeded with and the "virologists" even go as far as to say that it's outside of what is possible in "virology" which in my view ends all doubts and debates right then and there.