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with the title “Answering Tom Cowan’s ‘Five Simple Questions for Virologists’” where he gave his answer to the 5 points originally made by Dr Tom Cowan. After a lot of commentary that was made by various people, I decided to make my own in an attempt to clarify things a bit further to highlight the unproven assumptions that are being made by him and others and also try to correct the seemingly misunderstanding of what people like myself mean when we say that there are no controls in “virology”.
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."
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.
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...
"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.
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.
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."
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
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?
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...
"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.
Without the "thing" how can you test for the "thing"?
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.