Virologists Have ‘Resorted to Anti-Scientific Practices to Make Their Claims.’

The realisation that the ‘whole Covid situation’ was fraudulent in early 2020 led to a ‘deep dive’ and the realisation that the fraud surrounding virology had actually been occurring for more than a century for doctors Sam and Mark Bailey. The couple had both previously been trained in the conventional medical system, had conventional beliefs and thought they knew all about microbiology and germs. However, due to the fact that things did not ‘add up’ in the Covid era they began their own indepth research which resulted in their own books – such as The Final Pandemic – An antidote to medical tyranny, – and papers that Mark Bailey says expose why the virus model is ‘completely fraudulent’ and why viral pandemics are not ‘a thing.’

According to the doctors Bailey, they have spent the last four years with their allies dismantling every aspect of the virus model whether it concerns “isolation”, antibodies, genomics, PCR, proteomics, electron microscopy, or animal and human studies. Additionally, in recent webinars Dr Mark Bailey has discussed with Dr Tom Cowan, the concepts of independent variables and controlled experiments, among other areas. Mark says ‘Clearly the virologists have resorted to anti-scientific practices to make their various claims including the foundational claim of virus existence.‘

A Limited Hangout.

Nobody has been able to ‘seriously refute’ their material that has “left no stone unturned’ Mark Bailey told Gareth Icke in a recent interview on Ickonic, where he also claims that “the Wuhan Lab, gain of function theory, is ‘just a limited hangout.; See the video below from 5.10

Wuhan Lab Is A Limited Hangout – Dr Mark Bailey Talks To Gareth Icke Tonight.

Apical Logical Fallacy…

Mark Bailey had been motivated to write an essay, he says (Below) ‘specifically addressing the apical logical fallacy in the cell culture technique – something that has been noticed previously but perhaps not formally expressed’

Dr Mark wrote: ‘The virologists have claimed they perform control experiments and sometimes describe these as ‘mock-infected’ cultures. In recent months we have also been contacted by people in the ‘no virus’ community asking whether John Enders inadvertently performed a control experiment in his 1954 measles paper. Dr Stefan Lanka exposed the lack of a control experiment in this paper in the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in 2016 and I make some further comments expanding on this in note 20.’

‘The pivotal issue is that the virologists do not have an independent variable and their experiments cannot make a hypothetical particle real. The ‘gold standard’ technique for “isolation” cannot possibly determine the presence (or existence) of viruses no matter how they attempt to control it. The paradigm that was created in the 1940s to keep virology alive was dead on arrival because the technique relies on a reification fallacy and logical errors that disqualify the entire process from being scientific.’ 

‘I would like to acknowledge Christine Massey and Steve Falconer for their helpful suggestions.‘

The essay follows below.

Virology’s Event Horizon

Mark J. Bailey
31st of March, 2024

The pursuit of virology has come under intense scrutiny since early 2020. This was precipitated by the onset of the COVID-19 era, particularly when the World Health Organization’s Director-
General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stood in front of the international media on the 11th of March, 2020, and stated, “COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.” For many people, the1 fraud of the alleged pandemic started around that time or during the subsequent lockdowns and severe restrictions on freedom of movement and civil rights. For others the fraud started in 2009 when the WHO changed the definition of ‘pandemic’ and the words, “with enormous numbers of deaths and illness” were suddenly excluded from the existing meaning

We have pointed out that although the above-mentioned developments appear fraudulent, they were simply smaller offshoots of a foundational scientific fraud known as ‘virological science’. , ,3 4 5). These lesser offshoots can be referred to as “downstream” aspects that become logically redundant when the premises upon which they relied are presently shown to be non-existent or at the least, apparently unverifiable hypotheses.

So what is the alleged scientific evidence that underpins the concept of a ‘pandemic’ regardless of the shade in which it is being painted? And how does its subsequent examination disqualify
virology as a science?

Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia states that a pandemic is, “an epidemic of an infectious disease that has spread across a large region, for instance multiple continents or worldwide, affecting a substantial number of individuals.”6 (emphasis added) An epidemic is defined as, “the rapid spread (6) of disease to a large number of hosts in a given population within a short period of time.” An infectious disease is one that involves, “the invasion of tissues by pathogens, their multiplication, and the reaction of host tissues to the infectious agent and the toxins they produce.” (8) (emphasis added) Furthermore, it is stated that, “an infectious disease, also known as a transmissible disease or communicable disease, is an illness resulting from an infection.”9

These alleged “pathogens” include viruses which are said to be submicroscopic particles that have specific physical and biological properties, including replication-competence and the ability to transmit between organisms such as humans to cause disease. (The arguments about whether they are true micro-organisms, dead or alive, etc are further downstream considerations and of no consequence compared to the pivotal question of their existence.) While many people take the
existence of viruses as an established scientific fact, my experience indicates that most people,
including those in the health community, have not critically examined the cited evidence to verify for themselves whether the relevant methodologies that were utilised qualify as scientific. It also remains largely unappreciated that viruses were not discovered and then studied – they were imagined. Virology went on to invent itself on the basis of these hypothetical particles:

…one of the pivotal issues with virology was that it invented itself as a field before
establishing if viruses actually existed. It has been trying to justify itself since its inception: In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. Scientists of the mid and late nineteenth century were preoccupied with the identification of imagined contagious pathogenic entities…The extant presupposition of the time was that a very small germ particle existed that may explain contagion. What came thereafter arose to fulfil the presuppositional premise.10

What has taken place for over a century has been a series of pseudoscientific practices, including
the continued use of a reification fallacy – that is, assuming viruses have a physical existence
despite the fact that they remain a hypothetical construct. In other words, “the error of treating
something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing.”11

It can be shown that the virologists have painted themselves into a corner and the paradigm that
they have created has them snared. If the discipline of virology is said to be a branch of natural
science, then its practitioners are reliant on empirical evidence gained through observation and
experimentation. Within this framework of the scientific method lies the requirement to generate a hypothesis (that is necessarily falsifiable) and then to test it with experiments. The experiments in question must possess a dependent variable, the part that is an observation or effect that depends on an independent variable. The independent variable is the postulated cause of this observation or effect. Experiments also require a ‘control’, namely the ability to compare variables and conditions in a manner that makes it possible to observe the results when varying one factor at a time.

There can be no excuse for allowing virologists to depart from the scientific field they claim to be
operating within. As was noted in A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition):

In 2008, the journal Infection and Immunity featured a guest commentary titled,
“Descriptive Science” that explained why, “descriptive research by itself is seldom
conclusive,” and may simply serve as a starting point to orientate further
investigations. The authors pointed out that, “microbiology and immunology are now
experimental sciences and consequently investigators can go beyond simply describing
observations to formulate hypotheses and then perform experiments to validate or refute
them.”12

And herein lies the complete downfall of virology and the virus model itself. An experiment that
follows the scientific method and purports to show the existence of a virus needs to have a valid
control to establish that the observed effects are the result of the virus (the claimed independent variable) and not other factors.

If the virologists even attempt to perform a control experiment in their methodologies they assert to demonstrate viral existence, frequently omitted are the details of the “mock-infected” group in their publications. The definition of mock-infected is:

…a control group in scientific experiments designed to evaluate the effects of viral
infection on cells or organisms. In a mock-infected control group, the cells or organisms
are treated with the same conditions and reagents as the infected group, except they
are not exposed to the virus. (emphasis added)13 A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest the other is treated the same way except without the virus. (emphasis added)14

In other words, the only difference for the control group is one variable – the alleged virus. This can be done in the case of bacterial or fungal cells because it is possible to separate out such cells and leave the other biological material in the sample.15

It is therefore contested that the virologists themselves have conceded that a true mock-infected experiment is an impossibility as apparently they cannot physically isolate (and thus remove) virus particles from specimens derived from an organism said to be afflicted by a “viral” illness. Thus,16
the only experiments they can possibly perform must fall back on the prior assertion that viral
particles are present in one group and not present in the ‘mock-infected’ group. It is a logical fallacy in the form of petitio principii, also known as ‘begging the question’ in that it purports to prove a proposition while simultaneously taking the proposition for granted. , 17 18

Although many of us that have criticised the virus model have noted this problem before, we have19 perhaps not been explicit enough in pointing out that the reason the virologists have “neglected” to perform valid cell culture control experiments is because that, by definition, they are not able to do so.20

Their predicament goes deeper than the attempts to physically isolate particles derived from the
procedure of “culturing” hypothesised viruses during in vitro experiments.* Once again, this21
practice is scientifically invalid as a methodology to establish the existence of something because
the interpretation of the results depends entirely upon the presumption that the ‘something’ must exist. Cytopathic effects (CPEs) are claimed to indicate the presence of viruses but they can only be said to be the observation of cells breaking down in a test well. The CPEs are the dependent variable in the experiment but it is patently clear that no independent variable (a “virus”) can be discerned in this process. The postulated virus remains hypothetical as it could not be identified as a specific entity at the start of the procedure and cannot then be claimed to have a physical existence based solely on subsequent observations involving the dependent variable.

At this point, it may be claimed that the in vitro appearance of vesicular nanoparticles in a cell
culture mixed with a specimen derived from an organism with a “viral” illness provides evidence that viruses exist. However, this once again invokes the aforementioned petitio principii fallacy as the existence of a virus (and many of its hypothesised properties) is asserted in advance in the form of the “viral” illness.

We can summarise that some of the problems with using cell cultures as purported evidence
include:

• (a) The particles being declared as “viral” are seen for the first time as part of the CPE
• observations, i.e. they are dependent variables. It is preposterous to claim that they are
• also the independent variable in the same experiment.
• (b) The in vitro (laboratory) observations cannot be known to replicate an in vivo (within
• living) process.22
• (c) The techniques involved in electron microscopy introduce further variables that are not
• controlled, in addition to technical artefact and the further limitation that they are static
• structures embedded in resin, not living tissue. ,23 24

The details of each published cell culture experiment can be analysed in depth; something that has been done by us and others on numerous occasions.* In themselves, points (b) and (c) raise currently insurmountable problems as it is unclear if the observations in these settings replicate
natural biology. Regardless, the entire process relies on a logical fallacy, a manifestation of which is expressed in point (a) and with regard to the pivotal virus existence question it renders the entire exercise invalid.

Keep in mind that the cell culture technique is virology’s ‘gold standard’ of evidence that has been advanced to establish the postulated virus model. Whether any of the practitioners have realised that the methodology they have employed could not possibly be scientifically controlled is unknown. The crucial premise of the virus definition is pathogenic particles that cause replica particles in a host but the established ‘gold standard’ cell cultures cannot make a determination of their existence the information is beyond the technique’s “event horizon”. By all accounts, there is nothing left to fall back upon and no escape from such a redundant paradigm.

The virologists may protest that these techniques are the only ones at their disposal because it is not possible to obtain the hypothesised viruses directly from living humans or other organisms,
something that they once set out to do but apparently abandoned. Such a protest is of no scientific merit and the burden of proof remains squarely on their shoulders. The attempts to support the virus model through scientific methods have clearly failed and the imagined viruses have no known existence outside of logical fallacies and pseudoscientific claims.

The citation of indirect observations such as clinical conditions, apparent clusters of illness,
antibody assays, genomics, proteomics and tests such as the polymerase chain reaction cannot stand as evidence of viruses because the claimant is starting within a loop of circular reasoning in which they have already assumed virus existence. None of these observations can possibly provide the required evidence to verify the virus model. The original sin involved the reification fallacy.
Unfortunately for humanity, the virologists’ imaginings about their particles spread to enough minds to bring the world to its knees in 2020.* A petard has been created but who will it ultimately hoist?26

For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and ‘t shall go hard 27
http://www.drsambailey.com

References & Notes

1. Ghebreyesus, T., “WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 111 March 2020,” 11 Mar 2020: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—11-march-2020 (archived)
2. Law, R., “WHO and the pandemic flu ‘conspiracies’”, 6 Jun 2020: https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2 2011/11/02/who-changed-definition-influenza-pandemic
3. Engelbrecht, T., et al., Virus Mania, 3rd English Edition, Books on Demand, 2021: https://drsambailey.com/3 shop-2/
4. Bailey, M. & Bevan-Smith, J., The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity, 11 Nov 2021: https://4 drsambailey.com/the-covid-19-fraud-war-on-humanity/
5. Bailey, M., A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), 15 Sep 2022: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to- virology-expert-edition/
6. “Pandemic,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic (accessed 10 Mar 2024)
7. “Epidemic,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic (accessed 10 Mar 2024)
8. “Infection,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection (accessed 10 Mar 2024)
9. Ibid.9
10. Bailey, M., A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), 15 Sep 2022: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-10 virology-expert-edition/
11. “Reification (fallacy)”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) (accessed 10 Mar 2024)
12. Bailey, M., A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), 15 Sep 2022: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
13. “mock-infected,” GenScript: https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected
14. “mock-infected,” North Western University: https://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/ Glossary/Definitions/Def-M/mock-infected.html
15. *There is no evidence that any micro-organisms per se have “pathogenic” abilities to invade healthy tissue and cause disease: https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/germ-theory/why-pathogens-dont-exist/,however experiments with valid controls are possible with bacterial and fungal cells so the hypothesis can be tested.
16. *As of the 23rd of March, 2024, biostatistician Christine Massey has collated official responses from 222 medical and science institutions confirming that none have evidence of the alleged ‘SARS-CoV-2’ virus ever being found in a human: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around- the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/ (accessed 30 Mar 2024)
17. Welton, J., A manual of logic, Volume 2, 1905: “Petitio principii is, therefore, committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.”: https://archive.org/details/ amanuallogicvol00weltgoog/page/n298/mode/2up
18. *There are in fact two instances of the petitio principii fallacy being committed during the cell culture process: the first is that viruses are present in the ‘viral illness’ sample and the second is that no viruses are present in the ‘mock-infected’ sample. This essay outlines why neither determination can be made by the cell culture technique.
19. Cowan, T., et al., “The ‘Settling The Virus Debate’ Statement,” 14 Jul 2022: https://drsambailey.com/ resources/settling-the-virus-debate
20. Critics of the cell culture technique have stated that control experiments have occasionally been performed and as they also produced cytopathic effects this refuted the virologists’ own experiment. (For example in this video that analysed John Enders’ 1954 ‘Cytopathogenic Agents from Measles Cases’ paper, @1.18.25 https://odysee.com/@spacebusters:c9/Final-The-End-of-Germ-Theory:8) However, the analysis neglects the correct definition of ‘mock-infected’. In order to be properly controlled in this setting there needs to be manipulation of one independent variable (the “cytopathogenic agent” or “virus”), something that the virologists are unable to do as this essay outlines. The presence or absence of the disease of measles said to be exhibited by a patient is not an independent variable in the laboratory experiment. Additionally, Enders stated in the 1954 paper that, “a second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells,” implying that a different “virus” was already present in the cell line or had contaminated that particular culture. This “virus” was reported to produce distinct cytopathic effects: “when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the inter-nuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed.” Thus it was never considered to be a control and the technique could be “maintained” on these terms. Despite Enders clearly not having a valid control (nor could he) the author would agree that it is still further evidence against the utility of the cell culture technique. See also note 18 for the fatal logical flaw in the cell culture technique regardless of the results.
21. *The virologists have failed on this front as well: they have not produced evidence that any “purified” particles derived from cell cultures can satisfy Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates for pathogenicity. Furthermore,the introduction of “sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens” by Fredricks and Relman in 1997 cannot be used to establish the existence of viruses and the authors themselves conceded that, “with only amplified sequence available, the biological role or even existence of these inferred microorganisms remains unclear.”: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC172879&blobtype=pdf In any case, note 15 outlines the foundational issue: the scientifically-formulated Koch’s postulates were never demonstrated for any microbe, even those that can be shown to exist. See also https://drsambailey.com/ resources/videos/germ-theory/kochs-postulates-germ-school-dropout/ and https://drsambailey.com/resources/ videos/germ-theory/tb-cows-lies-and-koch-ups/
22. Bailey, S., “Electron Microscopy and Unidentified ‘Viral’ Objects,” 16 Feb 2022: https://drsambailey.com/22 resources/videos/covid-19/electron-microscopy-and-unidentified-viral-objects/
23. Ibid.23
24. Hillman, H., Certainty & Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques, Surrey University Press, U.K, 1972. For24 a summary see here: https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/certainty-and-uncertainty-in-biochemical-techniques.htm
25. *Among the other questionable elements in the cell culture techniques employed by the virologists is the25 selection of cell lines that may be: (a) unrelated to the diseased cell type in the organism, (b) chromosomally abnormal, and (c) from another species. In further circular reasoning, it is conspicuous that such cells have been chosen because they have a propensity to react in the way desired by the virologists. Fatally for the technique, it has also been shown that CPEs can be a result of the process itself with no introduction of external specimens: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
26. *The presumption of “viral” illnesses and contagiousness is part of a trail of suffering induced by the conviction that ‘germs’ cause disease. This history of misplaced beliefs is outlined in The Final Pandemic -An Antidote to Medical Tyranny, 2024, particularly chapters 2 and 3: https://drsambailey.com/the-final-pandemic/
27. Shakespeare, W., The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, 1603

Sources:

Mark Bailey Virology’s Event Horizon https://drsambailey.com/virologys-event-horizon/

Gareth Icke – Gareth Icke Tonight – Ickonic.com – DavidIcke.com