The Pseudoscientific Absurdity of Modern Virology


The Pseudoscientific Absurdity of Modern Virology

Let’s examine some mainstream news articles, to see if we can get an understanding of what the so-called consensus is, among modern virologists and see if we can find a definitive, conclusive answer to the following 2 simple questions:

1) What is a virus? 2) Are viruses living or non-living? (My comments in Bold)

What Are Viruses and How Do They Work?

A Tufts researcher explains the tiny infectious agents that can wreak havoc globally

By Taylor McNeil, April 3, 2020

Photo Caption - “A virus is just a piece of information,” said John Coffin. Here, an image of an isolate from the first U.S. case of COVID-19. The spherical viral particles, colorized blue, contain cross-section through the viral genome, seen as black dots. Photo: CDC

So the first thing to note is that the CDC added color to the "photograph" - which means they've doctored it.

“The novel coronavirus behind the COVID-19 pandemic is causing tremendous damage, killing tens of thousands of people, and upending economies as nations struggle to contain its spread. But on its own, like other viruses, it is inert, not even alive. Viruses gain their power by worming their way into living cells, quickly hijacking the cells’ machinery, then reproducing like mad. Soon they are spilling out into other cells, infecting them, too—and sometimes spreading across the world.”

How does an inert, non-living piece of matter perform the actions of "worming", "reproducing", and "infecting", and what motivation exists for a non-living entity to perform such actions? Are there any other examples of non-living things, anywhere in the world, that can perform actions? How does a non-living entity "hijack" another thing? Maybe they use boxcutters.

Viruses are potent because “they evolve quickly, they are unaffected by antibiotics, they can be elusive, they can be versatile, they can inflict extremely high rates of fatality, and they are fiendishly simple, at least relative to other living or quasi-living creatures,” the noted science writer David Quammen says in his 2012 book Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic.

How can anyone prove these claims, without ever observing the virus? Is there any real evidence to back up these claims? Or are they just announced by a guy named David in his book? What is an example of another “quasi-living” thing, that we can find in nature, anywhere in the world?

But what exactly are viruses? John Coffin, a virology researcher at the Tufts School of Medicine, says that at root a virus is simply “a piece of information.”

How precisely does a "piece of information" perform actions?

Viruses are tiny—visible only with an electron microscope—and many contain as few as two to ten genes, compared to the 20,000 genes in each cell of a person.

Which paper / publication shows that anyone has actually viewed an intact, whole virus, separate from all other materials, with an electron microscope? As far as my understanding goes, they've viewed something, mixed in with a bunch of other somethings, which they've then made a series of assumptions to conclude that this something is a "virus", (a contagious pathogen) when it could be a number of other things. They’ve also made an assumption that these tiny “things” contain as few as two to ten genes, but how could anyone make that statement without first viewing the thing?

To understand more about viruses, Tufts Now spoke with Coffin, who is the American Cancer Society Professor of Molecular Biology and Microbiology at Tufts. In his research, he focuses on viruses such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which has killed more than 32 million people worldwide since the early 1980s.

HIV didn't kill more than 32 million people worldwide, AIDS did. Nobody proved that HIV exists, all they did was hold a press conference and announce that they "found" it, based on a series of assumptions.

Viruses are completely different from bacteria. A bacterium is a living thing—most of them have all of the components they need for their own survival, for making more of themselves, and so on.

Indeed. Anyone can view a bacterium, isolate it, measure its diameter, etc. What is interesting to note here is that Coffin says that viruses are definitely not living things, meanwhile other scientists say that viruses are living things or are "somewhere in between" a living and non-living thing? What the fuck does that even mean?

A virus is just a piece of information. A virus puts its information into a cell—a bacterial cell, a human cell, or animal cell, for example. It contains instructions that tell a cell to make more of the virus itself, in the same way a computer virus getting into a computer tells the computer to make more of itself. Viruses are not living things.

So, now that we have established that viruses are not living things, we can ask a reasonable question. How does a non-living “piece of information” perform the action of "putting" and "telling," and what motivation does it have, to do so? The article attempts to build a bridge by comparing a virus to a computer virus, but that’s a poor analogy because a computer virus is written by a human being. Where does a regular virus come from?

Its business is to make more of itself—that’s its only job. Causing disease along the way may or may not be good for it actually—if it kills the cells too fast, that gives it less time to get out and go find a new host.

How does a non-living thing have a business or motivation to have a business or a job? Does it pay taxes, too? How does it "make" a thing, or have motivation to "make" a thing?

Are viruses alive?

They’re not really living organisms—they can’t carry out on their own any of the functions that we consider to be connected with life. They don’t contain the ability to replicate themselves without being inside of a cell. Then how do they have the ability to get themselves inside of the cell?

That’s because the genes are so finely tuned—they do a lot of things. It’s quite remarkable, how much viruses can accomplish with so little information.

Quite remarkable, indeed.


What is a Virus?

By Dr Ananya Mandal, MD

Surely, this article should be informative, given that Dr. Mandal is fully qualified to speak and write on such matters.

Here is her LinkedIn page if you'd like to review her credentials:

Here's another article that she wrote about the Gates Foundation funding a potential COVID 19 vaccine:

"Viruses are tiny organisms [What is an organism?] that may lead to mild to severe illnesses in humans, animals and plants. This may include flu or a cold to something more life threatening like HIV/AIDS”

According to WikiPedia - "In biology, an organism ... is any individual entity that embodies the properties of life. It is a synonym for "life form". In biology, an organism ... is any individual entity that embodies the properties of life. It is a synonym for "life form".

So viruses are alive! Well, that’s odd - the last scientist said they’re definitely NOT alive! Let's continue...

Are viruses alive?

Viruses by themselves are not alive.

Hmmm. WHAT?????? Didn’t she just say that viruses are tiny organisms? And didn’t WikiPedia define for us that an organism “is any individual entity that embodies the properties of life. It is a synonym for "life form" ?

They cannot grow or multiply on their own and need to enter a human or animal cell and take over the cell to help them multiply. So how do they ‘enter’ a human, animal, or plant cell if they are not alive? How does an inert, non-living piece of matter have the ability or motivation to perform the act of ‘entering’ or ‘taking over?”

These viruses may also infect bacterial cells. [Which bacteria cells? How??]

The virus particle or the virions attack the cell [How can a thing that's not alive 'attack' another thing?] and take over its machinery to carry out their own life processes [Life processes? Wait, I thought viruses were not alive? Is a non-living thing about to attain life? How does a non living thing "take over" another thing?] of multiplication and growth. An infected cell will produce viral particles instead of its usual products [How?].

Structure of a virus

A virion (virus particle) has three main parts:

Nucleic acid – this is the core of the virus [this entity now has a core!] with the DNA or RNA (deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid respectively). [Can she prove it?]

The DNA or RNA holds all of the information [precisely what information?] for the virus and that makes it unique and helps it multiply.

Can anyone in the world provide reproducible evidence that there is in fact a DNA or RNA ‘something’. Also, if it's not ‘living’, how precisely does it do this?

Protein Coat (capsid) – This is covering over the nucleic acid that protects it [from what?]


Viruses are not simply taken into cells [How are they ‘taken into cells’ if they are supposed to ‘attack’ cells when they are not alive enough to do anything?].

They must first attach to a receptor on the cell surface. [Attach? How? In order to perform an action, a thing needs to be alive, no?]

Viruses do not have the chemical machinery needed to survive on their own. [Survive? How does a non-living thing survive? Survival is a concept that only applies to living things, right? WHAT THE HELL IS THIS PERSON TALKING ABOUT? Also, if they can’t survive on their own, how can they be available to attack anything?]

They, thus seek out host cells in which they can multiply. [Clever little things! Dead but alive with the brain-power to seek out, find, multiply, attack, take over and survive!]

Life cycle of a basic virus ??????? WHAT???? How does a non-living thing have a life cycle??

A virus particle attaches to a host cell. This is called the process of adsorption. The non-living invader virus ‘attaches’ to the cell and then the cell absorbs this invader without a fight? I guess human cells are just that stupid?

The particle [?] injects its DNA or RNA [?] into the host cell called entry. [I see, it doesn't invade, it injects.]

The invading DNA or RNA takes over the cell and recruits the host’s enzymes. RECRUITS! Assembling an army for nefarious purposes!

The cellular enzymes start making new virus particles called replication.

The particles of the virus created by the cell come together to form new viruses. This is called assembly.

The newly formed viruses kill the cell [How?] so that they may break free and search for a new host cell.

This is called release.

To Recap - A virus is alive but not alive, a non-living entity or piece of information that can enter, take over, multiply, infect, attack, carry out life processes, grow, attach, survive, seek out, inject, enter, invade, make particles, assemble, replicate, break free, search AND RECRUIT!!! ... but nobody can actually provide any evidence for any of these things.

So much for modern medicine.

Wow, I can’t believe what I just read. If you've ever heard the term "mental gymnastics" and wonder what it meant, this might be the best example you'll ever find.Yes, believe it or not – this person is a real doctor working as Associate Professor, Pharmacology at Bankura Sammilani Medical College Bankura. Experienced in reviewing medical journals, analyzing & editing medical documents; writing health articles / reports and organizing Medical Education Programs. Peer reviewer to more than one PubMed indexed journals including Journal of Clinical Diagnostics and Research, International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics etc.

Experienced in reporting, writing and production in print and electronic media.

________________________________________________________________ A virus straddles the fuzzy boundary between living and dead!

What’s the Difference Between a Dead and Live Virus?

That's why biologists and doctors talk about "inactivated" or "attenuated" viruses, not "dead" viruses.

It's helpful to think of a virus as a machine. [A Machine? I thought they were organisms?] In fact, in a lot of ways, it's a machine that's simpler than your car. What's the difference between a living and a dead car? None, because cars aren't alive. This doesn’t seem like an appropriate analogy to me. Cars are built by human beings. Where do viruses come from?

Cars can be working or not working. You can, for example, pull the spark plug wires, or drain the gas tank, or fill the intake manifold with Silly Putty, and a working car will become a not-working car, even though they look pretty much the same.

Inactivated viruses are a bit like not-working cars: some part of the machinery has been changed or damaged to make it not work. [How?]

You can inactivate viruses by heating them so the protein coat is damaged, or the genetic material is destroyed. You can hit them with radiation to destroy the genetic material. You can break the virus into pieces. [How?]

Your body's immune system does not recognize the entire virus. It looks for and recognizes certain parts of the virus, called "antigens" or "antigen subunits." As long as just that part is intact, it doesn't matter how badly damaged the rest of the virus is.

By way of comparison, if you open the hood of a car, melt the engine into slag, and then close the hood, people walking down the street will still recognize it as a car. They'll see it and say "yep, that's a car," even though the engine is totally destroyed. You can take the wheels off and people will still say "yep, that thing I'm looking at is a car."

Your body will look at the outer shell of a virus and say "yep, that's a virus," even if the genetic material is completely destroyed (or entirely removed altogether). You can take parts of the virus off and your body will still say "yep, that thing I'm looking at is a virus."

But I thought a virus had to "trick" a cell into thinking it's not a virus? ________________________________________________________________ VIRUSES EXIST IN A "NETHERWORLD" History of Viruses

No one knows exactly when viruses emerged or from where they came, since viruses do not leave historical footprints such as fossils. Modern viruses are thought to be a mosaic of bits and pieces of nucleic acids picked up from various sources along their respective evolutionary paths. Viruses are acellular, parasitic entities that are not classified within any kingdom. Unlike most living organisms, viruses are not cells and cannot divide. Instead, they infect a host cell and use the host’s replication processes to produce identical progeny virus particles. Viruses infect organisms as diverse as bacteria, plants, and animals. They exist in a netherworld between a living organism and a nonliving entity. Living things grow, metabolize, and reproduce. Viruses replicate, but to do so, they are entirely dependent on their host cells. They do not metabolize or grow, but are assembled in their mature form.

So they're not alive or dead, they exist in some magical netherworld in between, you see. Maybe somewhere near Middle Earth.

________________________________________________________________ Study: Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines


WOW! These scientists can't seem to agree on much at all, can they?! At least not when it comes to these so-called Android Robot Alive but also Dead Viruses from the Netherworld!

Until now, viruses have been difficult to classify…

Today, many viruses – including those that cause disease – take over the protein-building machinery of host cells [How?] to make copies of themselves [How?] that can then spread to other cells [How?]. Viruses often insert their own genetic material into the DNA of their hosts. [How?]

In fact, the remnants of ancient viral infiltrations are now permanent features of the genomes of most cellular organisms, including humans. [WOW! Intense! Any evidence for such claims?]

“This knack for moving genetic material around may be [which also implies that it may not be?] evidence of viruses’ primary role as spreaders of diversity,” Prof. Caetano-Anollés said. [Ahh, they just have a 'knack' for it, you see.]

The analysis revealed genetic sequences in viruses that are unlike anything seen in cells. [How precisely does one analyze what's inside of a virus, without ever having first isolated a virus?]

“The data also suggest that at some point in their evolutionary history, not long after modern cellular life emerged, most viruses gained the ability to encapsulate themselves in protein coats that protected their genetic payloads, enabling them to spend part of their lifecycle outside of host cells and spread.” [Oh, the data suggests a thing or another thing, eh? Can we see that data? And how does a non-living entity ‘gain an ability?’]

“The lack of translational machinery in viruses was once cited as a justification for classifying them as nonliving. This is no more. Viruses now merit a place in the tree of life. Obviously, there is much more to viruses than we once thought,” Prof. Caetano-Anollés concluded."

Obviously! ________________________________________________________________ "VIRUSES ARE MORE LIKE ANDROIDS THAN REAL, LIVING ORGANISMS"

"Are viruses alive or dead? Well, we know they’re not dead. Death is what happens when a living organism stops performing biological functions, and for the moment we’re only interested in the active particles. So were they ever alive? Most biologists say no. [But the previous article said they are?] Viruses are not made out of cells, they can’t keep themselves in a stable state, they don’t grow, and they can’t make their own energy. Even though they definitely replicate and adapt to their environment, viruses are more like androids than real living organisms. (Think Data from Star Trek, Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator, the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica or the robots in I, Robot). Just like crazy killer robots, viruses are created fully formed, and rely on host materials to build and power themselves."

There you have it. Viruses aren’t actually living organisms afterall, but they’re not fully inert either - nope, they are more like crazy killer robots! You know, like the ones we see in Hollywood Sci-Fi movies. Science is sooo awesome!

________________________________________________________________ "THERE IS NO DOUBT THIS [VIRUS] IS A LIVING ORGANISM". ?!?!?!??!?!?!?! So Just a quick recap of what we’ve learned so far … some scientists think Viruses are alive, some think they are not. Others say that viruses are "Androids" or "Crazy Robot Killers". Others say that viruses are a "sort of borrowed life" and one article suggested the Viruses live "IN A NETHERWORLD BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH" - you know, like Vampires! 'Virophage' suggests viruses are alive The discovery of a "giant virus" that falls ill through infection by another virus is fuelling the debate about whether viruses are alive. BOY this ongoing debate is something else, isn't it? Are viruses Alive or Not Alive? I wonder if they'll ever figure it out!!? Well, this specific, super special virus is unique because it actually infects other viruses! There’s no doubt this is a living organism,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, a virologist at the the CNRS UPR laboratories in Marseilles, part of France’s basic-research agency. “The fact that it can get sick makes it more alive. More alive????? Giant viruses have been captivating virologists since 2003, when a team led by Claverie and Didier Raoult at CNRS UMR, also in Marseilles, reported the discovery of the first monster [SCARY!]. The virus had been isolated [Really? And which publication or paper was that published in?] more than a decade earlier in amoebae from a cooling tower in Bradford, UK, but was initially mistaken for a bacterium because of its size, and was relegated to the freezer...

It was named Acanthamoeba polyphaga mimivirus (for mimicking microbe), and is thought to be part of a much larger family. “It was the cause of great excitement in virology,” says Eugene Koonin at the National Center for Biotechnology Information in Bethesda, Maryland. “It crossed the imaginary boundary between viruses and cellular organisms.

Imaginary, indeed.

Now Raoult, Koonin and their colleagues report the isolation of a new strain of giant virus from a cooling tower in Paris, which they have named mamavirus because it seemed slightly larger than mimivirus..

Sputnik infects this viral factory and seems to hijack its machinery in order to replicate. The team found that cells co-infected with Sputnik produce fewer and often deformed mamavirus particles, making the virus less infective. This suggests that Sputnik is effectively a viral parasite that sickens its host — seemingly the first such example.

The team suggests that Sputnik is a ‘virophage.’"

HEY! Thanks for the suggestions! I think I'll use my own brain though...

Although 13 of its genes show little similarity to any other known genes, three are closely related to mimivirus and mamavirus genes, perhaps cannibalized by the tiny virus as it packaged up particles sometime in its history. This suggests that the satellite virus could perform horizontal gene transfer between viruses...

By regulating the growth and death of plankton, giant viruses — and satellite viruses such as Sputnik — could be having major effects on ocean nutrient cycles and climate. “These viruses could be major players in global systems,”

Can you believe that this super giant satellite virus was only discovered in 2003? And they named it Sputnik for all the space fanboys! All those virologists studying so-called viruses and all sorts of debris under microscopes all the way back to the 1800s and not a single one of them ever found such a thing, even though it is exponentially larger than all other viruses?! Gosh, I'm really starting to lose respect for these super smarty pants "world renowned" scientists. ________________________________________________________________ How Viruses Work

If you could look at a virus, you would see that a virus is a tiny particle. Virus particles are about one-millionth of an inch (17 to 1,000 nanometers) long [source: Milo and Phillips]. Oh, if only we could look at them.

Most viruses are many times smaller than bacteria, though giant viruses — first discovered in 2003[Viruses that are SO giant, they were never discovered in the 150 years before 2003?] are about the same size [source: Pennisi]. Bacteria, in turn, are much smaller than most human cells. Viruses are so small that most cannot be seen with a light microscope, but must be observed with an electron microscope. [If only I had a few million dollars lying around, I could buy one]

So, a virus must have a host cell (bacteria, plant or animal) in which to live and make more viruses. Outside of a host cell, viruses cannot function.

For this reason, viruses tread the fine line that separates living things from nonliving things. [Netherworld?] Most scientists agree that viruses are alive because of what happens when they infect a host cell.

Got it? Now let's take a look at another explanation from the same website.

Without the host cell, a virus cannot survive long term; however, it does have a short window of time during which it can function in hopes of attaching to (aka infecting) a new host.


So, viruses have hopes and dreams now? Well it seems none of these so-called scientists can agree on even the very basic fundamentals of how viruses work. And yet, they want us to believe all sorts of fairy tales and line up for vaccines. Strange.


Coronavirus Could Be a 'Chimera' of Two Different Viruses, Genome Analysis Suggests

Just in case you're not scared of coronavirus, now it might be even SCARIER! Let’s see what kind of mental gymnastics are needed to reach this conclusion of a hybrid monster virus.

...while the number of scientific articles on this virus is increasing, there are still many grey areas as to its origins. [mmm hmmmm]

a molecular dating estimate based on the SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences indicates an origin in November

...and precisely how does this "molecular dating estimate" work?

Comparative genomic analyses have shown that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the group of Betacoronaviruses and that it is very close to SARS-CoV, responsible for an epidemic of acute pneumonia which appeared in November 2002 in the Chinese province of Guangdong and then spread to 29 countries in 2003.

A total of 8,098 cases were recorded, including 774 deaths. It is known that bats of the genus Rhinolophus (potentially several cave species) were the reservoir of this virus and that a small carnivore, the palm civet (Paguma larvata), may have served as an intermediate host between bats and the first human cases. Again, mostly just speculation.

Since then, many Betacoronaviruses have been discovered, mainly in bats, but also in humans. For example, RaTG13, isolated from a bat of the species Rhinolophus affinis collected in China's Yunan Province, has recently been described as very similar to SARS-CoV-2, with genome sequences identical to 96 percent. Isolated? My ass.

These results indicate that bats, and in particular species of the genus Rhinolophus, constitute the reservoir of the SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses.

On 7 February, 2020, we learned that a virus even closer to SARS-CoV-2 had been discovered in pangolin. With 99 percent of genomic concordance reported, this suggested a more likely reservoir than bats.

But I thought they isolated the virus from a bat?

However, a recent study under review shows that the genome of the coronavirus isolated from the Malaysian pangolin (Manis javanica) is less similar to SARS-Cov-2, with only 90 percent of genomic concordance. This would indicate that the virus isolated in the pangolin is not responsible for the COVID-19 epidemic currently raging.

In addition, these genomic comparisons suggest that the SARS-Cov-2 virus is the result of a recombination between two different viruses, one close to RaTG13 and the other closer to the pangolin virus. In other words, it is a chimera between two pre-existing viruses.

grey area -> estimate -> indicates -> may have -> not really isolated -> indicate -> suggested a more likely thing -> a study under review -> would indicate and suggest that -> IT IS A CHIMERA BETWEEN TWO PRE-EXISTING VIRUSES.

This is how science is conducted today ________________________________________________________________ “Spy” Virus Eavesdrops on Bacteria, Then Obliterates Them !!!!!

A scary looking CGI virus with a head and legs, that's technically not actually alive! WOW!

In the early experiments it looked like the virus called VP882 was doing something that should be impossible for a thing that is not a bacterium, and not technically even alive: intercepting molecular messages exchanged by its host bacteria, and reading them to determine the best time to annihilate the whole bacterial colony. “As scientists, this is just unimaginable to us,” says Bonnie Bassler, a molecular biologist at Princeton University. “We were delighted and skeptical at the same time. It was almost too good to be true.


So now we can add some more actions to the list that a non-living entity can perform – including intercepting, reading, determining and annihilating!

Not only did it turn out to be true for VP882; Bassler learned there is a family of bacteria-infecting viruses (a subgroup of a kind called bacteriophages, or just “phages”) that eavesdrop on their hosts’ routine molecular communications with other bacteria. That means VP882’s kill trigger could be easily manipulated to target any bacteria, Bassler says—opening the possibility that the virus could be engineered into an ideal killing machine for dangerous pathogens."

You see? They're "not technically even alive" yet these "spy" viruses can EAVESDROP, intercept messages, read them and then use that information to target and annihilate bacteria. Nevermind that this suggestion goes against all laws of nature. It's science!

From WikiPedia: "Vibrio virus VP882 ... is a bacteriophage virus that can listen to bacterial conversations when detecting a molecule that bacteria use to communicate. Using this ability, genetic engineering has been done to attack bacterial diseases such as E. coli and cholera under command. . 1 2 VP882 has about 70 genes. VP882 is the first bacteriophage to use espionage to find out when the optimal situation is to kill its targets, it is also the first time that phage therapyhas used trans-kingdom or cross-domain communication. This virus has enormous potential as a therapeutic tool, as it can infect unrelated bacteria. It has potential as an alternative to antibiotic resistance."

"There's never, ever been evidence of a virus listening in on bacterial communication," Bassler tells NPR. "But what the heck. It's not my job to shut down people's creativity."Source

So we can now add, listening/eavesdropping, detecting, reading, targeting and ESPIONAGE to the already long list of actions a non-living inert piece of matter can take, even though these "scientists" from Princeton University have not provided any evidence whatsoever for such wild claims. Honestly, how much more of this nonsense are we expected to entertain?