Nice discussion but I think the hold outs for lab leaks are more motivated by xenophobia than science. There was also a lot of going on with between the US and China prior to all this that possibly contributed to this..
Peter Miller (a computer engineer) hired a scientist with a background in biochemistry to assist him in arguing that the evidence for a lab leak or release was very weak, and NOT convincing. The two sides mutually agreed on judges, and then both sides presented their arguments. The debate went into a great deal of detail. PM had suggested that the epidemiological evidence (pattern of infections etc) suggested a zoonotic origin.
Of course this does not proove that the origin of CoVID-19 was zoonotic. But it is a strong indication that the evidence for a lab origin is very weak.
Option C, no virus, just fear. PCR is not even a test, yet claimed to be a gold standard, (compared to what haha), and virus isolation does not even follow the scientific method, nor does it even follow Koch’s postulates.
The PCR test is not part of Koch's postulates, so that is irrelevant. Virus isolation can and often does follow the guidelines of Koch's postulates. (Since I have actually done this, though NOT with the corona virus, this seems like you are just making stuff up).
Humans can talk about two things at once. No negative controls for viruses, and when conducted, similar CPE occurs. You are mistaken. See Jamie Andrew’s substack. Good luck!
Terrain theory is an alternative health perspective that suggests the state of the body’s internal environment (or "terrain") is the primary factor in disease, rather than external pathogens like bacteria or viruses. This contrasts with germ theory, which is the widely accepted scientific understanding that infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms.
Key Principles of Terrain Theory
1. Health Depends on the Body’s Internal Environment – Disease arises when the body’s terrain is imbalanced due to factors like poor nutrition, toxicity, and stress.
2. Toxins, Not Germs, Cause Disease – Proponents argue that bacteria and viruses do not cause illness but appear in response to a toxic, unhealthy body.
3. Immunity Comes from Lifestyle – Instead of vaccines and antibiotics, terrain theorists believe in maintaining health through diet, exercise, detoxification, and natural remedies.
Origins and Advocates
The theory is often associated with Antoine Béchamp, a 19th-century French scientist who opposed Louis Pasteur’s germ theory.
Modern proponents, particularly in alternative medicine and natural health circles, challenge mainstream virology and vaccination.
Scientific Consensus
The vast majority of medical and biological research supports germ theory, as it is the foundation of microbiology, immunology, and infectious disease treatment.
The effectiveness of antibiotics, vaccines, and sanitation in preventing and treating diseases strongly supports the germ theory model.
While terrain theory promotes holistic health, it is generally not supported as a standalone explanation for infectious diseases. Some modern health approaches integrate aspects of both theories, emphasizing strong immunity while acknowledging the role of pathogens.
How exactly is “Terain Theory” absurd, when those supposedly dying of “viruses” over the past five years are riddled with co-morbidities, while those supposedly walking around completely healthy also have the viru, and are considered asymptomatic spreaders? Yeah, human health matters, and it shows up everywhere if you care to look.
Genetic fallacy. And when you say “alternative,” modern medicine is the original “alternative” to health, which has absolutely nothing to do with pharmacology and everything to do with lifestyle.
So this is not a "journal article" - it is self-published. No peer review by actual virologists. But let's accept that he did the work described. If I have understood this correctly, he added some antibiotics (Penicillin/Streptomycin) to a cell culture, and could see "chunks of stuff" in EM images that looked to him like pictures of actual viruses. So what?
Oh, and BTW, PCR can be used as a test for viral genetic material, you may recall
that Kary Mullis was awarded a Nobel Prize for his efforts in developing the PCR process. Of course, if a PCR test for viral genetic material was done on the samples in the cited experiment, it would not have detected viral DNA.
https://www.bosterbio.com/how-to-design-positive-negative-controls-ihc-western-blot-elisa These are examples of what’s done. Only the first touches upon what should be done to verify “virus as causation”… and that’s assuming (not scientific) that the negative and positive controls are exposed to living tissue, and then viral behavior is observed under the scope. Understand, I had no idea until recently just how suffused logical fallacies are within the field of virology. I wouldn’t be writing this if it all made sense. THe point I’m trying to make is that the process of culturing whatever virologists think they are growing makes it impossible to not cause CPE. The more one looks at the process, it seems impossible for anything to live unadulterated through that.
That’s why the metaphor of torture is so apt. Under duress, confessions are not reliable: Same with the extensive process of isolating viruses, assumptions be damned.
Yes, he added various things to the cell culture, as do all virologists when attempting to isolate whatever they claim to be looking for. If you did “isolation” as you claim, you now how intense the process is to procure magical biological matter from monkey kidney cells. Shall I list the steps that completely adulterate the cell culture, or do you want to share it, by heart?
PCR amplifies the dead detritus of tortured cells. Virologists are the high priest doing the torturing, and they only stop when they get the confession they like. Nonetheless. You and I and everyone who is paying attention knows the journals are bought and paid for by Pharma and Rockefeller medicine. The most important take away you could/should/ought to take away is that virology is rife with claims of viral pathology without NEGATIVE CONTROLS. If the negative controls also cause CPE, then the CPE cannot be claimed so be caused by the virus. One does not need anything more than logic to understand this.
Marcus, I believe you have put serious effort into understanding how viruses work. And I admire you for putting in effort to understand this. But from what you are saying it is clear you have no "bench experience", and have done no course work in microbiology.
Bluntly, a couple hundred hours of reading articles by people who are mostly not microbiologists and watching a few YouTube videos is not going to teach you a lot about viruses.
BTW, microbiologists do use negative controls where it is appropriate.
They are appropriate always, Bill, in the form of administering cultures, that are known to not possess the supposed virus - treated and prepared in the exact same way - to test subjects. If the same CPE is observed, then the supposed virus is not the cause. Without controls like this, done every time, it is not scientific or logical. Sam Bailey debunks Tobacco Mosaic Virus claims on YouTube is just example of a major flaw that seems embedded in virology to this day.
I would also ask...have you ever flown a 747, performed a cardiac cath, excised a brain tumor, skied the headwall at squaw or SCUBA dived to say 100' depth?
Whats the point? When people venture outside their areas of expertise, they are likely to make mistakes.
A geologist is a geologist not a virologist.
Epitemic trespassing is the problem and it is epidemic.
Nice discussion but I think the hold outs for lab leaks are more motivated by xenophobia than science. There was also a lot of going on with between the US and China prior to all this that possibly contributed to this..
Dr. P's agruments seem similar to those suggested by Peter Miller in the "Root Claim Debate". See https://blog.rootclaim.com/rootclaims-covid-19-origins-debate-results/
In this debate, the RootClaim folks bet $100,000 that they had good evidence for one of the Lab Leak hypotheses.
See also: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAkFdX3wuVwBd7ZgMG7tdow
Peter Miller's channel on YouTube.
Peter Miller (a computer engineer) hired a scientist with a background in biochemistry to assist him in arguing that the evidence for a lab leak or release was very weak, and NOT convincing. The two sides mutually agreed on judges, and then both sides presented their arguments. The debate went into a great deal of detail. PM had suggested that the epidemiological evidence (pattern of infections etc) suggested a zoonotic origin.
Of course this does not proove that the origin of CoVID-19 was zoonotic. But it is a strong indication that the evidence for a lab origin is very weak.
This is in agreement with Dr. P.
We may never know the truth. Thanks for the arguments for and against.
Sooner or later, an intermediary host will be found.
Option C, no virus, just fear. PCR is not even a test, yet claimed to be a gold standard, (compared to what haha), and virus isolation does not even follow the scientific method, nor does it even follow Koch’s postulates.
The PCR test is not part of Koch's postulates, so that is irrelevant. Virus isolation can and often does follow the guidelines of Koch's postulates. (Since I have actually done this, though NOT with the corona virus, this seems like you are just making stuff up).
https://open.substack.com/pub/mathewnorth/p/evaluation-of-cytopathic-effects?r=z0agb&utm_medium=ios
That study is pathetic. It would never be published in a real journal.
Covid case definition is pathetic and would never be published in a real journal.
Absolutely. Fake virus criteria. Perhaps because it’s a made-up disease. One anchor on the news slipped and said “oh, so it can be anything.” Unreal
Nothing wrong with the study. When negative controls are used -as the scientific method demands - similar/identical CPE is observed. Simple logic
Humans can talk about two things at once. No negative controls for viruses, and when conducted, similar CPE occurs. You are mistaken. See Jamie Andrew’s substack. Good luck!
Jamie Andrews is a geologist
His "terrain theory" is absurd at best.
Terrain theory is an alternative health perspective that suggests the state of the body’s internal environment (or "terrain") is the primary factor in disease, rather than external pathogens like bacteria or viruses. This contrasts with germ theory, which is the widely accepted scientific understanding that infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms.
Key Principles of Terrain Theory
1. Health Depends on the Body’s Internal Environment – Disease arises when the body’s terrain is imbalanced due to factors like poor nutrition, toxicity, and stress.
2. Toxins, Not Germs, Cause Disease – Proponents argue that bacteria and viruses do not cause illness but appear in response to a toxic, unhealthy body.
3. Immunity Comes from Lifestyle – Instead of vaccines and antibiotics, terrain theorists believe in maintaining health through diet, exercise, detoxification, and natural remedies.
Origins and Advocates
The theory is often associated with Antoine Béchamp, a 19th-century French scientist who opposed Louis Pasteur’s germ theory.
Modern proponents, particularly in alternative medicine and natural health circles, challenge mainstream virology and vaccination.
Scientific Consensus
The vast majority of medical and biological research supports germ theory, as it is the foundation of microbiology, immunology, and infectious disease treatment.
The effectiveness of antibiotics, vaccines, and sanitation in preventing and treating diseases strongly supports the germ theory model.
While terrain theory promotes holistic health, it is generally not supported as a standalone explanation for infectious diseases. Some modern health approaches integrate aspects of both theories, emphasizing strong immunity while acknowledging the role of pathogens.
How exactly is “Terain Theory” absurd, when those supposedly dying of “viruses” over the past five years are riddled with co-morbidities, while those supposedly walking around completely healthy also have the viru, and are considered asymptomatic spreaders? Yeah, human health matters, and it shows up everywhere if you care to look.
Genetic fallacy. And when you say “alternative,” modern medicine is the original “alternative” to health, which has absolutely nothing to do with pharmacology and everything to do with lifestyle.
So this is not a "journal article" - it is self-published. No peer review by actual virologists. But let's accept that he did the work described. If I have understood this correctly, he added some antibiotics (Penicillin/Streptomycin) to a cell culture, and could see "chunks of stuff" in EM images that looked to him like pictures of actual viruses. So what?
Oh, and BTW, PCR can be used as a test for viral genetic material, you may recall
that Kary Mullis was awarded a Nobel Prize for his efforts in developing the PCR process. Of course, if a PCR test for viral genetic material was done on the samples in the cited experiment, it would not have detected viral DNA.
https://www.bosterbio.com/how-to-design-positive-negative-controls-ihc-western-blot-elisa These are examples of what’s done. Only the first touches upon what should be done to verify “virus as causation”… and that’s assuming (not scientific) that the negative and positive controls are exposed to living tissue, and then viral behavior is observed under the scope. Understand, I had no idea until recently just how suffused logical fallacies are within the field of virology. I wouldn’t be writing this if it all made sense. THe point I’m trying to make is that the process of culturing whatever virologists think they are growing makes it impossible to not cause CPE. The more one looks at the process, it seems impossible for anything to live unadulterated through that.
That’s why the metaphor of torture is so apt. Under duress, confessions are not reliable: Same with the extensive process of isolating viruses, assumptions be damned.
Yes, he added various things to the cell culture, as do all virologists when attempting to isolate whatever they claim to be looking for. If you did “isolation” as you claim, you now how intense the process is to procure magical biological matter from monkey kidney cells. Shall I list the steps that completely adulterate the cell culture, or do you want to share it, by heart?
So have you ever worked in a microbiology lab?
Why are you asking me a question when you haven’t answered mine? What are the steps in isolating viruses? You have. Tell me. Walk me through it.
PCR amplifies the dead detritus of tortured cells. Virologists are the high priest doing the torturing, and they only stop when they get the confession they like. Nonetheless. You and I and everyone who is paying attention knows the journals are bought and paid for by Pharma and Rockefeller medicine. The most important take away you could/should/ought to take away is that virology is rife with claims of viral pathology without NEGATIVE CONTROLS. If the negative controls also cause CPE, then the CPE cannot be claimed so be caused by the virus. One does not need anything more than logic to understand this.
Marcus, I believe you have put serious effort into understanding how viruses work. And I admire you for putting in effort to understand this. But from what you are saying it is clear you have no "bench experience", and have done no course work in microbiology.
Bluntly, a couple hundred hours of reading articles by people who are mostly not microbiologists and watching a few YouTube videos is not going to teach you a lot about viruses.
BTW, microbiologists do use negative controls where it is appropriate.
They are appropriate always, Bill, in the form of administering cultures, that are known to not possess the supposed virus - treated and prepared in the exact same way - to test subjects. If the same CPE is observed, then the supposed virus is not the cause. Without controls like this, done every time, it is not scientific or logical. Sam Bailey debunks Tobacco Mosaic Virus claims on YouTube is just example of a major flaw that seems embedded in virology to this day.
so, to my question... have you ever worked in a microbiology lab?
I would also ask...have you ever flown a 747, performed a cardiac cath, excised a brain tumor, skied the headwall at squaw or SCUBA dived to say 100' depth?
Whats the point? When people venture outside their areas of expertise, they are likely to make mistakes.
A geologist is a geologist not a virologist.
Epitemic trespassing is the problem and it is epidemic.
Credentils effing matter.