Response to Jeff Green’s “Challenge”

Some of my colleagues and I had some back and forth with Jeff Green recently, in the comments under one of his blogs (a hit piece on Mike Stone of the incredible ViroLIEgy website).

Jeff has now challenged my colleagues and I to answer some “basic questions”.

Here is Jeff’s first “challenging” question:

This question is nonsensical. We’re not a virologists. The definition of “isolation” as used by virologists is their definition, not ours.

Jeff wrote roughly 25 paragraphs on the words isolate/isolation and purify/purification, making false claims and maintaining the false notion that my colleagues and I are somehow confused about the use of these words, while demonstrating his own confusion between establishing the existence of tiny particles versus establishing the existence of viruses (replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure).

Jeff for some reason chose to write this after I had already demonstrated for him what virologists actually mean when they claim to have “isolated a virus”, using the CDC’s “SARS-COV-2 isolation” study as an example.

If Jeff knew anything about me, he would know that I already have literally hundreds of freedom of information responses from around the world confirming that purification of alleged “viruses” from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement simply isn’t done in virology (all of the the FOIs are publicly available here and here).

And, he would know that my FOIs have specified:

All studies and/or reports … describing the purification of the alleged “xyz virus” directly from a sample taken from a diseased host, where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells; fetal bovine serum)

and

I simply request records that describe purification (separation of the alleged virus from everything else in the patient sample, as per standard laboratory practices for the purification of other very small things)

as shown here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc…

I don’t know anyone who demands that purification be accomplished without the addition of anything to a clinical sample and I have never made any such demand.

If Jeff would like to stop misrepresenting the reality of virology, I suggest he start reading the Methods sections of “virus isolation” studies and see if he can find one where virologists actually found and purified potential “viruses” from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement (and demonstrated purification with EM imaging – rather than working with crude bodily fluid/tissue, or a monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi soup aka cell “culture” supernatant, or applying some techniques and assuming purification has occurred), and then sequenced and characterized those purified particles and used those purified particles as the independent variable in a controlled experiment (aka “science”).

I recommend that Jeff read the CDC’s March 1, 2021 FOI response (see page 3) stating that “the definition of “isolation” provided in the request is outside of what is possible in virology“. In other words, according to the CDC purification of alleged “viruses” from bodily fluid/tissue is not possible (maybe because they don’t exist).

Or read the admission from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto – whose researchers co-authored a claim of having isolated the theoretical “SARS-COV-2” – that isolation/purification of any “virus” directly from a clinical sample “is not within the scope of current scientific processes.”

If Jeff would like to stop misrepresenting my colleagues and I, I suggest he review the “Settling the Virus Debate” statement that we released 2 weeks ago.

Here is Jeff’s second “challenging” question:

Jeff highlighted a portion of one of my comments (the same one already shown above) where I pointed out his problematic use of language – implying that something is “viral” in nature without any proof of claim.

Jeff then declared that “the so-called pathogenic attributes of viruses are irrelevant to if such entities actually exist or not“ – completely dismissing the fact that “viruses” are said to be replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure.

The world would not have been locked-down over an alleged particle that was not alleged to be pathogenic. If alleged “viruses” were not said to be pathogenic, we would not even be having this discussion!

Jeff immediately pivoted away from this important point, saying he would not address the “viral” part of my statement… and then challenged my colleagues and I to explain the existence of so-called “adenovirus” structures.

Jeff cited a paper that presumably evidences his claims about these structures. However the paper indicates in the very first paragraph, the abstract, that it is a review. This paper makes claims about structures referred to as “adenoviruses” without presenting evidence to back up those claims.

Jeff displayed an image from this review paper, so I will address that particular image.

The review authors labelled the image:

“Figure 3. Structure of human adenovirus 36 (38). Human adenovirus 36 is nonenveloped isosahedral structure and medium size (90~100 nm). Purified virion fraction is symmetry (rotational axes) and the architecture of the hexon-penton-relation becomes apparent.

The review authors cited the following 1980 study as the source of the image:

The study appears to be shielded from public scrutiny behind a paywall.

Thus I have no way of assessing the claims made, by either Jeff or the review authors, about this (alleged “adenovirus”) structure, nor do I know what methods (i.e. “culturing”) were or were not applied in this study.

Jeff then made irrelevant, distracting comments about exosomes, then moved onto the second part of his second “challenging” question – which is basically a rehash of the first part.

Jeff goes on to insist/assume that if cell “culturing” followed by EM imaging produced cellular debris, none of the cellular debris would have a cohesive structure. And he wants me to explain the cohesive structure that is shown in the EM image above… taken from a paper where the Methods are hidden behind a paywall.

Interestingly/confusingly, Jeff also says that the structure in question is created “from a living organism (cell)”.

I guess we’re supposed to assume that a “living virus” (or part thereof) could survive the methods in question with its cohesive structure intact, but no part of monkey or human cells, bacteria or fungi possibly could.

Jeff has not put forth any scientific evidence of a virus and there is no need for my colleagues or I to explain the structure in this image.

Summary

Jeff insisted that we completely side-step the issue of disease-causation (!!) and the alleged “sequencing” of “viruses”. His “challenge” questions are not focused on the faulty methods used to allegedly prove the existence of viruses. His questions are focused on a nonexistent “confusion” over words and on the coherent appearance of some tiny particles in an EM image – particles that were never seen in bodily fluid/tissue or scientifically investigated for causation of anything.

Jeff’s “challenge” is based on the faulty notion that there is an onus on my colleagues and I to provide explanations for each and every phenomenon related to claims of “viruses”, when in fact the onus is on those who are making the positive claim that pathogenic viruses – replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure – exist to prove their claim.

My colleagues and I are not putting forth a theory, we are pointing out the unscientific nature of the evidence put forward to support virus theory.

How to Settle the “Virus” Debate
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/how-to-settle-the-virus-debate/

Update, July 31, 2022

I shared with some colleagues a draft of the above response to Jeff .

Mike Stone responded:

I was able to find the 1980 adenovirus paper if you want it and supplied it as an attachment… the particles came from a culture in HeLa cells.

From the paper:

“In February 1978, an adenovirus was recovered from the stool of a 6 year old diabetic girl with enteritis. The isolation was performed in HEL cells…”

So these alleged “adenovirus” particles were “isolated” in HeLa cells (a cell line derived from cervical cancer cells). They were not seen in or purified from the bodily fluid/tissue/feces of a girl with enteritis.

And by “isolated” the authors really mean that the cervical cancer cells exhibited cytopathic effects (CPE) and that these particles were seen in the culture.

This paper does not and could not demonstrate that these particles caused the cytopathic effects in the cervical-cancer-derived cells, let alone caused enteritis or any other disease. Demonstration of causation would have required that purified particles be used as the independent variable in a controlled experiment.

(The same is true of the CDC’s “SARS-COV-2 isolation” paper by Harcourt et al. that Jeff passed off as unproblematic in his “Challenge to Christine Massey”. Dr. Tom Cowan has written about that study here; I wrote about it here.)

Also from Mike Stone, a breakdown of the original evidence for adenovirus:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/03/26/the-adventitious-adenovirus/