the logical fallacies & excuses of quackcine developer, virologist Jennifer Smith

Greetings and Best Wishes,

Last week Drs. Tom Cowan and Mark Bailey released a detailed critical review of a 2022 virology presentation by Jennifer Smith, PhD and Mary Hauser, PhD.

Drs. Cowan and Bailey followed up yesterday by extending an invitation to Jennifer (and any of her colleagues) to join them in a video conference and present a study that she believes shows the existence of any “virus”. They would then evaluate the study for adherence to the scientific method and the sufficiency of the methodologies employed. (No response from Jennifer yet.)

You can read Jennifer’s bios here and here. Among other things that include much in the way of quackcine development, she is described as having been “instrumental in the COVID-19 pandemic response” for identifying and investigating [imaginary] “cases” and contact tracing. Apparently this is PANDA’s idea of a “whistleblower”.

You might expect that such a woman, if she really believed in what she’s doing, would have many examples of what she considers to be scientific evidence of “viruses” right at her fingertips and that she’d be more than happy to cite them in order to discredit crazy “virus-deniers”.

Instead, when I commented under Jennifer’s recent post about the “Virology 101” presentation, she responded with red herrings and irrelevant questions involving circular reasoning.

Next, Jennifer offered an excuse for not even trying to back up her claims with valid scientific evidence: she had decided in advance that nothing would convince me. At the same time she insisted that she had purified “viruses” and that she has colleagues who have worked with “SARS viruses”.

She also claimed to have already dealt with many people who “do not believe viruses exist” (many no-virus people simply point out that “viruses” have never been shown to exist), but for some reason still needed me to explain to her the never-successfully-performed steps that would be necessary to show that a “virus” does exist.

Why not just cite a study or 2? It would have been just as easy and far more productive.

I referred Jennifer back to the video response from Drs. Cowan and Bailey and to their Settling the Virus Debate Statement of which I’m a signatory, and expressed doubt that she could even cite an example of an alleged “virus” being purified from a “host”.

Next, Jennifer expressed the mistaken idea that I have a masters degree in geology (it’s biostatistics, not that it matters), and used appeal to authority as an excuse not to cite actual evidence to back up her claims. She had already decided that I would not be able to evaluate whether virology is logical and scientific, even though children can understand the scientific method.

She claimed to be “well aware” of “those people and their supposed arguments”, even though she had also just asked me what evidence would be required in order to convince me that virology is scientific.

She insisted that any argument about whether or not virology is scientific is “ridiculous”, and that she had spent many years studying and working with “viruses” and that she is well aware of the proper use of controls. She confused concerns about the unscientific nature of virology with concerns about the unethical nature of torturing animals and blaming “viruses” for the harm caused.

She concluded with the classic strategy of reversing the burden of proof by asking “what do you think made millions of people sick?” - as if hypothetical “viruses” should be the default explanation for fake-covid symptoms. Because “science”!

In my final published comment (above), I informed Jennifer that I would be publishing our conversation. Below is her response, claiming that she has always used proper controls in every virology experiment - even though it’s impossible to have controlled for all factors, or to have a valid independent variable, without having purified alleged “virus” particles from hosts, which is not done in virology.

Jennifer falsely insinuated that I wanted to her to provide "education", protocols, "explanations" and/or her stance, and that I haven’t already read the Methods in many "virus isolation" studies. She made more unsubstantiated claims.

I wasn’t able to respond back because Jennifer blocked me at this point. The conversation clearly wasn’t going anywhere anyways.

The conversation is here and here. Below is what I had tried to post but couldn’t due to being blocked.

Hi Jennifer. I don't get paid to spend my time on this, I do it because of the enormous consequences of this false paradigm. Immeasurable carnage has occurred for well over 100 years based on belief in "viruses". Were you paid for your presentation posted above?

Your slides claim at the 14 minute mark in your video that "viruses can be isolated directly from the host", while Mary stated verbally that it's very difficult to do so. Neither of you seem to grasp that purification of particles from hosts is necessary in order to perform valid sequencing, characterization and scientific experiments.

I've not asked you for "education", protocols, "explanations" or your stance. I've already read the Methods in many "virus isolation" studies. They never include a valid IV and hence cannot be properly controlled. The experiments are flawed and invalid on various levels. And again, I already have literally hundreds of FOI responses on this topic from 40 countries.

So I'm challenging you to cite valid, rigorous, repeatable scientific evidence, not to make more unsubstantiated claims. If you can do so, I will stand corrected, as I've been willing to do for the last 4 years since I learned of this issue.

I'm not sure why you'd make a public post on this topic and then complain when people ask you to cite evidence to back up those claims.

Hopefully Jennifer will reconsider her position and take Drs. Cowan and Bailey up on their invitation for a video conference.

If you'd like to support my efforts, there is a paypal button at the bottom of my main FOI page, and I'm set up for email transfers (which work within Canada).

Official Evidence that Virology is Pseudoscience

Freedom of Information Responses reveal that health/science institutions around the world (222 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 (the alleged convid virus) isolation/purification, anywhere, ever:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Excel file listing 222 institutions:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Institution-list-for-website.xls

FOI responses re other imaginary viruses (HIV, avian influenza, HPV, Influenza, Measles, etc., etc., etc.):
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-have-no-record-of-any-virus-having-been-isolated-purified-virology-isnt-a-science/

FOIs re secretive and unscientifically "mock infected" cells (aka invalid controls) and fabricated "virus genomes":
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-virologists-perform-valid-control-experiments-is-virology-a-science/

3000+ pages of "virus" FOIs (updated as of December 31, 2022) in 8 compilation pdfs, and my notarized declaration re the anti-scientific nature of virology:
https://tinyurl.com/IsolationFOIs

Failed freedom of Information responses re contagion:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/freedom-of-information-responses-re-contagion/

Do health and science institutions have studies proving that bacteria CAUSE disease?
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-health-authorities-have-studies-proving-that-bacteria-cause-disease-lets-find-out-via-freedom-of-information/

Because "they" (HIV, influenza virus, HPV, measles virus, etc., etc., etc.) have never been shown to exist, clearly don't exist and virology isn't a science.

For truth, freedom and sanity,
Christine