Viruses and DNA Are 'Just' Models?

And governments sprayed toxins on people to make them think they had COVID?

TL;DR (because this article does tend to ramble): In this article, I critique the trend of presenting speculative ideas with scant evidence as undeniable truths, particularly focusing on claims that ‘viruses are not real’. I examine a podcast that was sent to me and discuss the broader implications of the theories it presents. I argue that while scepticism is necessary, it’s unwise to completely dismiss established scientific concepts without substantial evidence.

---

We need heretical thinking, and we need people who are willing to expose dangerous conspiracies. This article critiques not the individuals dedicated to uncovering truths but the troubling practice of presenting speculative ideas as undeniable facts with scant evidence. Put crudely, I’ve no problem with someone speculating that viruses might not be real, for example, but I object when they claim with absolute certainty that this is the case. To make matters worse, a few of these people seem to relish aggressively attacking others online; I’m not sure whether they are insincere trolls or some kind of weird stan.

Perhaps I’m too easily triggered at the moment, and perhaps I’m misrepresenting the ‘viruses are not real’ proponents. It’s possible, but it's not intentional. If you feel strongly that viruses are flawed science or even a conspiracy, please write a concise defence of your position in the comments section below (please avoid ‘just read so-and-so’s book’ or ‘watch so-and-so’s video’; I have the arguments from all the usual suspects and have yet to find a concise, coherent, and convincing case against viruses).

I have no way of knowing for sure why many of my fellow dissidents are adopting the 'viruses are not real' narrative; I suspect that the last four years have led most of us to, rightfully, question the so-called experts. We have seen, for example, how many bad ideas can be propagated by influential individuals and organizations who declare themselves as representatives of science—'I am the science'—and then far too many simply copy and paste because it is easy and career-safe in an industry that relies on patronage and grants. This is not in the spirit or practice of real science. This is The $cience™. And, as I’ve documented (see links below), the science industry is riddled with corruption, much of which is only now being revealed. Given this dangerous state of affairs, it is understandable that non-scientist truth seekers would be drawn to alternative speculations about how the world works. This is commendable when solid evidence is pursued.

At one level, it can be reasonably argued that everything we construct in our minds is a model of some underlying reality that we may never fully understand. We construct these mental models in order to survive; the ‘good models’ more ‘truthful models’ or ‘less wrong models’, if you like, are those that help us to make predictions that keep us alive. When we get less wrong data about the underlying reality, we should adjust our models accordingly to make even better predictions.

However, beware of those handwaving away scientific models of reality that help us make good predictions, especially when it comes to important matters that keep us alive. Yes, many scientists are corrupt and fraudulent (I have hundreds of articles documenting this subject on my substack), just like any other group, but we should be careful that we do not turn up our scepticism dial to the point where we are easily convinced that every scientific idea is a conspiracy of some sort.

---

Someone sent me a link to a podcast conversation between two well-known COVID commentators who seem to think that viruses are “not real”. I usually choose my podcasts carefully, but I got triggered this time and spent far too long listening and taking notes. Anyway, since I listened to the whole thing, I will give my take here; I don’t want anyone to be distracted by the personalities involved, so I’ve removed names. My problem with the discussion was not that most of their ideas were wrong, I believe; who doesn’t get things wrong? No, it was the way of thinking on display in the podcast that concerned me, especially when it potentially influences many dissidents who seem to be getting increasingly vocal/aggressive on social media around this ‘viruses are not real’ idea. This has consequences for the success of the movement to fight against mandatory jabs since we live in forms of democracy where we must appeal to the majority who are primed to reject anything associated with conspiracy theories and attacks on fundamental elements of establishment science. Put bluntly, in democracies, persuasion is key, and I think that presenting claims as fact instead of speculation when they significantly deviate from long-standing scientific principles—without irrefutable proof—can undermine the credibility of more valid concerns about jabs and mandates. What’s worse is when the proponents of these ideas gather tribes around themselves who aggressively hound people who should be their allies in the information war against the Psycho Nanny authoritarians.

In my view, the virus model matches reality quite well and will probably be found to be largely ‘true’ over the long term. Anyway, here are some extracts from the podcast:

Interviewer: Where are you on viruses? Are they real?

Interviewee: … I think virus is basically it's a it's mostly a model, it's a model. OK, so same actually as DNA people don't. You realize that the demand is also a mathematical model. Nobody has isolated purified an image DNA either…so DNA and RNA, they're they're models. And then based on the DNA and RNA sequences, they hypothesize viruses. But which is, I believe, things like that exist in reality. But there it's communications of the cells so. Humans expel all kinds of messages, including electromagnetic light. We we emit light and chemical biochemical, which is these RNA DNA messages. This is what dogs smell, by the way. That's how they they know what's what's what.…And they can smell cancer because your messaging will be different. And so the and they can also smell different illnesses now. So. So these messages, these messages that get emitted from ourselves, they communicate between the cells to to maintain the human body and its processes. They also get emitted into the environment. We did dogs. Or it's just. Stuff that we don't need anymore, so it flies out. It's innocuous. Nobody there is no transmission of disease that way, but the the you know they the the, the, the science kind of captured their ability to detect these signals in sequencing, which also has a lot of problems with it. But let's say, you know they detect. Something. And there and the designation of the something as the pathogen so. That's that's that's. What I have a problem with, I think the signals exist. I think the signals are are normal. They're mostly benign. They may be, they may get involved in the disease process, but that's that's area that hasn't been. I did well. But this whole like designation of it as, oh, here's the passage. And just because I can sequence it…That's that's BS.

Interviewee: So that's your COVID death, which is I'm saying causality of COVID death is murder. Causality of COVID case. Most of it is categorized flu, some of it or synthetic toxins. And that's that's my position that they were distributing some synthetic toxins to seed the panic with some unusual. Symptoms and give it real realism, OK.

Interviewer: OK. How how did they spread these synthetic toxins?

Interviewee: Ohh, these are the that's that's normal. I have also published a huge list of documented cases by mainstream. Media of U.S. government deploying different tests on unsuspecting public of biological, chemical and psychological weapons. So, and those are, you know, fairly straightforward aerosolized spraying in subways, spraying from drones now is easier. They used to use airplanes. The HVAC systems in buildings in hotels.

Interviewer: With people who who are getting all excited about lab leak theory and about how this this, this evil virus escaped from the labs and and and and I said this is all this is all bull shit. This is just this is just normal level of understanding of it it's it's all part of the. They want you to think that it's escaped out of the lab, but it's all fake. And somebody said, AH, but what about the labs in Ukraine? What about these bio weapons labs that we read about? Are you saying they don't exist?

Interviewee:…Yeah. Anyway, so the the the bio labs in Ukraine. Yeah. So the first of all this whole notion of bioengineered viruses, viruses that escape from a lab. Yeah. This is a. This is part of the narrative. And the psyop. To have people constantly scared so so that they can say, OK, well, well, yeah, we lied about this being a natural zoonotic pandemic. But really the national security was because the China attacked us or, you know, they released some scary scary virus from Ukraine. So that's like a full back light. So they if the first lie falls, they have a few more. Scenarios. So people are, you know, prepared. Now all of this is a lie, because nobody can can make viruses in the lab. As I said, Virus is a it's a. It's a theoretical model. They only exist as theoretical models. In fact, I'm just now reviewing Ralph Baric's work and I'm I'm going to publish about. There's so much to read and and and go through. He, he wrote. Really good paper in 2006 and he's actually a very lucid, very good writer. And so in this paper this this. Is like a 50 page paper where he explained that you can't actually make viruses in the lab because to make a virus, even in theory, you need to have or you know if you want to make let's say a a deadly virus or some dangerous virus which is was their goal. Right? So so you you need to have the exact sequence. Without any mistakes and these the viruses, even though they're like like postulated the smallest part of, they're not even considered living, but of nature, right. They're huge. These are huge molecules, thousands of base pairs. And when you do the sequencing to try to identify what the sequence is, you always. Come up with there is like a rate of error all the time. So he said, you know, just to get to the sequence without errors for the sequence, for the virus that will cause some disease or some some problem you need to have this error free sequence. Nobody has it. Even if you do have it now, now you need to synthesize it. So it's one thing is to just take something apart and see what components are and make it all accurate. The second part is like, well, how can you now make this this sequence synthetically and you come up with the same problem? You, you, your, your processes are error prone. So to reconstruct this sequence now synthetically is an impossibility. Now, OK, let's assume you got the sequence accurately and you did synthesize it without errors. Well, it falls apart immediately because these are huge molecules and they're unstable. So to to stabilize it, now you have to, you know, dedicate huge amounts of resources to stabilizing it. And then then the next problem is to make it in quantity to not only ones, but consistently all the time, right? So then and then you need to infect somebody and. They tried and. Tried and it doesn't work and let's say let's. Let's assume you didn't infect somebody, right? Then that person, you know, their theory goes, that person gets bit by a monkey or like movie outbreak and contagion and all that like so bit bit by monkey. And then everybody in the world gets sick and dies. That's nonsense because, you know, you even if one person gets sick and let's say they they throw off some toxins. And secondary shedding and all the secondary cases are much milder, so they don't. And then the tertiary don't exist. So like they, it doesn't travel, it doesn't spread. So this whole notion of leaking and engineered virus from a lab and then in fact in the whole world is BS total BS.

So, so and Baric elegantly explained it. Now what they do do is they figured out like out of this whole thousands, thousands of these parents virus. So think of it like I explained it like as a shark. If you were a scientist, you study a shark. And you figure out that the most dangerous. Part of the. Shark is the teeth. So then you're like, OK, well, I. Don't need the entire shark, I. Only need the teeth. I can synthetically make the teeth. I can also modify them in different ways, right? I can make bigger and whiter and sharper. And like, you know, both sides. OK, so now I have this engineered tools of the shark and now I can hypothesize a shark and put it into our database and say OK, this tools that I need it came from this chart that's part shark and part Dragon. Right…With this database, but it's a scientific database and then I say and then. I'm going to make it in Ukraine. And I'm going to release it from there. So that's, that's all that it amounts to, is they, they they make toxins which is like teeth. So the shark so the the synthetic those are small those can be made sort of stable. And they make toxins. They're like around 90 kilodaltons, and they can, you know, combine them and modify them. So the toxins they can make. More or less. And then they hypothesize, and so the toxin is the spike protein, so they they can synthetically make spike protein more or less consistently. And then they saying this spike protein came from this dragon breathing shark, which we put into the gem bank. And that's our SARS-CoV-2 virus. That's how. That's how this works.

Interviewer: Do you think? That the scientists in these labs do they know they're completely wasting everybody's time.

Interviewee: They're so, you know, like and I I've worked with scientists a lot. They're so narrow in their, like, the the whole specialty and doing PhD and. And you know, they're very, very narrow in what they do. And so they're and they're trained also to not question, to not go across. Disciplines. And kind of like so, so. So they're told you you. Know this model. Is real and so so many people just work on little little piece little task. So what they found Baric actually understands the bigger picture and can articulate it very well. So people like Baric, they know what they're doing. Most of the science. This, they're just like working on their narrow piece and they think that's what's in the Gen. bank is actually, you know, you can actually make it synthetically and it will infect somebody. But it's it's nonsense. As I said, that you can't, it makes arrows and and RNA viruses in particular, there's hugely error prone. So it's it's just all theoretical.

---

So, if I’m translating correctly:

The interviewee suggests that viruses and DNA are not tangible, measurable entities but just models or constructs scientists use to describe biological processes and so can be discarded. She asserts that DNA and RNA have never been "isolated or purified" and visualized directly, implying that their existence as physical substances is hypothetical. According to her, what science calls viruses are natural forms of cellular communication involving substances like RNA and DNA, but of course, in any case, they are just models. These substances help cells communicate and manage body processes, and they are emitted from the body into the environment. She mentions that dogs can detect these emissions, using them to identify diseases like cancer.

The interviewee challenges the idea that these emissions can transmit diseases between individuals. She criticizes the scientific practice of sequencing and labelling these substances as pathogens (disease-causing agents) - that’s “total BS". She believes that while these emissions (signals) exist and are mostly harmless, the assertion that they are pathogens is not well-founded, and the area is not well-studied.

The interviewee claims that the deaths attributed to COVID-19 should be considered murder, suggesting deliberate causation. She doesn’t seem to be talking here about simply bad treatments of the sick or death by something unrelated to the virus, which happened, of course, with an average age of death at 84 and IFR as low as 0.0003%, or even “depraved heart murder”). She categorizes COVID-19 cases as either typical flu misidentified as COVID-19 or illnesses caused by "synthetic toxins" deliberately distributed to create panic and simulate the symptoms of a novel disease, giving a sense of realism to the situation. It is not clear what she thinks flu is exactly if it is not a virus.

When the interviewer asks how these synthetic toxins were supposedly spread, the interviewee responds that such dissemination methods are standard practice, claiming historical precedent for her views. She mentions that the U.S. government allegedly tested biological, chemical, and psychological agents on the public without their knowledge. According to her, these agents have been dispersed through aerosolized spraying in various public places such as subways, by drones, and previously by aeroplanes, as well as through HVAC systems in buildings and hotels. However, she does not present any evidence of this for COVID-19, although she states it as fact.

The interviewee agrees with the interviewer that the "lab leak theory" is part of a psychological operation intended to manipulate public perception, making them fear that a virus could be intentionally released. She acknowledges the existence of bio labs but challenges the feasibility and reality of creating viruses in labs. She argues that viruses are essentially theoretical models and cannot be created or manipulated in a lab setting due to technical limitations, such as the high error rate in sequencing and synthesizing virus genomes. But then they would be difficult to create if they were not real things, but just models; despite this, she argues that the labs attempt to create viruses but fail because it is impossible and they’re just models anyway. She uses an analogy comparing hypothetical bioengineered viruses to the most dangerous part of a shark (its teeth), suggesting that scientists might focus on creating only the most harmful components of a virus, like spike proteins, which are easier to manage and manipulate. However, even these attempts are described as theoretical and unable to produce a viable infectious agent. After all, viruses are not real anyway, right?

---

Did I mischaracterize the interviewee’s positions?

No actual evidence was presented in this discussion, which sadly tends to be the norm for many of the podcasts I’ve been sent—hence, my usual reluctance to engage with them. I like videos with a set of scientific papers in the description or at least links to data I can consider.

Typically, these sorts of discussions veer into purely speculative territory; opinions are dressed up as facts and stated with absolute conviction as ‘truth’ to impress listeners; it just frustrates me. I decided to react to this podcast and regretted it after a few minutes, but “I started so I will finish”—the story of my life, for better or worse—because it was being used on social media to aggressively attack others who happen to think that viruses are real and COVID is real. I’m afraid that, like the flu, SARS-CoV-2 can harm people; sometimes, it can do a lot of harm to those who are unhealthy, as I’ve documented in dozens of articles on this substack (see links below).

Yes, I was triggered, which is not difficult to do at the moment; however, I’m getting better at letting stuff go as my energy levels wane these days (a small consolation).

I’m not sure why it is difficult to accept the reality of viruses, and their dangers, without accepting that all vaccines, mandates, and lockdowns are a good thing. Sometimes, I wonder if people go the “there are no viruses” route because they feel they can then handwave away discussions about vaccines and lockdowns.

Others might believe that viruses and DNA aren’t real, that our governments have sprayed toxins to simulate flu-like symptoms, or that the narrative about a lab leak is a cover-up for more sinister activities; I don’t condemn them, despite the fact that it makes many of the rest of us trying to reach the general public very frustrated because of the usual guilt by association fallacy, which is a sad fact of our social life. Despite what some may think, after having listened to some podcasts or read some Substacks, we are not all crazy people who think absolutely everything is a lie or a conspiracy (although there are a lot of lies and conspiracies, for sure). Incidentally, I’m guessing there must be an equivalent to ‘crying wolf’ for conspiracy theories.

Given all the evidence I’ve documented (see links below), I find it makes no sense to consider it is simply another psyop that whatever chimaera they were working on in Wuhan (or other bio labs) did not escape. On the other hand, there is a well-coordinated series of lies, or at least misdirections told, about the Wuhan wet market to cover up the lab leak evidence. You can call that a psyop if you like.

I see from my latest subscriber stats that many of you have not followed my substack for any length of time, so you may not know that I disagree with most of the views articulated in this podcast conversation. Contrary to what the influencer claims here, Ralph Baric’s work involves real viruses in gain-of-function research. You can isolate these viruses too. Also, scientists do indeed create viruses from scratch. The numerous professionals working in virology aren't all partaking in a huge global deception - presumably some sort of weird cosplay with all their space-suit-like safety gear. Viral infections are real threats to human health, not mere fabrications due to individual weakness, and science has moved on from 19th century Koch’s postulates.

Also, for the record, contrary to the podcast claims, DNA was first captured in images back in 1952 and has been repeatedly visualized since then, just like viruses have been detailed through electron microscopy.

While I acknowledge that real conspiracies and psychological operations exist (see most of my 2,926 Substack articles), claiming something very important as fact requires substantial evidence, especially if we are to dismiss evidence to the contrary. It’s one thing to speculate openly, which is necessary to further our understanding of the world; it’s another to assert speculations with unwavering certainty. That said, this approach does seem to resonate with some audiences. I think it’s this tone of certainty that triggers me. There are far too many who accept what others say, not because of a critical analysis of the evidence provided, but because the person appears intelligent and articulate, and has compiled a list of ready responses to just about any question on the subject under consideration. They present these with such an air of authority or conviction that it can be overwhelming. Believe me, this is how cults operate—with certainty or conviction of ‘truth’ and a lot of initial love bombing.

---

Incidentally, I just noticed this recent interaction on X between two large dissident influencers, which unsurprisingly provoked some aggressive comments:

There seems to be some miscommunication in this interaction, or maybe I’m missing something. Nevertheless, for at least one of the participants, the core of this disagreement revolves around the philosophy of science and the nature of evidence. One influencer suggests that experiments could validate the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The other counters by emphasizing a foundational principle in scientific methodology: while evidence can demonstrate the presence of a phenomenon, proving its non-existence is inherently more challenging because the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Scientifically, proving non-existence is often impractical and generally considered outside the realm of effective scientific inquiry. This limitation stems from the inductive nature of scientific reasoning, which draws conclusions from accumulated evidence, not from absolute certainties.

In science, the burden of proof lies in demonstrating presence through replicable, empirical evidence, such as the isolation and observation of viruses. When multiple independent studies consistently support the existence of something—like the SARS-CoV-2 virus—it becomes scientifically prudent to accept its existence based on this substantial evidence, although this will probably evolve as new data emerges.

Interestingly, in the realm of mathematics—which some consider a science—non-existence can be rigorously ‘proven’. Take, for example, even prime numbers greater than two. By definition, a prime number has no positive divisors other than one and itself, and since any even number greater than two is divisible by two, it cannot be prime. This mathematical proof of non-existence hinges on logical deductions from accepted definitions and axioms. However, even in mathematics, where ‘proofs’ are possible, our certainty is limited; conclusions depend on foundational assumptions that, while intuitive, cannot be proven within their defining systems.

Thus, it seems unwise to declare absolute certainty about the reality of viruses. Scientifically, we depend on the preponderance of evidence and the predictive power of virus models.

The term 'model' in science doesn’t imply something is made up; rather, it denotes a tool for understanding and predicting phenomena based on real observations. While we may never fully understand all aspects of viruses, the empirical evidence supporting their existence and impact is substantial at this time.

Here’s a short article on the subject of viruses, which some may find useful:

Update: Here’s another article on this subject by Michael Palmer at his new substack.

---

Numerous conspiracies and speculations exist, and while they are necessary to expand our understanding, presenting speculative ideas as incontrovertible facts is counterproductive. Given the enormous effort debating the existence of viruses demands, and the limited impact these discussions have, I’ve chosen to focus my energies on issues where we can realistically sway public opinion and drive change in our democratic societies. Life is too short, and we face an information war that we must win to avoid mandatory medical interventions and a dystopian future.

Merely claiming or suggesting that ‘we don’t need vaccinations or lockdowns because viruses aren’t real’ will not be enough to win this war—a strategy I assume is pursued by proponents of the 'no virus' theory. Instead, we must engage in discussions that are not only factually accurate but also strategically sound. This will ensure our arguments resonate with the broader public and foster meaningful, rather than divisive, dialogue.

---

Further reading: