I interview Patrick Gunnels who claims that viruses don't exist

I asked on my Substack if anyone would debate me on whether the virus exists. Only 3 people registered. I emailed all three asking for who is ready to define the positions now in a 1:1 call. Only Gunnels replied; Marius replied he wasn’t comfortable with a 1:1 call. So I let Gunnels control the platform so I couldn’t be accused of any trickery, and we talked for over 90 minutes so I could hear his arguments and so I could ask questions.Show more

The transcript is posted here: http://www.skirsch.com/covid/GunnelsDebate.pdf

Patrick's argument is that if you cannot prove it to his specifications (based on outdated Koch's postulates which he believes are necessary to establish you have a virus), then the virus doesn't exist.

Patrick believes that the null hypothesis is that viruses do not exist. Therefore, if you want to disprove that, you must show (to his specifications) that a virus DOES exist.

Sorry, but that's NOT how science works.

Science would say there are two hypotheses: the null hypothesis (no virus) and the “virus” hypothesis. We’ll call them hypothesis A and B.

What scientists do is then collect data. They then look at the data and make a decision: is this observation consistent with A, B, both, or neither.

There have been millions of observations by scientists over the past 100 years and these observations as far as I know are all consistent with B.

This is why virtually all scientists believe viruses exist.

Now Stefan Lanka comes along and says (I’m paraphrasing here), “whoops. You never PROVED you can isolate a virus! Therefore, it is more likely that they don’t exist because if a virus existed someone should have “isolated it” based on MY definition of isolation, not yours. So we have to accept there is no virus or virology until you meet a set of criteria that I define that are based on the outdated Koch’s postulates and my interpretation of them.”

Lanka offers anyone 100,000 euros if they can prove in a SINGLE paper that the measles virus exists. This is done by David Bardens using 6 papers. Lanka never uses the single paper argument in the lower court and loses in court based on expert testimony about whether the offer was satisfied. On appeal, Lanka points out the single paper requirement, and the judgement is overturned as a matter of law, not science since higher courts never rule on the evidence.

Requiring proof in a SINGLE paper is not how science works.

Now they want to use similar methods to prove SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist, even though we can see it.

I contacted Li Meng Yan.

She wrote: “The SARS-CoV-2 in the video was isolated and cultivated by my husband Ranawaka A P M Perera in the same WHO H5 Reference Lab with me at the University of Hong Kong in Jan 2020. It was the first time to isolate SARS-CoV-2 out of mainland China. His name was not mentioned in the video (as “staff” at the end of the attached picture). My bosses are JS Malik Peiris and L M Poon. Btw, JS Malik Peiris is a core scientist in CCP’s unrestricted bioweapon program. He is a secret communist from Sri Lanka. “

Here is the video. You can see the virus in it: https://youtu.be/aOZvf5NOFHs

It’s easy to convince me I’m wrong.

Patrick needs to show me that the observed data is a better fit to his hypothesis than mine. That's science.

He completely failed to do that.

I gave him a very simple example so he could show his hypothesis could better explain the series of events observed with my recent COVID infection than my hypothesis.

He couldn’t show that. He was mystified how a series of people could be infected and show a positive antigen test. He had NO EXPLANATION.

Science is about showing YOUR explanation BETTER fits the observed data than THEIR explanation.

We are so far apart, this discussion isn't worth going forward. This is a complete waste of time.

If anything, Patrick made me more confident that virology is legit and SARS-CoV-2 is a real virus.

Nobody who said Patrick won is able to show the observations are better explained by the null hypothesis.

When I show people that the vaccine is dangerous, I assemble hundreds of pieces of data that simply cannot be explained if the vaccine is safe. All those datapoints are consistent with an unsafe vaccine. So I’m able to do both with the vaccines. I show the data cannot be explained by the “safe and effective” hypothesis and can easily be explained by the “not safe” hypothesis.

Patrick assembled 0 pieces of observed data consistent with his hypothesis. He just said that because an experiment he specifies hasn’t been done to his satisfaction, that’s all it takes. So Li Meng Yan’s husband’s work is tossed out because Patrick doesn’t believe it.

You are welcome to disagree and I will not suppress your views. We are all entitled to our opinions and how we choose to spend our time. As for me, I'm out.

If you want to comment, please refrain from ad hominem attacks, who won the “debate”, etc. Please focus on how scientists decide which hypothesis better fits observed data. If you think the virus doesn’t exist, show how that hypothesis is more LIKELY to explain the observations.

For example, if there is no SARS-CoV-2, then it should be impossible to create an antigen test from the genome reference RNA and then have these tests consistently go positive when people become sick.

If there is no virus, how are these tests going positive when you get sick and go negative when you get well?

Nobody will explain that.

Finally, Patrick admitted in the video that bacteriophages exist and have been isolated. But bacteriophages are viruses. EVERY virologist and molecular biologists say that. But Patrick says no, bacteriophages are not viruses because nobody has ever seen them reproduce. I asked him how they replicate then. At that point, he resorted to ad hominem attacks and told me to stop emailing him.

I guess that is how science works. When the questions start getting uncomfortable, you dive into ad hominem attacks and refuse to answer a simple question.

Got it.

If anyone wants to answer how bacteriophages can replicate in the comments, I’m all ears. Patrick says that bacteriophages are NOT replication-competent because it has not been observed. OK, so how come there are so many of them that they can be isolated in a centrifuge? Who is making copies of them? Has that process been observed? In what paper?

Are they any virologists or molecular biologists agreeing with Patrick that bacteriophages are NOT a virus?

You are welcome to believe what you want. I wasn’t convinced.

The full article is here: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/is-there-a-virus-round-1