"VERY serious problems with the narrative": Mary Holland (CHD) admits viruses may not exist

A conversation between Mary Holland (president and general counsel of Children's Health Defense, CHD) and Christine Massey.

The latter has rightfully criticized virology as a pseudo-science. After all, virologists stubbornly refuse to follow MANDATORY scientific principles. Instead of either doing the difficult work or admitting that they are practicing a pseudo-science, they just wrongly claim that proof which they can't provide is old-fashioned and unnecessary.

NB: Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as: "A system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudoscience

CHD in general and Mary Holland in particular outwardly embrace virology's hypothesis, but Holland now publicly admits that there are "VERY serious problems with the narrative".

CHD's science consultant who has studied virology, Jay Couey, admitted that for the last 20 years virology has been based on indirect observations of things that virologists cannot even prove exist.

It's not on the 'virus skeptics' to prove that viruses don't exist, but on virologists to prove that they do and that they cause (or contribute to) a specific disease. Virology is a pseudo-science unless and until virologists follow the scientific method.

This means they MUST:

1. ACHIEVE *TRUE* ISOLATION, which means a vial of nothing else than salt water and virus particles. This has already been successfully achieved with bacteriophages many decades ago, so it should be a piece of cake to do it with 'other' viruses. Just filter out the virus from an infected droplet, culture it, and then filter it again. By repeating this process you should be able to make unlimited amounts of viruses.

NB: Bacteriophages have the same size as 'viruses' but probably aren't viruses, even though microbiologists call them that.

2. PERFORM ADEQUATE CONTROL EXPERIMENTS WHEN 'ISOLATING' VIRUSES. Sterile tissue should be exposed to exactly the same preparatory treatment (i.e. starvation, high dose antibiotics, trypsin) as 'infected' tissue after which the results are to be compared. If the sterile tissue shows the same 'viruses', you know that you're probably looking at artifacts.

NB: Definition of artifact: "Something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure."

3. ADEQUATE PROOF THAT VIRUSES CAUSE DISEASE. This means Koch's postulates, which have never been achieved for any virus. (This level of proof may not even exist for bacteria as far as I know.)

4. ADEQUATE PROOF OF DISEASE TRANSMISSION. It is not nearly enough to claim that because people in proximity tend to get similar symptoms around the same time, it because they transmit viruses from one to the other. After all, people with vitamin deficiencies (e.g. scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, rickets) also tend to get similar symptoms around the same time. The same is true for environmental causes, e.g. hay fever, dry air, radiation sickness, air pollution, toxins, etc.

Even if virologists acknowledge that diseases tend to be multi-factorial (i.e. they can have multiple causes), the burden of proof is on THEM to show that viruses play any causal role at all.

The experiment of Rosenau et al. during the Spanish flu of 1918 was perfectly designed and executed to show transmission. Healthy volunteers (receivers) breathed in air and even mucus straight from extremely sick donors. Even if the receivers already had both naturally acquired immunity and a strong immune system, they still should have become somewhat ill because of the absurd viral dose they were exposed to. Instead, none of the receivers got even the slightest bit ill.

No one has ever shown me a even one good scientific proof that clinical disease is transmitted from person to person while controlling for (i.e. excluding the possible impact of) environmental or common factors.

Rosenau's experiment is cheap, quick and easy to replicate. Some claim it is unethical to replicate it, because it exposes receivers to severe disease, but it could be done with a mild disease such as the common cold, making the ethics argument irrelevant.

REFERENCES

https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/conference-bios/mary-holland-j-d/

DESCRIPTION BY TIM TRUTH

Christine Massey's website: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/true-timeline-and-emails-with-chd-consultant-jay-couey/
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world (216 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 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/
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/

Want more videos? Join https://GroupDiscover.com to find the best videos from across the free speech internet platforms like Odysee, Rumble, Bitchute & More all in one huge video repository.

Add me on these great platforms: https://rokfin.com/timtruth https://odysee.com/@TimTruth https://rumble.com/timtruth https://bitchute.com/timtruth/ https://GroupDiscover.com

Support links (thank you to all the supporters!):
Easy to do one time tips via https://rokfin.com/timtruth or https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b
https://timtruth.substack.com/subscribe
https://subscribestar.com/timtruth

SOURCE: https://rumble.com/v2u9unj