Cat Trick

How to create the fictional "threat" of a "spillover" event.

Every so often, I come across stories about studies claiming to have discovered “novel viruses” with potential implications for human health. Reading these studies reveals a familiar pattern: an ill human or animal with non-specific symptoms tests negative for known bacteria and “viruses.” Next, tissues or fluids from the ill host are subjected to cell culture, and the presence of a “virus” is inferred based on the observation of cytopathic effects (breakdown of dying cells). Then, a “viral” genome is generated with the assistance of computer algorithms. In some cases, unpurified fluids are sequenced directly without culturing, and the presence of a “novel virus” is claimed based solely on genomic data. Electron microscopy images of these unpurified tissues or fluids may—or may not—be presented, showing particles similar to previously identified “viruses” generated in the same way, which are then proposed as the cause of the illness. These visual and genomic resemblances often lead to categorizing the “novel virus” within an existing family of “viruses.”

Rarely do I see efforts to experimentally recreate the disease in animals to confirm pathogenicity. When such attempts are made, usually in separate papers by different researchers, unpurified cell culture supernatants are often injected in unnatural ways, with PCR tests used to confirm “infection” based solely on positive results, regardless of whether symptoms actually develop. “Antibody” results may also accompany these findings—which are all forms of indirect evidence aimed at creating the perception of a major discovery with significant implications for public health.

What is never found in these studies is the absolutely necessary chain of causation. There is no evidence derived from the scientific method that satisfies Koch's Postulates proving the existence of any pathogenic “virus” that can be transmitted from animal to animal, animal to human, or human to human. What we are left with is logically fallacious pseudoscientific evidence that is presented as fear propaganda to a gullible public that does not look beneath the surface in order to verify if the information is scientifically valid.

After reading so many of these pseudoscientific studies, I have come to realize that they all follow the same basic template. As a result, I often either ignore them or post a quick blurb on social media to highlight the familiar tactics at play. There are only so many ways to expose these sleights of hand in hopes that others will recognize them as well. That said, these examples do serve as reminders of the broader fraud taking place, and revisiting the absurdity of these methods can be useful—especially when the story behind the “discovery” is entertaining.

In that spirit, I am diving into a particularly amusing case involving a virologist and his cat, who allegedly “discovered” a novel “virus” with so-called “spillover” potential. According to the CDC, a “spillover” is a single event in which a “pathogen” from one species crosses over to another, potentially leading to an “outbreak.” With mainstream media continuously pushing fear propaganda over various “zoonotic diseases”—especially the current hysteria over “avian flu”—it seems fitting to get ahead of the curve and explore this new “zoonotic threat” in the making. I will walk you through the article that first caught my attention and share excerpts from the related research paper. You will see not only leaps in logic but also the familiar cell culture and genomic tricks that have become staples in virology. Since virologists cannot dazzle us with direct scientific evidence of pathogenic “viruses,” they keep trying to baffle us with pseudoscientific theatrics aimed at stirring up fear of invisible boogeymen lurking in animals.