I finally did something that I had told myself that I wasn't going to do. I engaged in a “debate” with Jeremy Hammond. For those who may be unfamiliar with Mr. Hammond, he considers himself an independent journalist who exposes “dangerous state propaganda serving to manufacture consent for criminal government policies.” He has become a prominent voice in the “anti-vaccine” crowd and has produced many articles about the dangers involved in this practice. This may leave you wondering why I approached Mr. Hammond to critique information he had provided in a recent article of his. Contrary to Mr. Hammond's claims of exposing dangerous propaganda, Jeremy also does his fair share of pushing dangerous propaganda. This includes his insistence in promoting the fear-based propaganda that pathogenic “viruses” exist and that “SARS-COV-2” is a bioweapon secretly created in a lab that was suspiciously unleashed upon the world.
Most recently, Mr. Hammond has engaged in quite a bit of back-and-forth with Dr. Tom Cowan on the use of purification procedures in cell culture as well as whether valid controls are used during these mad science experiments. On November 16th, 2022, Jeremy published an article titled Cowan and Haberland Illuminate the Dogma of Virus Denialismin response to a video that Dr. Cowan had released with German engineer Marvin Haberland covering these topics. As I normally do not seek out Mr. Hammond's articles (I find them far too long…I know, ironic 🤷♂️), I was unaware of his response to the video until a friend tagged me on a Facebook post linked to his ongoing debate with Jeremy over the claims made within the article. This was the response that I saw:
Potente Angelo, if you think you can identify any factual or logical errors in the content I have published on this subject, you are welcome to publish your rebuttal. Good luck with that. Cowan and Haberland tried and failed miserably: https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/11/16/cowan-and-haberland-illuminate-the-dogma-of-virus-denialism/
Being one who loves a good challenge, I immediately wanted to comb through the article to find these factual and/or logical errors. However, I know how Jeremy operates through witnessing his interactions and responses on Facebook, Twitter, and in e-mail exchanges with friends. He regularly employs his signature catchphrase (more on this in a bit) to try and stifle any attempt at a productive conversation. I was in no desire to get myself wrapped into a mind-numbing circular argument. Yet, my curiosity got the better of me and I decided to take a peek at the article quickly just to see what all of the fuss was about. Much to my chagrin, this was the very first paragraph in the article:
On November 10, 2022, Tom Cowan publishedan interview with a German engineer named Marvin Haberland in which they attempt to rebut my article “Answering Tom Cowan’s ‘Five Simple Questions for Virologists’”, in which I pointed out the falsity of Cowan’s claims that scientists never purify samples before isolating viruses in cell culture and never use uninfected controls during the culture experiment. Instead of identifying any actual errors on my part, however, they manage only to pile false claims upon false claims and to tie themselves into knots with self-contradictory gibberish.
Right off the bat, we get not only one, but two factual errors by Mr. Hammond regarding purification and the use of valid controls for cell cultures. While the lack of proper controls is an important topic that requires fleshing out in a future article, my interest in this was based entirely on Jeremy's claim that virologists purify a sample before performing cell culture experiments. He takes issue with Dr. Cowan's statement that virologists only use unpurified samples in their cell cultures. From Jeremy's article, we can see exactly what Dr. Cowan means by purified:
After Haberland contradicts Cowan’s claim that they never purify samples before doing cell culture, Cowan objects that it “depends on what you mean by ‘purification’ because to most people that implies, if you purify before the cell culture, then you have pure virus . . . so, that’s not the case.” Of course, Cowan here is simply begging the question by either presuming that there is never a virus in any such sample or insisting without any supporting evidence that there are also other substances in these samples that cause the cytopathic effects subsequently observed in cell culture.
Interestingly, while Jeremy is accusing Dr. Cowan of begging the question (assuming without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question), we can see that it is actually Jeremy who is the one begging the question by assuming without proof that a fictional “virus” is present within the sample and that there are no other substances therein that can cause the cytopathogenic effect (the breakdown of the cell as it dies). We can also see from Jeremy's quote that Dr. Cowan is stating that the sample used for a cell culture is never shown to be purified, i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials nor that it contains only the assumed “viral” particles. Jeremy states otherwise and that just the act of putting the sample through either centrifugation and/or filtration results in a purified sample. This is a false claim based on how Jeremy is using the word “purify” and one that strikes right at the heart of the deception of virology, the absence of a valid independent variable.
As I will cover a great deal on this topic in the proceeding conversation, I won't spend too much time rehashing everything in this introduction. However, I do want to emphasize that in order to determine cause and effect, a valid independent variable must exist. I have written about this extensively on viroliegy.com. Here is an excerpt from the article Introduction to ViroLIEgy:
The most important aspect of the scientific method to obtain the necessary proof for cause and effect is having a well-established independent variable. This is the variable that you can manipulate in order to see if it (the presumed cause) has the desired effect on the dependent variable; the result that changes based on the manipulation of the independent variable.
This is exactly where problems arise in virology. In order for any scientific experiment attempting to show cause and effect to be valid, it must have an independent variable that can be observed and manipulated in order to determine if it is the real cause of the desired effect. For virology, the independent variable would be only those particles that virologists dreamt up and assumed to be the “virus.” Nothing more, nothing less. As they can not observe “viruses” in nature nor aquire them there in order to obtain the necessary particles to be used for experimentation, virologists must get the desired particles directly from the fluids of a sick patient though the means of purification and isolation.
Purification is the necessary process required to get the assumed “virus” particles free from any contaminants, pollutants, or foreign materials that are found within the fluids from the sick patient. This means separating the assumed “virus” particles away from any host material, bacteria, microorganisms, multivesicular bodies, exosomes, etc. so that nothing but the particles believed to be “viruses” remain. Only then would virologists be able to use just the isolated (separated from everything else) particles believed to be “viruses” as an independent variable in order to attempt to prove cause and effect.
It is clear that Jeremy understands that purification is a necessity in order to try and claim the existence of the particles assumed to be “viruses.” Otherwise there would be no need for this step anywhere within the process. Thus, he has taken the position that Dr. Cowan is wrong that virologists never purify samples before culturing. According to Jeremy, a sample is put through a purification step (normally centrifugation) before the cell culturing process is attempted and this action means it is purified. This is only half true. Virologists do sometimes put the sample through a purification step before culturing. If Jeremy had kept his statement to only that virologists do put the sample through a purification step sometimes before culturing, he would be correct. However, this is not the claim that Jeremy is making. According to his claim, the sample therefore is purified after this centrifugation step (i.e. free of all contaminants, pollutants, foreign and host materials, etc.). In this belief, Jeremy is completely wrong as it has been admitted numerous times that centrifugation alone can not completely purify and separate out the assumed “viral” particles from everything else within the fluids.
This is a major sticking point for virology. Virologists only check for the assumed “viral” particles after the cell culture experiment, never beforehand. They just assume the “viral” particles exist within the fluids of a sick patient. Even if they put the sample through a purification step before culturing, virologists never check the sample before adding it to the culture to ensure that not only are the assumed “viral” particles within the sample to begin with but also that only the assumed “viral” particles remain after the purification step is performed. Just spinning the sample in a centrifuge for a bit does not mean a sample is purified. There are many microganisms and cellular components left within the sample such as small bacteria, proteins, “exosomes,” multivesicular bodies, apoptotic bodies, assumed “viral” or “virus-like” particles of similar sizes, cell organelles, etc. Thus, the sample is clearly not purified, i.e. free of all contaminants, pollutants, foreign and host materials, etc., and Jeremy was indeed making a factual and logical error.
As I am a glutton for punishment and he had graciously requested help from my friend to point out any factual and/or logical errors in his article, I felt compelled to share this information with Mr. Hammond. Presented below (with bold emphasis on certain points and minor commentary throughout) is our conversation:
Jeremy R. Hammond "in which I pointed out the falsity of Cowan’s claims that scientists never purify samples before isolating viruses in cell culture"
Are you claiming that virologists start off with a sample of nothing but purified "viral" particles before the cell culture process is started? If so, you are committing a factual and logical error right off the bat. Putting the fluids through a purification step before culturing does not mean that the "virus" has been purified, i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, etc. The particles are most definitely not isolated either, i.e. separated from everything else, before culturing. Virologists never check the sample before culturing to establish whether or not only the assumed "viral" particles are in the sample. In fact, they admit regularly that this level of purification can not be achieved as there are not enough "virus" particles, hence the need to culture them.
The above comment was posted to Facebook in direct response to the one I shared at the beginning of this article to my friend from Jeremy. I waited a few days and after not receiving a response from Jeremy, I decided to jump to his home turf and ask the same question on the comment section of his article. This was his response:
Mike, my statement is sufficiently clear that I feel no need to clarify. It suffices to simply reiterate that scientists only ever inoculate cell culture with “an unpurified sample” is demonstrably false. Since you acknowledge that scientists do purify samples prior to doing cell culture, I will take that as an acknowledgment of the falsity of Cowan’s claim.
"Mike, my statement is sufficiently clear that I feel no need to clarify."
That is a cop-out Jeremy. I'm asking you for a simple clarification. If the purification steps are performed before culturing, does the sample contain nothing but the assumed "viral" particles before it is added to the culture. Yes or no.
Remember when I said that Jeremy has a certain catchphrase that he likes to use in order to try and evade answering a direct question while attempting to stifle conversation? It only took all of one response before Jeremy unleashed this card from his back pocket. Behold the “brilliance” in all of its glory:
Mike, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that Cowan’s claim that scientists only ever inoculate cell culture with “an unpurified sample” is false.
Jeremy wanted me to demonstrate a “modicum of good faith” before he would answer my question. What exactly does this mean?
In human interactions, good faith (Latin: bona fides) is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.
Somehow, Jeremy has interpreted this good faith concept to mean that one must agree with him that his false premise is true before he will answer any challenges to his false claim. Obviously, I will not agree with something I know to be untrue just to have a conversation. Jeremy's flippant use of his catchphrase was how he stonewalled our conversation in his comments section so that he would not have to answer my question. Had he answered in good faith, it would have shown his claim to be false. However, Jeremy couldn't have his audience see him admitting to a logical and factual error.
Jeremy, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by answering my simple yes or no question to you. Your answer will show whether or not Dr. Cowan’s purification claim is false. Please stop these attempts to avoid answering. A simple yes or no will suffice. Once I get your response, we can progress the conversation forward accordingly. That’s how conversations work.
Mike, I would be happy to further discuss the matter just as soon as you demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that I am correct that Cowan’s claim that scientists only ever inoculate cell culture with “an unpurified sample” is false. Once you demonstrate intellectual honesty by explicitly acknowledging the falsity of Cowan’s claim, we can progress the conversation forward accordingly. That’s how conversations work.
Jeremy, I have already explained to you that performing purification steps does not mean the sample is purified. Please reread:
"Are you claiming that virologists start off with a sample of nothing but purified “viral” particles before the cell culture process is started? If so, you are committing a factual and logical error right off the bat. Putting the fluids through a purification step before culturing does not mean that the “virus” has been purified, i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, etc. The particles are most definitely not isolated either, i.e. separated from everything else, before culturing. Virologists never check the sample before culturing to establish whether or not only the assumed “viral” particles are in the sample. In fact, they admit regularly that this level of purification can not be achieved as there are not enough “virus” particles, hence the need to culture them."
The virologist would need to show that after the purification steps are performed that the sample contains nothing but the assumed "viral" particles. Only then can the sample be said to be purified.
Now, are you claiming that after these purification steps are done, nothing but the assumed "viral" particles are in the sample? Yes or no.
In Jeremy's next response, you will not only see him admit that virologists do not check for 100% purification before culturing, you will see how he uses his catchphrase to ban people from his site so that he does not have to answer any questions that he wants to avoid.
Mike, you say:
Jeremy, I have already explained to you that performing purification steps does not mean the sample is purified.
And I have already explained to you that Cowan’s claim that scientists only ever inoculate cell cultures with “an unpurified sample” is false since scientists do purify samples, such as by centrifugation, before inoculation in cell culture; I have already pointed out to you that Cowan’s own “Statement on Virus Isolation” acknowledges that centrifugation is a process that “purifies the specimen; I have already pointed out to you how Cowan’s guest Haberland acknowledges that I am right that “scientists have purified the sample before doing cell culture”; and I have already shown you how scientists do not have to prove 100% purification of a sample to demonstrate the presence of a virus in that purified sample.
Now, then, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that Cowan’s claim that scientists only ever use “an unpurified sample” for inoculation in cell culture is false. Final opportunity. If you persist in demonstrating bad faith, your commenting privileges will be revoked in accordance with the terms of use of this website.
Jeremy, you are talking in circles trying to avoid answering my question. I am not going to agree with you in regards to something I have already told you is a false conclusion on YOUR part, not Dr. Cowan's, just to move the conversation forward. You are stalling. It is you who is incorrect as putting a sample through purification steps such as centrifugation does not mean the sample is PURIFIED (i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, etc.) and contains only the assumed "viral" particles. Unless you can show where they demonstrate that only the "viral" particles exist in the sample after the purification procedures are done and before culturing, you are being deliberately misleading in your representation of what Dr. Cowan is saying. You are displaying intellectual dishonesty here.
"I have already shown you how scientists do not have to prove 100% purification of a sample to demonstrate the presence of a virus in that purified sample."
This is blatantly false. It is not enough to assume a "virus" is present in a sample after purification. CPE observed in cell culture is not proof of a "virus" as there are numerous other factors not related to fictional "viruses" that can lead to the exact same effect in cell cultures. In order to adhere to the scientific method, there needs to be a valid independent variable, i.e. nothing but the purified and isolated particles. These assumed "viral" particles must be identified, characterized, and shown to exist within the sample first before one can claim how to grow them in cell culture. If you do not understand what a valid independent variable is, I suggest you research the scientific method. The independent variable (purified and isolated "viral" particles) must be shown to exist BEFORE experimentation (cell culturing). If you disagree, you do not understand the scientific method and you are admitting to engaging in the defense of pseudoscience.
Now back to my question, are you claiming that before culturing, the purification procedures result in nothing but the assumed "viral" particles existing within the sample? Yes or no?
If YES, please share where this is determined.
If NO, please demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging that Dr. Cowan’s claim that scientists only ever use “an unpurified sample” (i.e. not just the assumed "viral" particles; still contains contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, etc.) for inoculation in cell culture is true.
If you fail to answer me again and/or ban me, I will take that as your concession that what I am saying is correct and you have revoked your false statement about Dr. Cowan but do not want to admit to it publicly.
Beyond seeing Jeremy admit that the only way a virologist checks to see if a “virus” exists within a sample is through the cytopathogenic effect after the cell culture experiment, you will witness another trick that Jeremy likes to implement which is using someone else’s words as if they were his own. I highlighted earlier how he used my comment “we can progress the conversation forward accordingly. That’s how conversations work” and now he was rephrasing another of my comments “you are talking in circles trying to avoid answering my question.” I don't know whether he is purposefully trying to be annoying or if, after reading my responses, he actually believed that those were his own original thoughts and words. Maybe I should sue him for plagiarism? 🤔
Mike, you are talking in circles trying to avoid acknowledging the fact that Cowan’s claim that scientists only ever inoculate cell culture with “an unpurified sample” is demonstrably false. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact despite knowing perfectly well that scientists do purify samples by filtration or centrifugation simply proves your intellectual dishonesty.
You assert, “It is you who is incorrect as putting a sample through purification steps such as centrifugation does not mean the sample is PURIFIED”, despite my having already pointed out to you that Cowan’s own “Statement on Virus Isolation” acknowledges that centrifugation is a process that “purifies the specimen” and that Cowan’s own guest Marvin Haberland acknowledges that I am right that “scientists have purified the sample before doing cell culture”.
You assert that my statement that “scientists do not have to prove 100% purification of a sample to demonstrate the presence of a virus in that purified sample” is “blatantly false” on the grounds that “It is not enough to assume a ‘virus’ is present in a sample after purification”, which is a false premise fallacy since there is no need to “assume” that a virus is present in the sample when it is rather scientifically demonstrated, as I have already explained ad nauseam.
You repeat the assertion that CPE observed in cell culture may be caused by factors other than a virus, but this is precisely why, contrary to Cowan’s false claim, scientists do use uninfected controls during cell culture.
You assert that the presence of the virus must be proven prior to inoculation in cell culture, which, as I have already explained, is nonsensical since the replication of the virus in cell culture is precisely the means by which scientists determine whether there is a virus present in the sample.
You persist in denying this fact despite having also repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the whole genome sequencing of the virus is independent proof of the virus’s existence.
You say, “If you fail to answer me again and/or ban me, I will take that as your concession that what I am saying is correct and you have revoked your false statement about Dr. Cowan but do not want to admit to it publicly.” But I have already answered your question by pointing out that its premise is false. Once again, scientists do not have to prove 100% purification of a sample to demonstrate the presence of a virus in that purified sample. I reiterate that Cowan’s claim that scientists only ever inoculate cell cultures with “an unpurified sample” is blatantly false.
Since despite repeated opportunities to demonstrate good faith you have instead repeatedly proven your lack of good faith and engaged in trolling behavior by refusing to simply acknowledge the demonstrable falsity of Cowan’s claim that scientists only ever inoculate cell culture with “an unpurified sample”, as well as the demonstrable falsity of his claim that scientists never user controls when doing cell culture, in accordance with the terms of use of this site, your privileges are revoked.
As I was not about to agree with Jeremy that he was right when the entire intent of my question was to show him that he was wrong, I recieved my banning badge of honor from his site. This privelege is bestowed upon those who provide Jeremy with questions he does not want to answer honestly and/or evidence that he can not refute. Throughout this exchange, I updated the thread this discussion started on in Facebook with our responses. As I was banned and I figured Jeremy had turned tail and had run away from our conversation, I figured I would not get my simple question answered by him directly. I called Jeremy out one last time, fully expecting never to hear a response.
Jeremy R. Hammond you have shown that you are an intellectually dishonest coward who is afraid to engage in conversation.
However, much to my surprise, Jeremy reaponded…by copy/pasting his last response to me from his site. I will save you all from having to reread it by not reposting his mini essay here. Regardless, I took it as an opportunity to continue the conversation in an attempt to pry an answer out of him.
Jeremy R. Hammond you have acknowledged that you do not understand purification and you have also acknowledged that virologists do not check to see if the particles assumed to be "viruses" are within a specimen directly from the sick human before culturing. You have admitted that they have NO INDEPENDENT VARIABLE. You have admitted to defending pseudoscience as a valid IV is required for the scientific method to be performed.
Jeremy then addressed the entire group by linking to his own article again:
I have already addressed all y'all's nonsense. https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/virus/
To which I responded:
Jeremy R. Hammond you failed to answer my question and avoided it by going around in circles like a coward. Once again:
Do the samples contain only the assumed "viral" particles and nothing else before the cell culturing process? YES or NO?
True to form, Jeremy busted out his catchphrase once again:
Mike Stone You are still proving your bad faith by refusing to acknowledge that Cowan's claim that scientists only ever inoculate cell culture with "an unpurified sample" is false, even though you know perfectly well that it is false.
Jeremy R. Hammond why should I acknowledge and accept your false assertion when I do not agree with it? I do not have to agree with your false claims in order for you to answer my question. That is moronic and you are attempting to be evasive. I acknowledge that you are wrong. There, move on. We can ascertain that your refusal to answer my question means that you know full well the sample does contain more than the assumed "viral" particles and is thus not purified. Unless you would like to present evidence showing otherwise, I will take it that you agree with the fact that there is not just the assumed "viral" particles in the sample and thus Dr. Cowan's statement is correct as the sample is not purified, i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials.
Mike Stone "why should I acknowledge your false assertion"
You should acknowledge the fact because you know it is a fact.
Jeremy R. Hammond I acknowledge that it is a fact that you are wrong and that Dr. Cowan is correct. Move on and answer my question. Do the samples contain nothing but the assumed "viral" particles before culturing? YES or NO.
Your answer will show that you are wrong or a liar.
Jeremy R. Hammond as you seem to have forgotten what purification is about:
Purification: the act or process of making something pure and free of any contaminating, debasing, or foreign elements
https://www.dictionary.com/bbrowse/purification
“Purification refers to the separation of virus particles from host components in a biologically active state."
Mike Stone "it is a fact that you are wrong and that Dr. Cowan is correct"
Thanks for proving your bad faith by trying to maintain that position despite knowing perfectly well that his claim that scientists only ever inoculate cell culture with "an unpurified sample" is false.
Jeremy R. Hammond define purification. What is a purified "viral" sample? I already supplied this to you but you seem to want to change the definition for some reason in order to make it look like you are correct.
Jeremy R. Hammond you are relying on your catchphrase "a modicum of good faith" in order to avoid having to back up your positive claim that the samples are purified (i.e. only the assumed "viral" particles; free of contaminants, pollutants, and foreign materials). It is cowardly.
Mike Stone demonstrate a modicum of good faith by acknowledging the fact that scientists do purify samples, then we can have a basis of common ground upon which to continue the discussion.
Mike Stone it is not "cowardly" to expect you to demonstrate a modicum of good faith by simply stating explicitly an observation I have made that you know to be true.
As can be seen, even on Facebook we were getting nowhere. Jeremy was still hiding behind his catchphrase trying as hard as he could to save face by not allowing the conversation to move forward. So I hit him with his own catchphrase once again:
Jeremy R. Hammond as I've explained to you before, putting a sample through purification steps does not equal purified. I agree that sometimes they will use these steps before culturing. However, they never demonstrate that the end result is nothing but the assumed "viral" particles before culturing.
Now, show a modicum of good faith by acknowledging the FACT that the researchers never check to see if only the "viral" particles exist within the sample after the purification steps are performedand that these samples contain more than the assumed "viral" particles before the culture process begins.
Jeremy R. Hammond you assume that I believe your claim to be true. I have repeatedly told you it is not true, hence why I'm trying to have a conversation with you to explain why you are incorrect. You will not even allow the conversation to progress as you keep repeating that you are correct and that I must agree in order to show you that you are incorrect. This is moronic. You are engaging in stonewalling tactics which is cowardly.
Jeremy left for a bit so I summarized my thoughts to another friend of mine who was also participating in the discussion:
Kordelas Kordelas Jeremy knows he can not admit that the sample contains more than just the "viral" particles as then his whole claim about Dr. Cowan falls apart. He knows that the sources regularly state that complete purification and separation can not be achieved by these methods. He knows that they do not check to see if only the "virus" particles are within the sample before they add it to the culture. He also knows that they use antibiotics on cell cultures in case there are bacteria present within the sample. This shows that they know that there is more than just the assumed "viral" particles within the sample after the purification steps are performed. Jeremy is in a losing position which is why he is stonewalling and running around in circles. He knows it is over. Jeremy R. Hammond needs to retract his article.
Jeremy eventually came back and tried to get me to agree with him once more:
Mike Stone, please acknowledge that a sample that has gone through the purification process of centrifugation is not "an unpurified sample".
Jeremy R. Hammond why would I acknowledge that when it is untrue? It seems you are claiming that nothing but the "viral" particles remain in the sample after this centrifugation step. Is this your claim Jeremy?
Mike Stone "why would I acknowledge that when it is untrue"
Why would you describe a logical truism as "untrue"? Again, a sample that has gone through the purification process of centrifugation is logically not "an unpurified sample". Please acknowledge.
Jeremy R. Hammond I have repeatedly told you this is untrue unless you can show that only the "virus" particles remain within the sample. Are you claiming that only the "viral" particles remain after centrifugation? This is the only way you can claim the sample is purified. Otherwise, the sample is unpurified regardless of having undergone a purification step.
I can put dirty river water through purification but if it comes back slightly less brown, it is still unpurified. Hopefully, you can understand this logically but I am not holding my breath at this point. Would the water be purified if it still contained contaminants, pollutants, foreign material after purification?
Are you unable to grasp the concept of purification? I have already supplied you the definitions. Do I need to do so again or will you quit stonewalling and state whether or not you believe that only the "virus" particles remain after centrifugation? Your answer is tantamount to your "truism" being true. If you can not state what you believe to be true (only the "virus" particles remain after centrifugation) is in fact true, than you are knowingly engaging in deception.
I want to put a brief pause on my conversation with Mr. Hammond to go back to the comments section on his article for a moment. On November 24th, a user named tomdalton62 chimed in and took a different approach to his questioning in order to see if Jeremy would provide a response to my initial question to him.
Hi Jeremy,
I don’t know exactly what Tom Cowan said about purifying samples, so I can’t comment on that.
But, if you don’t mind, I would like to ask you a question.
I am not a scientist, so please forgive me if I say something silly. Anyway, here is my question:
When virologists say they have purified a sample by filtration, centrifugation or whatever else they do, before adding it to a cell culture; does that mean that they end up with just the virus (and nothing else) in a solution of pure water or saline or whatever liquid they use?
Or, could the ‘purified’ sample still contain contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, (possibly different bits of organic matter which are of a similar size or density as the virus), etc?
I have never been able to obtain a clear answer to this question. I am hoping that you might be able to give me one.
Thanks for reading my post.
Best regards,
Tom. (Another Tom. lol)
To which Jeremy made an important breakthrough within his response.
Tom, 100% purification is neither practically feasiblenor necessary for scientists to prove that a virus is present in a sample.
Jeremy finally admitted that 100% purification was not feasible, i.e. not capable of being done or carried out). Tom pushed him for further clarification:
Hi Jeremy,
I fully appreciate that 100% purification is neither practically feasible nor necessary for scientists to prove that a virus is present in a sample.
So I assume that means that a virologist’s ‘purified’ sample could still contain contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, (possibly different bits of organic matter which are of a similar size or density as the virus), etc.
Am I correct in assuming that? Or am I missing something?
Sadly, the above thread went cold for a few days so it was back to Facebook to try and twist Jeremy's arm for a response.
Mike Stone, by your logic, 99% purified = "unpurified". Please acknowledge.
Jeremy R. Hammond Correct. When attempting to determine cause and effect, you need to have the Independent Variable (assumed "viral" particles) alone and uninfluenced by anything else. If not, there would be no way to determine which particles are the assumed "virus" in a sea of identical particles of the same shape and size. If you do not have only the assumed "viral" particles separated alone and away from everything else, you do not have a valid Independent Variable. If you do not have a valid Independent Variable, you are unable to adhere to the scientific method in order to determine cause and effect. The assumed "viral" particles must be shown to exist first in a purified and isolated state directly from the fluids of a sick human. They must also be proven pathogenic in a natural way (not injected into humans/animals) before cell culturing occurs. Without showing this, there is no DIRECT evidence that the particles observed in EM after the cell culture experiments take place ever existed in the sick person to begin with nor that they are pathogenic. If the particles observed after the cell culture step can not be seen directly in the fluids of a sick patient, then they are nothing but creations from the cell culturing and EM imaging process as the cell breaks down and dies.
We shouldn't even be discussing cell cultures until the assumed "viral" particles are shown to exist. Cell culturing would be the last step after proving the "viral" particles are actually in the fluids of a sick host. This is the only way the researchers would know which particles they are looking for to see if they multiplied after culturing. One can not claim to know how to grow something they have never observed nor studied outside of a petri dish creation. If 100% purification can not be achieved and the assumed "viral" particles are not separated away from everything else, the other substances within the sample could all theoretically be the cause of any observed CPE or presumed pathogenicity rather than the assumed "viral" particles. Without establishing a valid Independent Variable of purified and isolated "viral" particles before experimentation takes place, whatever cell culture results are achieved are nothing but pseudoscience.
Jeremy then decided to try a different approach. Surely, since I claim that “viruses” do not exist, I must believe that they are in fact nothing but exosomes, right? Mr. Hammond doesn't know me very well. 😉
Mike Stone, thank you for acknowledging that, by your logic, 99% purified = "unpurified".
You also assert that the proper method of virus isolation should not involve the use of cell culture, which is a rejection of all the relevant scientific literature. How do you propose that scientists prove the existence of a virus in a sample without doing the cell culture experiment comparing cells inoculated with the centrifuged sample with an uninoculated control?
Also, do you believe that exosomes exist? If so, can you show me a study where a sample was taken from a human and put through a purification process whereby 100% purification of exosomes was achieved?
Jeremy R. Hammond "You also assert that the proper method of virus isolation should not involve the use of cell culture which is a rejection of all the relevant scientific literature."
You are correct besides one point. I do not reject science as there is no actual science going on in virology. I reject the method that all of the relevant pseudoscientific literature uses as it does not adhere to the scientific method.
"How do you propose that scientists prove the existence of a virus in a sample without doing the cell culture experiment comparing cells inoculated with the centrifuged sample with an uninoculated control?"
I have already explained this. They would need to purify the sample directly from a human to the point where only the assumed "viral" particles exist. They could then use these for EM imaging to ensure that only those particles are within the sample. Then they would need to try and infect an animal or human naturally through an aerosol spray. If they are able to recreate the same symptoms of disease, then they would need to repurify and reisolate the exact same particles from the newly sickened host. They would need to do this with a large sample size and have reproducible and replicable results.
"Also, do you believe that exosomes exist?"
No, they have not met the burden of proof with exosomes either. It is the exact same pseudoscience identifying the exact same particles and giving them different names. Exosome research also does not adhere to the scientific method and is thus pseudoscience.
Oddly enough, in this next comment, Jeremy states that proving the existence of a “virus” must come first before proving pathogenicity. It was nice to finally see him start to incorporate some logic into his part in this discussion.
Mike Stone "You are correct besides one point. I do not reject science as there is no actual science going on in virology. I reject the method that all of the relevant pseudoscientific literature uses as it does not adhere to the scientific method."
But you are not only rejecting all of virology. You are also rejecting all of the other relevant literature, concerning epidemiology and immunology, for example. So when I say your position depends upon a rejection of all the relevant scientific literature, I mean ALL of it.
"They would need to purify the sample directly from a human to the point where only the assumed "viral" particles exist. They could then use these for EM imaging to ensure that only those particles are within the sample."
So how do you propose that scientists purify the sample to 100% purification of these particles?
"Then they would need to try and infect an animal or human naturally through an aerosol spray."
This would be an experiment to prove that the virus causes disease, not to prove the existence of the virus, which must come first.
"No, they have not met the burden of proof with exosomes either."
Thank you for acknowledging that, by your reasoning, exosomes have not been proven to exist. I note that you are diverging here from the claim of Cowan and others that particles observed under EM are not viruses but exosomes (or some other EV).
Jeremy R. Hammond "But you are not only rejecting all of virology. You are also rejecting all of the other relevant literature, concerning epidemiology and immunology,"
Exactly. Immunology is just as fraudulent. Antibodies have never been purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a host, characterized, and observed functioning. There is also nothing to be immune from as there are no pathogens.
"So when I say your position depends upon a rejection of all the relevant scientific literature, I mean ALL of it."
Yet they are not scientific literature. Scientific literature must be derived from the scientific method. If the literature in these fields is made up of results that did not follow the scientific method, then it is by definition pseudoscience.
"So how do you propose that scientists purify the sample to 100% purification of these particles?"
That is a problem that they would need to figure out. It may be entirely impossible. However, that is the burden for those who claim that these invisible particles exist and are pathogenic. They must determine a way to get the sample 100% purified so that the particles in question can be used as a valid independent variable in order to determine cause and effect.
"This would be an experiment to prove that the virus causes disease, not to prove the existence of the virus, which must come first."
Correct. Complete purification from the bodily fluids would confirm existence of the assumed "viral" particles. The experiments would determine whether the assumed "viruses" actually cause disease.
"I note that you are diverging here from the claim of Cowan and others that particles observed under EM are not viruses but exosomes (or some other EV)."
I am not certain what Dr. Cowan and Dr. Kaufman believe regarding exosomes currently but we must hold all of these entities to the same standard which is adherence to the scientific method. If they can not meet that burden, they must be considered fictional pseudoscientific creations.
After my response, Jeremy was kind enough to thank me for pointing out all of the illogical conclusions and the pseudoscience that he believes in.
Mike Stone, thank you for acknowledging that your position depends on rejection of literally all of the relevant scientific literature.
Thanks also for acknowledging that you believe that the existence of other entities such as exosomes and antibodies is based on pseudoscience.
Thanks also for acknowledging that you have no proposed method for achieving 100% purification of a sample, which is to say that you have no proposed method that would satisfy your demand for what you would consider to be proof of the existence of a virus.
The logical corollary is that there is no possible evidence that you would accept for the existence of viruses. Please acknowledge.
Jeremy R. Hammond "Mike Stone, thank you for acknowledging that your position depends on rejection of literally all of the relevant scientific literature."
Unless you can show how the existence of these entities ("viruses," exosomes, antibodies) were proven through the use of the scientific method, then all of the relevant literature is not scientific. Why should I accept pseudoscience? Do you understand what the scientific method is? If not, here is a refresher:
Observe a phenomenon
Alternate hypothesis
Independent variable (the presumed cause)
Dependent variable (the observed effect)
Control variables
Null hypothesis
Test/experiment
Analyze the observation/data
Validate/invalidate hypothesis
If you do not understand this method, I suggest that you study it and learn it. Use the SM as the barometer to judge anything claiming to be scientific. If it fails to adhere to the above method, it is by definition pseudoscience.
"Thanks also for acknowledging that you believe that the existence of other entities such as exosomes and antibodies is based on pseudoscience."
You are correct. Their existence is based on pseudoscience. Unless you would like to present evidence proving the existence of these entities which adheres to the scientific method, then all you are doing is defending fictional entities. Have you read the foundational papers for antibodies and exosomes. I have and the scientific method is nowhere to be found. You can find these papers at my site at viroliegy.com. Before you go around claiming these entities exist, you should always track down and read the original evidence claiming their existence and make sure it holds up to the scientific standard. Otherwise, we might as well be discussing the pseudoscientific evidence claiming the existence of unicorns, gnomes, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and Santa Claus.
"Thanks also for acknowledging that you have no proposed method for achieving 100% purification of a sample, which is to say that you have no proposed method that would satisfy your demand for what you would consider to be proof of the existence of a virus."
Why would I need to propose a method to achieve 100% purification? That is not my burden. The onus is on those who claim these obligate intracellular parasites exist in the body fluids of humans. If their current methods and technology are unable to meet this burden of proof by providing purified and isolated "viral" particles alone and away from contaminants, pollutants, foreign meaterials, etc., it is not my responsibility to figure it out for them nor to propose an alternative method. My demand is for the adherence to the scientific method which requires a valid Independent Variable. Without one, there is no science being done.
"The logical corollary is that there is no possible evidence that you would accept for the existence of viruses. Please acknowledge."
No, I have already stated what would suffice as evidence. 100% purified and isolated "viral" particles directly from the fluids of humans that are free from contaminants, pollutants, foreign meaterials, etc. which are proven pathogenic in a natural way. Again, if the current methods and technology do not exist to guarantee a valid Independent Variable, then the scientific method can not be performed and we are left with pseudoscience being passed off as science.
I will, however, acknowledge that you have thanked me for doing what you and your colleagues should be doing, which is holding all evidence claiming to be scientific to the proper standards of the scientific method. I also acknowledge that you:
Agree that they never validate that only the "viral" particles are in the sample before culturing.
Agree that 100% purification of "viruses" is impossible which means that there are contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, etc. present within the sample and thus there can be no valid Independent Variable, making all of virology and its related fields pseudoscience.
Admit that the "viral" particles claimed to be "viruses" can only be seen after cell culturing and can not be found directly in the fluids of humans.
Now, as you agree that the samples do not contain only the purified and isolated "viral" particles even after centrifugation before cell culturing, you need to apologize to Dr. Tom Cowan and retract your article.
After my conversation with Jeremy Hammond, it was absolutely clear that while he claimed that Dr. Cowan was wrong and that the samples were purified before culturing, Jeremy actually believed otherwise. He admitted that virologists do not check the sample after the purification step is performed to make sure that the “viral” particles are even in the fluids taken from a patient to begin with nor that only those particles remain afterwards. Jeremy also admitted that, even if they did check the sample, 100% purification was not “feasible” and thus there would be contaminants, pollutants, and foreign materials contained within the sample even after the purification step is performed. This obviously means that Dr. Cowan is correct when he states that virologists only use unpurified samples when doing cell culture experiments as putting the sample through a purification step does not mean that the sample is in fact purified.
However, according to Jeremy, virologists don't have to check for purification as they can prove a “virus” was in the sample simply by looking for the cytopathogenic effect in cell cultures. In other words, they look at an effect which they create in a petri dish in a lab and assume a cause without any direct evidence that the assumed cause even existed in the fluids of a sick human to begin with. This is the antithesis to scientific experimentation and is thus straight up pseudoscience.
Just in case there was any confusion left as to whether or not Mr. Hammond actually believes that the sample is purified after centrifugation, he finally responded to Tom Dalton on November 28th after a 3 day absence. In doing so, Jeremy officially answered my question. Not to me directly, but to Tom. Had Jeremy just responded in good faith to my original question posed to him from the start, we could have avoided this whole mess. In any case, I want to give a big shout out to Tom Dalton for his assistance in this endeavor. 😉
Thank you for acknowledging that 100% purification is neither practically feasible nor necessary for scientists to prove that a virus is present in a sample. What this means is that there may possibly be particles of similar dimension as viruses in the sample, such as exosomes, which are similar in dimension to enveloped viruses and are difficult to separate by centrifugation, but which do not replicate in cell culture and do not carry the genomic material of a novel betacoronavirus. In fact, exosomes can be utilized by viruses to gain transport and entry into other cells. I discuss that here: https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/09/29/tom-cowans-sources-contradict-claims-sars-cov-2/
Jeremy finally directly acknowledged that particles of the same dimensions as “viruses” exist within the sample after the purification step. In other words, the sample contains more than the assumed “viral” particles and remains unpurified. While he focused solely on exosomes, there are other particles of a similar size and dimension as “viruses” which can also be mistaken for these entities.
As can be seen, there are many subcellular organisms that look identical to “virus” particles that are of the same dimension and are almost assuredly within the unpurified fluids. The above list does not include the possibility of bacteria, proteins, apoptotic bodies, or any other known or unknown pollutants of a similar size also being within the sample. Thus, even after a purification step is performed, the sample is not free of contaminants. Jeremy knows this yet he regularly states otherwise. This means that Mr. Hammond is the only one not engaging in a modicum of good faith in his articles as well as in his conversations as he is being deliberately dishonest about what he knows and believes. Until he owns up to this and confesses, Jeremy has shown himself to be a hypocrite by demanding that others show good faith in conversation with him when he himself is unwilling to do so in return. As he has admitted that the sample is not purified (i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign and host materials, etc.) after centrifugation, Mr. Hammond owes Dr. Cowan an apology and he needs to retract his unfactual and illogical article immediately.
For anyone interested in viewing the full conversation on Facebook, you can see it here:
These discussions have gone on with Hammond for years. I know people who gave up in 2020. Hammond is like a video game. Just write to him at 3 am and say something like "the sky is blue" and he will argue with you. The email will come back five minutes later, any time, day or night, even on Christmas. Has anyone met him in person? He seems to be some kind of in in silico script that spews out cliches.
There is a good case to be made that Hammond is a ringer (public relations shill), though he has a low level of expertise (ringers should know something, but he does not). Like Poornima Wagh, he has migrated to virology from some branch of finance or economics (virology and finance are both doing a great job of saving the world).
His entire role seems to be churning out a vast number of kilobytes of content that all claim that viruses exist, on and on and on.
There is no getting anywhere with him, and I do not understand his appeal to readers. The real problem is them, not him. He will only ever be convincing to an ignorant audience whom he has persuaded he's something really special. The only special thing about him is that he shows up with all the energy of a border collie and about 1/50th the intelligence. I am sure that an your average sheep could beat him at checkers.
The only reason he looks meekly smart in a debate is because his opponent knows something. If you played only his side of the argument, it would be evident that he has the IQ of a compost heap.
So we might wonder why Joe Mercola called him as a witness when he wanted to "prove the existence of viruses," and all we get is this smug gasbag consuming oxygen from other far more sophisticated biota, and saying "Bad faith! Bad faith! You make no sense! You make no sense!"
Mike, you entered the twilight zone! Thanks for your sacrifice. Hammonds level of argumentation is truly unique. An actual moderated debate would be devastating to his flimsy position.
These discussions have gone on with Hammond for years. I know people who gave up in 2020. Hammond is like a video game. Just write to him at 3 am and say something like "the sky is blue" and he will argue with you. The email will come back five minutes later, any time, day or night, even on Christmas. Has anyone met him in person? He seems to be some kind of in in silico script that spews out cliches.
There is a good case to be made that Hammond is a ringer (public relations shill), though he has a low level of expertise (ringers should know something, but he does not). Like Poornima Wagh, he has migrated to virology from some branch of finance or economics (virology and finance are both doing a great job of saving the world).
His entire role seems to be churning out a vast number of kilobytes of content that all claim that viruses exist, on and on and on.
There is no getting anywhere with him, and I do not understand his appeal to readers. The real problem is them, not him. He will only ever be convincing to an ignorant audience whom he has persuaded he's something really special. The only special thing about him is that he shows up with all the energy of a border collie and about 1/50th the intelligence. I am sure that an your average sheep could beat him at checkers.
The only reason he looks meekly smart in a debate is because his opponent knows something. If you played only his side of the argument, it would be evident that he has the IQ of a compost heap.
So we might wonder why Joe Mercola called him as a witness when he wanted to "prove the existence of viruses," and all we get is this smug gasbag consuming oxygen from other far more sophisticated biota, and saying "Bad faith! Bad faith! You make no sense! You make no sense!"
Mike, you entered the twilight zone! Thanks for your sacrifice. Hammonds level of argumentation is truly unique. An actual moderated debate would be devastating to his flimsy position.