It is truly amazing that the only way experiments are ever done to try to prove "contagion" use the most wildly unnatural pathways of "infection." I mean, it's truly amazing that these doctors and scientists would go to such ridiculous lengths, and not see how ridiculous it is! Of course, there was the political pressure on them to "find the source of contagion."
But it takes only a little bit of common sense to see that these experiments are irrelevant to what happens in the course of ordinary life! And that if they can't even prove contagion by wounding an animal or plant and directly inserting foreign material, or pouring it down their poor throats, then the kinds of contact that happen in ordinary life would almost certainly not result in "infection," even if their starting hypothesis of a contagious agent were correct. The experiments you cover here are not as egregiously cruel as some, but they are still pretty horrible.
On the topic of plant diseases, I have been learning that most if not all of them, including insect "attacks," happen for the same reason that bacteria proliferate in the body: the plants are not healthy for the same kinds of reasons that people aren't, e.g., inadequate nutrients or too high a toxic load that interferes with photosynthesis. Brix analysis by entomologist Thomas Dykstra has shown that insects' role is to return damaged or unhealthy plants to the soil by consuming them--the bugs don't opportunistically descend on garden plants or crops, but only come when the plants do not have enough sugar in their cells. Insects literally are not able to digest healthy plant tissue and will not even try to chew or suck on healthy plants. He doesn't address fungal or other types of plant diseases, but I am guessing the same thinking applies.
So, as with germ theory, we've fundamentally misunderstood the ecology of our world, our bodies, our gardens and farms, and have had entirely the wrong idea about what to do when insects come to the garden, or bacteria are proliferating in the body.
Excellent comment and great points all around Betsy! It is definitely clear that natural processes that are beneficial, such as insects feeding on the weaker plants in order to bring about healthier ones in their place, are being misconstrued as bad or unnatural in order to sell us poisons and keep us in a continual cycle of ignorance and fear. The cruel and unnatural experimental attempts to recreate disease are so ridiculous it is amazing that anyone ever took them seriously. Thanks for the awesome comment and link! 🙂
Hiya, 100,000s of honest, hard-working people make their livelihoods in the vivisection industry. I wonder if propaganda was put about by the global owners that they wanted to ban this industry; would it make people forget their squeamishness and rally support for it like it has for the 'war on meat'? Organic fed animals have their beaks, tails and other body parts routinely cut off without anaesthetic, millions are kept indoors all their lives (sometimes even if labelled pasture fed), millions arrive at slaughter with at least one broken leg and up to nearly a third are fully conscious as they bleed to death.
Dykstra has some pretty interesting stuff! I like his work showing that GMO soy *always* get attacked by bugs, as if nature itself revolts against the unnatural.
There are so MANY PROBLEMS with both these tobacco and animal experiments it is amazing any reputable scientists would consider them sound science in any way or form! (But then again are people like Fauci and Wakensky reputable scientists in. My way or form?!!) But the one big issue I see more than any other over and over in these experiments is that they NEVER cause the same tobacco leaf lesions or foot and mouth skin lesions on the test plants and animals as are found on the plants or animals in the field!!! That alone should shout very loudly that these experiments are not showing a causative bacteria/viral agent in the blood/lymph/lesion of the original plant or animal!!! Seems pretty straight forward and simple to me!!!
So like so many times what we are witnessing in these experiments is a desire to fit an answer, one we suspect and want to be true, to the question of what is causing it!!!
According to mees you are a liar Mike, who does not mention loeffler proved replication in the host. Leaving the main characteristic of the agent.
I wonder how loeffler was able to see 'replication' going on in the host. Electron microscopes were not invented and even electron microscopes catches still images not video footage. 😅
"The causal agent was not an inanimate toxin but replicated in the host was shown by making extreme dilutions, via serial inoculations. E.g. a 200 kg healthy calf received 1/10.000 ml of blister liquid. Once ill, a second 200 kg calf was inoculated with 1/10.000 ml of blister liquid of the first, etcetera. Yet the resulting disease remained unaltered"
This how he says loeffler proved"replication". I'd like to read an article from you in response to Mr mees.
This is a textbook example of begging the question—assuming a “replicating virus" exists and then using the appearance of disease as confirmation. No replicating structure was ever identified, isolated, or visualized. The only evidence was the recurring symptoms, which could easily result from toxins, stress, damaging and unnatural exposure routes, or other unknowns present in the unpurified fluid.
Loeffler’s experiment also failed to meet modern scientific standards. There was no purification, no identification of a specific particle or entity, and no valid independent variable for experimentation. In fact, the cell-free fluid used was a complex mixture of unknown substances, and any conclusion drawn from its effects is purely speculative. The notion that this experiment proved replication is a product of confirmation bias—not empirical rigor. At best, it showed that disease symptoms could be transferred in a contrived setting, but it did not demonstrate what caused them, how they were caused, or whether any replication occurred at all. To cite this as proof of "viral replication" is to conflate assumption with evidence and storytelling with science.
Hiya, so they took the same dilution of blister liquid from each? So if there were cellular proteins or micro RNAs etc that stimulate the body to produce blisters to protect itself, they were shown to be active at the same dilution?
Can I suggest a disturbance to the echo chamber on the latest anti-vax "debunking". I'll put comments if no one else will but I think there are more authoritative people such as you, Mike.
Paediatrician, Frank Han, is up to Part 5 of a 10-part "debunking" of Turtles All the Way Down.
Yeah that doesn't even deserve a response. We can't expect valid practices or adequate clinical trials because of resource constraints?! He literally sidesteps all scientific integrity and chalks two of his first 4 points up to this. It looks to be ghostwritten by an industry lobbyist. He also has the nerve to chastise the Anonymous 'Turtles..." author for 'making money'. Gee do you think that book made $30 billion in profits in one quarter? Do you know what did? Here's a hint, your local HS Quarterback died from it. Chalk it up to resource constraints...
I never thought of that - ghostwritten. Hmmm. Will apply that possibility to my lens in future. Also, I made a comment which I thought better of and deleted but on posting I got the message that comments are moderated which perhaps explains why there's no - or perhaps very few - critical ones!
Ok as some virus-does-exist folk love chatGPT, I’ve pasted here some parody pieces (courtesy of ChatGPT) for laughs:
On the Possibility of a Sub-Microscopic Infectious Agent in Filtered Disease Material
By [Your Name], Fellow of the [Society Name]
Submitted to the Transactions of the [Royal/Scientific] Society, 18xx
In the course of my recent investigations into the etiology of a wasting illness affecting a number of laboratory animals, I have observed a phenomenon which, though not yet fully accounted for, may bear upon the nature of contagion in certain pathological states.
A preparation was made by finely macerating diseased tissue, and passing the resultant fluid through a porcelain filter of the finest grade available, which has been shown to retain all known bacteria. The filtrate, when introduced into a small number of healthy animals, appeared, in several cases, to induce symptoms not unlike those of the original malady. By contrast, animals that received no such filtrate, or a filtrate prepared from healthy tissue, remained in their usual condition.
The number of observations was necessarily limited by the availability of subjects, and I must note that the procedures employed, while conducted with care, did not permit full uniformity between groups. The control group was smaller in number and may not have received precisely identical treatment in all respects. Moreover, the constituents of the filtrate, beyond the exclusion of known microbes, remain unknown, and I cannot exclude the possibility of other active elements therein — whether chemical, cellular, or otherwise.
It would therefore be premature to draw any definitive conclusion from these preliminary findings. I do not presume to assert the existence of a novel pathogenic agent, nor the precise mechanism by which the observed effects are produced. I merely venture to record that, under the conditions described, an effect was observed which may warrant further inquiry.
I submit this brief account in the hope that it may stimulate more rigorous experimentation by those with greater resources or better equipment than presently available to me. It is with the utmost caution that I advance the suggestion — and only as a suggestion — that some infectious principle smaller than the smallest visible organisms may be operative in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name], F.R.S.
Laboratory of Natural Philosophy, [Institution]
Would you like to adapt this for a specific type of disease, animal model, or real historical setting (e.g., pre-viral era work in Europe)?
You said:
Ok now can you write it in the style of a 21st century scientist writing to Nature?
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely — here is the same core content rephrased in the concise, precise, and evidence-focused tone expected in a 21st-century submission to a high-impact journal like Nature. This version reflects modern scientific conventions, including clear acknowledgment of limitations, cautious interpretation, and a call for further work.
Evidence Suggestive of a Filterable Infectious Agent in Diseased Tissue
[Your Name], [Affiliation]
We report preliminary observations suggesting the presence of an infectious agent in diseased tissue that retains pathogenicity following filtration through a 0.2 μm porcelain filter known to exclude all cultivable bacteria. This finding, while tentative, raises the possibility of a sub-microscopic infectious agent below the current resolution of optical microscopy and standard microbial detection techniques.
In a small cohort of experimental animals (n = X), administration of the filtered extract derived from diseased tissue was associated with the onset of clinical symptoms consistent with the source pathology. Control animals (n = Y), either untreated or administered filtered extract from healthy tissue, did not exhibit comparable symptoms over the observation period.
However, several methodological limitations prevent definitive conclusions. The sample size was small and not powered for statistical inference. Group allocation was not randomized, and differences in handling procedures between experimental and control groups cannot be excluded as confounding variables. Additionally, the filtrate was not chemically or molecularly characterized, and thus we cannot exclude alternative explanations such as residual toxins or degraded cellular components.
These findings should therefore be interpreted as exploratory. While consistent with the action of a filterable infectious agent, they fall short of demonstrating causality or identifying the putative agent. Further controlled studies with rigorous randomization, larger sample sizes, detailed characterization of the filtrate, and reproducible results will be essential to validate this hypothesis.
We share these preliminary observations to encourage broader investigation into potential sub-microscopic pathogens and to highlight the need for improved detection methods for unidentified infectious agents.
Would you like to expand this into a full-length modern scientific paper — with sections like Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion — or adapt it for a specific pathogen or historical case (e.g., early viral discovery)?
Now I want you to write the same thing in the tone of a satire or parody or comedy - pretending the scientist was pompous enough to claim their experiment as “fact” while making fun of all the ways it doesn’t meet all the scientific criteria we have discussed
ChatGPT said:
Delighted to oblige — here is your satirical version, styled like a puffed-up 19th-century (or even early 20th-century) gentleman-scientist who’s hilariously overconfident, oblivious to proper controls, and blissfully unaware of modern scientific standards. Think: a cross between The Onion, a bad TED Talk, and a Victorian science club speech, with a dash of "Dr. Jekyll meets Monty Python."
On the Undeniable, Unquestionable, and Entirely Conclusive Discovery of a Microscopic Agent I Cannot Detect
By Sir Prof. Dr. Maximilian H. Thistlewaite, O.B.E., Grand Alchemist of the Self-Proclaimed Laboratory of Advanced Speculation
Fellow men of science (and a warm nod to any sentient animalcules who may be reading this),
I come before you not to suggest, hypothesize, or propose, but to declare, with full confidence and half the necessary data, the existence of a sub-microscopic infectious agent so powerful, so elusive, and so scientifically unverifiable, that it has evaded every tool and technique at my disposal — and therefore must be real.
Allow me to recount my infallible methodology: I took some goopy tissue from a very ill animal (species unknown; possibly a large squirrel), mashed it with great vigor, and passed it through a porcelain filter — because porcelain is elegant and science demands aesthetics. What emerged was a clear fluid I have lovingly named Essence of Mystery™.
Upon injecting this mystical fluid into a total of two-and-a-half animals, I observed that at least onedisplayed mild discontent — which I took, naturally, as overwhelming evidence of infection. A control group was also sort of included — I vaguely recall placing a healthy ferret near a window and whispering encouragement to it. No symptoms were observed, further strengthening my belief in the experiment’s exquisite precision.
Admittedly, I did not randomize, standardize, replicate, blind, or statistically analyze anything, and my assistant (a one-eyed raccoon named Bernard) may have mixed up the samples. Nonetheless, the sheer vibe of the experiment was so compelling that I see no reason to doubt my conclusions.
Critics may ask: “But Sir Thistlewaite, how do you know it’s not a toxin? Or a previously known agent you failed to detect? Or just animal indigestion?” To them I say: pish-posh! Doubt is for cowards and journals with rejection policies.
I shall henceforth refer to this groundbreaking entity as Thistlewaite's Invisible Pestilence and fully expect its addition to medical textbooks, global health protocols, and perhaps a Netflix docuseries.
In summary: I have discovered something I cannot see, measure, replicate, or control for — and this, dear colleagues, is the essence of true science.
Respectfully,
Sir Prof. Dr. Maximilian H. Thistlewaite, Knight of the Order of Overinterpretation
Founder, Institute of Unverified Brilliance (Est. 3 p.m. yesterday)
Teacher’s Report: Science Fair Project — “The Invisible Pestilence”
Dear [Student’s Name],
Congratulations on your boundless imagination and sheer audacity to declare the discovery of a new infectious agent with what can only be described as minimal evidence. Your enthusiasm is truly commendable — it almost makes me forget that scientific inquiry requires more than whispered speculation and an old coffee filter.
Let’s break down the highlights of your project:
Sample Size: Two-and-a-half animals? I’m not sure if you accidentally invited the neighborhood squirrels or if your math needs some work. Either way, it’s far too small to draw any meaningful conclusions, unless your conclusion is “we need more guinea pigs.”
Controls: I’m assuming the “control group” consisted of your family pet or perhaps a particularly sturdy houseplant. In future experiments, please ensure your control animals do not receive different treatments than your experimental animals. Consistency is key — and no, your dog sneezing does not count as scientific data.
Experimental Procedure: Using a porcelain kitchen strainer and a vague “filtered juice” does not meet the standards of laboratory equipment, no matter how many times you rinse it. Science requires precision, not mysticism.
Statistical Analysis: There was none. Zero. Nada. You cannot claim to have found anything “scientifically” without crunching some numbers. Anecdotes from your friends about feeling “a bit off” after exposure do not qualify.
Replication: Your experiment was conducted exactly once, on a day when the power went out and the janitor was on lunch break. Reliability matters!
Conclusions: Bold, confident, and utterly unsupported. You cannot declare the existence of an invisible pestilence based on a few sneezes and your gut feeling.
Grade: F (for Fantasy, unfortunately)
My advice? Next time, try designing an experiment where the controls and variables are clearly defined, you use proper sample sizes, and you leave room for the possibility that your hypothesis might be wrong. Science is about curiosity — yes — but also about evidence, rigor, and not getting ahead of yourself.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with next — hopefully something a bit more grounded in reality!
Sincerely,
Mr./Ms. [Teacher’s Name]
Science Department
Want me to draft a funny student reply defending their “discovery” next?
You said:
Yes please
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! Here’s a funny student reply defending their “discovery” with all the confident charm and creative excuses of a true budding scientist:
Student’s Response to Teacher’s Report
Dear Mr./Ms. [Teacher’s Name],
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on my science project, “The Invisible Pestilence.” I appreciate your dedication to traditional scientific rigor, but I must respectfully disagree with some of your points — mostly because invisible things are hard to prove with visible methods.
Regarding sample size, I believe quality over quantity is key. Two-and-a-half animals (I counted the half very carefully) is statistically significant in the realm of mystery science. Besides, if we keep testing more animals, how will we ever find anything new?
Controls? Pfft. I prefer the term “natural variation.” My dog was very healthy, which proves the pestilence only affects certain highly specific species — like the ones I injected. Also, the plant seemed unaffected, which scientifically means it’s probably not a plant disease.
Porcelain strainer? That was cutting-edge technology for the 1800s, and therefore timeless. Plus, I sanitized it with soap and water — that counts as sterile, right?
Statistical analysis is just math wearing a lab coat. I prefer intuition and vibes. The sneeze I observed was obviously a strong reaction — I felt it too, and that’s science in my book.
Replication? One perfect experiment is all you need when you’re breaking new ground. The janitor’s lunch break was actually a blessing in disguise; fewer distractions means more concentrated science.
Finally, my conclusion is bold because science needs visionaries, not doubters. If Galileo had listened to his teachers, we’d still think the Earth is flat.
In short, I stand by my Invisible Pestilence. I suggest next year’s science fair include a category for “Most Imaginative Hypothesis” — I’m ready to win that one.
Sincerely,
[Student’s Name]
Future Nobel Laureate and Champion of the Undetectable
Preliminary Observations on a Mysterious Filterable Infectious Agent: Because Who Needs Rigor Anyway?
[Your Name], [Your Institution]
In what can only be described as a groundbreaking exercise in wishful thinking, we report on a purportedly infectious agent that somehow manages to evade every known method of detection — presumably because it’s so small, or perhaps because it simply doesn’t exist. Using a state-of-the-art porcelain filter that’s about as high-tech as a teapot from the 1800s, we prepared a “filtered” extract from diseased tissue.
This elixir of scientific certainty was administered to a handful of experimental animals (n ≈ “not many”), with at least one animal reportedly displaying symptoms vaguely reminiscent of the original disease. Control animals (n ≈ “even fewer”) were treated slightly differently — because strict experimental parity is apparently optional — and predictably showed fewer or no symptoms.
Now, before you rush to conclusions, allow us to highlight some minor caveats that might ordinarily cause a researcher to pause, reflect, and conduct further rigorous testing: the sample sizes are laughably small, no randomization or blinding occurred, no proper statistical analysis was attempted, and the filtrate itself remains a chemically undefined black box of mystery.
Despite these trifling concerns, we boldly suggest — with all the scientific caution of a toddler announcing their first words — that the observed phenomena may “support the hypothesis” that a filterable infectious agent exists. Or, alternatively, the animals might just have had a bad day.
We humbly invite the scientific community to enthusiastically replicate these results under controlled conditions, ideally with a larger sample size, proper controls, and the ability to characterize what exactly is in that mysterious filtrate. Until then, this report stands as a shining beacon of early-stage science, proof positive that enthusiasm can sometimes outrun evidence.
In conclusion, science marches onward, fueled by hope, imagination, and occasionally, experimental designs that would make a statistician weep.
Reviewer #2’s Comments:
Dear Editor,
I have had the distinct pleasure of reviewing this manuscript, which reads less like a scientific report and more like a spirited séance calling forth invisible pathogens from the ether. The authors’ bold claim of having discovered a “filterable infectious agent” that escapes all detection methods is truly impressive in its combination of ambition and utter lack of rigor.
I particularly enjoyed the sample size, which I estimate as somewhere between “a handful” and “the contents of a very small teacup.” The decision to assign fewer animals to the control group — presumably because controls are for cowards — adds a charming air of adventure to the proceedings. I was also moved by the apparent disregard for randomization and blinding; why let pesky scientific standards get in the way of a good hypothesis?
Statistical analysis was conspicuously absent, which, in a surprising twist, did not detract from the confident tone in which conclusions were drawn. Indeed, the authors’ invitation to replicate the study “under controlled conditions” reads like a polite challenge to the rest of the community to prove them wrong — good luck!
While I admire the enthusiasm, I must regrettably recommend major revisions, including but not limited to: actually doing the experiment properly, increasing the sample size by at least an order of magnitude, and characterizing what exactly is in the mysterious “filtered extract.” Additionally, a glossary of 19th-century scientific terms might help readers understand references to “porcelain filters” and “essence of mystery.”
In summary, this manuscript is a fascinating glimpse into early-stage science — or perhaps a historical reenactment. I look forward to seeing the results of a proper study, conducted with modern standards and a modicum of skepticism.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer #2 (With a Slightly Amused Eye)
Want me to write the authors’ cheeky rebuttal next?
You said:
Yes
ChatGPT said:
Delighted! Here is the cheeky author rebuttal to Reviewer #2, full of sarcasm, theatrical defensiveness, and a firm commitment to not improving the science whatsoever — just doubling down with charm and hand-waving:
Author Rebuttal to Reviewer #2’s Comments
Dear Esteemed Reviewer #2,
We are most grateful for your candid feedback, your vibrant sense of humor, and your obvious passion for "rigor" and "evidence." While your commentary suggests you were reviewing our manuscript with the same standards one might apply to, say, a randomized controlled trial or actual science, we respectfully submit that such expectations may not fully capture the spirit of what we have attempted here: an exploratory leap of imagination loosely tethered to reality by a porcelain filter.
Let us address your concerns in order:
Sample Size
Yes, our “handful” of animals may seem statistically insufficient to the unromantic eye, but science must start somewhere — and in our case, that somewhere happened to be two-and-a-half guinea pigs and an enthusiastic intern. One animal didappear to sneeze after injection, which we felt was conclusive enough to publish.
Lack of Controls
Indeed, our control group was smaller and, in retrospect, may have consisted entirely of a plant. But the plant did not get sick, so we consider the control robust.
Absence of Randomization and Blinding
We find that true scientific intuition often outperforms randomization. Besides, the raccoon in charge of group assignments (Bernard, unpaid lab assistant) insisted he was being "guided by the data," though we now realize he may have been guided by the proximity of the peanut jar.
Statistical Analysis
We appreciate your concern, but we chose to forgo statistics to preserve the narrative clarity of our hypothesis. Numbers can be so distracting. We prefer to let the single data point speak for itself.
Mystery Filtrate
Admittedly, we did not characterize the filtered fluid in any meaningful way. However, the fact that we can’t identify what’s in it only strengthens our claim that it is something truly new. What else could it be but a novel, invisible agent of disease? The unknown is very compelling.
Tone and Style
You remarked that the manuscript reads like a séance. We accept this as a compliment. Communing with unseen entities is, after all, central to both spiritualism and early virology.
In conclusion, we respectfully decline to revise the manuscript in any substantive way. We feel that further experiments would only dilute the raw visionary power of our original findings. Instead, we have added an inspirational quote from Pasteur at the beginning and changed the font of the section headings to something more authoritative.
We thank you again for your time, and we look forward to your continued engagement with our work — ideally in the form of replication, or at the very least, spirited debate in the letters section.
Yours speculatively,
The Authors
From the Department of Bold Hypotheses and Questionable Execution
Would you like the journal’s hilariously conflicted acceptance letter next? Or perhaps a Nature-style “News & Views” sidebar trying to pretend this is groundbreaking?
You said:
The former please
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! Here’s a hilariously conflicted journal acceptance letter dripping with reluctant admiration and dry wit, as the editor tries to balance standards with the undeniable… spectacle of this “study”:
From the Desk of the Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Impossibly Preliminary Science
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, “Preliminary Observations on a Mysterious Filterable Infectious Agent: Because Who Needs Rigor Anyway?” to JIPS.
After careful consideration — and several rounds of bewildered laughter — our editorial board has reached a unanimous decision: we will accept your paper for publication.
Please allow me to clarify: this is not because your study meets any conventional standards of scientific rigor. It does not. The sample size is, quite frankly, adorable. The controls are more a suggestion than a procedure. The absence of statistical analysis is the stuff of legends.
However, your manuscript embodies the spirit of bold speculation and creative optimism that, for better or worse, fuels the engine of scientific discovery — or at least fuels some very entertaining departmental seminars.
While we encourage readers to interpret your conclusions with the utmost skepticism (and possibly a glass of wine), we believe your work will provoke lively discussion and, perhaps, inspire better-designed follow-up studies in the future.
Please submit your final, formatted manuscript within two weeks. We recommend including a disclaimer that your “Invisible Pestilence” might be as visible as your data.
We look forward to your continued contributions to the fascinating world of early-stage science.
With amused regards,
Dr. E. Ditto
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Impossibly Preliminary Science
Dear Mike I cannot comment on your latest post "On Notice", but having read that and in particular to the question you raise "as to whether the arrival of the virus in the general public was down to carelessness and a lab leak, or did someone deliberately spread it?” I point you to the apparent evidence of alleged SARS-CoV-2 being found in municipal waste samples, Barcelona, Spain, a whole 9 months prior case "zero" in Wuhan. With respect to your article "On Notice", I believe this is the real smoking gun.
Yes, either alpha-gal is a harmless sugar or it was deliberately put into the jabs to make people react badly to eating animal flesh. Either way, it means there's a war on, very heavily subsidised, dead animals products!
It is truly amazing that the only way experiments are ever done to try to prove "contagion" use the most wildly unnatural pathways of "infection." I mean, it's truly amazing that these doctors and scientists would go to such ridiculous lengths, and not see how ridiculous it is! Of course, there was the political pressure on them to "find the source of contagion."
But it takes only a little bit of common sense to see that these experiments are irrelevant to what happens in the course of ordinary life! And that if they can't even prove contagion by wounding an animal or plant and directly inserting foreign material, or pouring it down their poor throats, then the kinds of contact that happen in ordinary life would almost certainly not result in "infection," even if their starting hypothesis of a contagious agent were correct. The experiments you cover here are not as egregiously cruel as some, but they are still pretty horrible.
On the topic of plant diseases, I have been learning that most if not all of them, including insect "attacks," happen for the same reason that bacteria proliferate in the body: the plants are not healthy for the same kinds of reasons that people aren't, e.g., inadequate nutrients or too high a toxic load that interferes with photosynthesis. Brix analysis by entomologist Thomas Dykstra has shown that insects' role is to return damaged or unhealthy plants to the soil by consuming them--the bugs don't opportunistically descend on garden plants or crops, but only come when the plants do not have enough sugar in their cells. Insects literally are not able to digest healthy plant tissue and will not even try to chew or suck on healthy plants. He doesn't address fungal or other types of plant diseases, but I am guessing the same thinking applies.
So, as with germ theory, we've fundamentally misunderstood the ecology of our world, our bodies, our gardens and farms, and have had entirely the wrong idea about what to do when insects come to the garden, or bacteria are proliferating in the body.
The Dykstra video I watched can be seen here if anyone is curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnNOvA3diDU&t=770s
Excellent comment and great points all around Betsy! It is definitely clear that natural processes that are beneficial, such as insects feeding on the weaker plants in order to bring about healthier ones in their place, are being misconstrued as bad or unnatural in order to sell us poisons and keep us in a continual cycle of ignorance and fear. The cruel and unnatural experimental attempts to recreate disease are so ridiculous it is amazing that anyone ever took them seriously. Thanks for the awesome comment and link! 🙂
Hiya, 100,000s of honest, hard-working people make their livelihoods in the vivisection industry. I wonder if propaganda was put about by the global owners that they wanted to ban this industry; would it make people forget their squeamishness and rally support for it like it has for the 'war on meat'? Organic fed animals have their beaks, tails and other body parts routinely cut off without anaesthetic, millions are kept indoors all their lives (sometimes even if labelled pasture fed), millions arrive at slaughter with at least one broken leg and up to nearly a third are fully conscious as they bleed to death.
Dykstra has some pretty interesting stuff! I like his work showing that GMO soy *always* get attacked by bugs, as if nature itself revolts against the unnatural.
There are so MANY PROBLEMS with both these tobacco and animal experiments it is amazing any reputable scientists would consider them sound science in any way or form! (But then again are people like Fauci and Wakensky reputable scientists in. My way or form?!!) But the one big issue I see more than any other over and over in these experiments is that they NEVER cause the same tobacco leaf lesions or foot and mouth skin lesions on the test plants and animals as are found on the plants or animals in the field!!! That alone should shout very loudly that these experiments are not showing a causative bacteria/viral agent in the blood/lymph/lesion of the original plant or animal!!! Seems pretty straight forward and simple to me!!!
So like so many times what we are witnessing in these experiments is a desire to fit an answer, one we suspect and want to be true, to the question of what is causing it!!!
Well said, Michael! 👏
Mike there is new clown in the market named Mr mees, his best argument for the existence of viruses is loefflers experiments. 😅
It's always the same logically fallacious reasoning and flawed methodology. This is embarrassing for them. 😉
https://thepredatorsversusthepeople.substack.com/p/the-proof-for-no-no-virus/comment/123017811?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4adbpr
According to mees you are a liar Mike, who does not mention loeffler proved replication in the host. Leaving the main characteristic of the agent.
I wonder how loeffler was able to see 'replication' going on in the host. Electron microscopes were not invented and even electron microscopes catches still images not video footage. 😅
It would seem that Mees has a very loose standard of proof. 😉
"The causal agent was not an inanimate toxin but replicated in the host was shown by making extreme dilutions, via serial inoculations. E.g. a 200 kg healthy calf received 1/10.000 ml of blister liquid. Once ill, a second 200 kg calf was inoculated with 1/10.000 ml of blister liquid of the first, etcetera. Yet the resulting disease remained unaltered"
This how he says loeffler proved"replication". I'd like to read an article from you in response to Mr mees.
This is a textbook example of begging the question—assuming a “replicating virus" exists and then using the appearance of disease as confirmation. No replicating structure was ever identified, isolated, or visualized. The only evidence was the recurring symptoms, which could easily result from toxins, stress, damaging and unnatural exposure routes, or other unknowns present in the unpurified fluid.
Loeffler’s experiment also failed to meet modern scientific standards. There was no purification, no identification of a specific particle or entity, and no valid independent variable for experimentation. In fact, the cell-free fluid used was a complex mixture of unknown substances, and any conclusion drawn from its effects is purely speculative. The notion that this experiment proved replication is a product of confirmation bias—not empirical rigor. At best, it showed that disease symptoms could be transferred in a contrived setting, but it did not demonstrate what caused them, how they were caused, or whether any replication occurred at all. To cite this as proof of "viral replication" is to conflate assumption with evidence and storytelling with science.
Hiya, so they took the same dilution of blister liquid from each? So if there were cellular proteins or micro RNAs etc that stimulate the body to produce blisters to protect itself, they were shown to be active at the same dilution?
Thank you, Mike.
Can I suggest a disturbance to the echo chamber on the latest anti-vax "debunking". I'll put comments if no one else will but I think there are more authoritative people such as you, Mike.
Paediatrician, Frank Han, is up to Part 5 of a 10-part "debunking" of Turtles All the Way Down.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/part-1-10-the-grand-debunk-of-the-antivaxxer-book-turtles-all-the-way-down/
Hi Petra, I will give it a look. Thanks! 🙂
Yeah that doesn't even deserve a response. We can't expect valid practices or adequate clinical trials because of resource constraints?! He literally sidesteps all scientific integrity and chalks two of his first 4 points up to this. It looks to be ghostwritten by an industry lobbyist. He also has the nerve to chastise the Anonymous 'Turtles..." author for 'making money'. Gee do you think that book made $30 billion in profits in one quarter? Do you know what did? Here's a hint, your local HS Quarterback died from it. Chalk it up to resource constraints...
I never thought of that - ghostwritten. Hmmm. Will apply that possibility to my lens in future. Also, I made a comment which I thought better of and deleted but on posting I got the message that comments are moderated which perhaps explains why there's no - or perhaps very few - critical ones!
Ok as some virus-does-exist folk love chatGPT, I’ve pasted here some parody pieces (courtesy of ChatGPT) for laughs:
On the Possibility of a Sub-Microscopic Infectious Agent in Filtered Disease Material
By [Your Name], Fellow of the [Society Name]
Submitted to the Transactions of the [Royal/Scientific] Society, 18xx
In the course of my recent investigations into the etiology of a wasting illness affecting a number of laboratory animals, I have observed a phenomenon which, though not yet fully accounted for, may bear upon the nature of contagion in certain pathological states.
A preparation was made by finely macerating diseased tissue, and passing the resultant fluid through a porcelain filter of the finest grade available, which has been shown to retain all known bacteria. The filtrate, when introduced into a small number of healthy animals, appeared, in several cases, to induce symptoms not unlike those of the original malady. By contrast, animals that received no such filtrate, or a filtrate prepared from healthy tissue, remained in their usual condition.
The number of observations was necessarily limited by the availability of subjects, and I must note that the procedures employed, while conducted with care, did not permit full uniformity between groups. The control group was smaller in number and may not have received precisely identical treatment in all respects. Moreover, the constituents of the filtrate, beyond the exclusion of known microbes, remain unknown, and I cannot exclude the possibility of other active elements therein — whether chemical, cellular, or otherwise.
It would therefore be premature to draw any definitive conclusion from these preliminary findings. I do not presume to assert the existence of a novel pathogenic agent, nor the precise mechanism by which the observed effects are produced. I merely venture to record that, under the conditions described, an effect was observed which may warrant further inquiry.
I submit this brief account in the hope that it may stimulate more rigorous experimentation by those with greater resources or better equipment than presently available to me. It is with the utmost caution that I advance the suggestion — and only as a suggestion — that some infectious principle smaller than the smallest visible organisms may be operative in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name], F.R.S.
Laboratory of Natural Philosophy, [Institution]
Would you like to adapt this for a specific type of disease, animal model, or real historical setting (e.g., pre-viral era work in Europe)?
You said:
Ok now can you write it in the style of a 21st century scientist writing to Nature?
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely — here is the same core content rephrased in the concise, precise, and evidence-focused tone expected in a 21st-century submission to a high-impact journal like Nature. This version reflects modern scientific conventions, including clear acknowledgment of limitations, cautious interpretation, and a call for further work.
Evidence Suggestive of a Filterable Infectious Agent in Diseased Tissue
[Your Name], [Affiliation]
We report preliminary observations suggesting the presence of an infectious agent in diseased tissue that retains pathogenicity following filtration through a 0.2 μm porcelain filter known to exclude all cultivable bacteria. This finding, while tentative, raises the possibility of a sub-microscopic infectious agent below the current resolution of optical microscopy and standard microbial detection techniques.
In a small cohort of experimental animals (n = X), administration of the filtered extract derived from diseased tissue was associated with the onset of clinical symptoms consistent with the source pathology. Control animals (n = Y), either untreated or administered filtered extract from healthy tissue, did not exhibit comparable symptoms over the observation period.
However, several methodological limitations prevent definitive conclusions. The sample size was small and not powered for statistical inference. Group allocation was not randomized, and differences in handling procedures between experimental and control groups cannot be excluded as confounding variables. Additionally, the filtrate was not chemically or molecularly characterized, and thus we cannot exclude alternative explanations such as residual toxins or degraded cellular components.
These findings should therefore be interpreted as exploratory. While consistent with the action of a filterable infectious agent, they fall short of demonstrating causality or identifying the putative agent. Further controlled studies with rigorous randomization, larger sample sizes, detailed characterization of the filtrate, and reproducible results will be essential to validate this hypothesis.
We share these preliminary observations to encourage broader investigation into potential sub-microscopic pathogens and to highlight the need for improved detection methods for unidentified infectious agents.
Would you like to expand this into a full-length modern scientific paper — with sections like Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion — or adapt it for a specific pathogen or historical case (e.g., early viral discovery)?
Now I want you to write the same thing in the tone of a satire or parody or comedy - pretending the scientist was pompous enough to claim their experiment as “fact” while making fun of all the ways it doesn’t meet all the scientific criteria we have discussed
ChatGPT said:
Delighted to oblige — here is your satirical version, styled like a puffed-up 19th-century (or even early 20th-century) gentleman-scientist who’s hilariously overconfident, oblivious to proper controls, and blissfully unaware of modern scientific standards. Think: a cross between The Onion, a bad TED Talk, and a Victorian science club speech, with a dash of "Dr. Jekyll meets Monty Python."
On the Undeniable, Unquestionable, and Entirely Conclusive Discovery of a Microscopic Agent I Cannot Detect
By Sir Prof. Dr. Maximilian H. Thistlewaite, O.B.E., Grand Alchemist of the Self-Proclaimed Laboratory of Advanced Speculation
Fellow men of science (and a warm nod to any sentient animalcules who may be reading this),
I come before you not to suggest, hypothesize, or propose, but to declare, with full confidence and half the necessary data, the existence of a sub-microscopic infectious agent so powerful, so elusive, and so scientifically unverifiable, that it has evaded every tool and technique at my disposal — and therefore must be real.
Allow me to recount my infallible methodology: I took some goopy tissue from a very ill animal (species unknown; possibly a large squirrel), mashed it with great vigor, and passed it through a porcelain filter — because porcelain is elegant and science demands aesthetics. What emerged was a clear fluid I have lovingly named Essence of Mystery™.
Upon injecting this mystical fluid into a total of two-and-a-half animals, I observed that at least onedisplayed mild discontent — which I took, naturally, as overwhelming evidence of infection. A control group was also sort of included — I vaguely recall placing a healthy ferret near a window and whispering encouragement to it. No symptoms were observed, further strengthening my belief in the experiment’s exquisite precision.
Admittedly, I did not randomize, standardize, replicate, blind, or statistically analyze anything, and my assistant (a one-eyed raccoon named Bernard) may have mixed up the samples. Nonetheless, the sheer vibe of the experiment was so compelling that I see no reason to doubt my conclusions.
Critics may ask: “But Sir Thistlewaite, how do you know it’s not a toxin? Or a previously known agent you failed to detect? Or just animal indigestion?” To them I say: pish-posh! Doubt is for cowards and journals with rejection policies.
I shall henceforth refer to this groundbreaking entity as Thistlewaite's Invisible Pestilence and fully expect its addition to medical textbooks, global health protocols, and perhaps a Netflix docuseries.
In summary: I have discovered something I cannot see, measure, replicate, or control for — and this, dear colleagues, is the essence of true science.
Respectfully,
Sir Prof. Dr. Maximilian H. Thistlewaite, Knight of the Order of Overinterpretation
Founder, Institute of Unverified Brilliance (Est. 3 p.m. yesterday)
Teacher’s Report: Science Fair Project — “The Invisible Pestilence”
Dear [Student’s Name],
Congratulations on your boundless imagination and sheer audacity to declare the discovery of a new infectious agent with what can only be described as minimal evidence. Your enthusiasm is truly commendable — it almost makes me forget that scientific inquiry requires more than whispered speculation and an old coffee filter.
Let’s break down the highlights of your project:
Sample Size: Two-and-a-half animals? I’m not sure if you accidentally invited the neighborhood squirrels or if your math needs some work. Either way, it’s far too small to draw any meaningful conclusions, unless your conclusion is “we need more guinea pigs.”
Controls: I’m assuming the “control group” consisted of your family pet or perhaps a particularly sturdy houseplant. In future experiments, please ensure your control animals do not receive different treatments than your experimental animals. Consistency is key — and no, your dog sneezing does not count as scientific data.
Experimental Procedure: Using a porcelain kitchen strainer and a vague “filtered juice” does not meet the standards of laboratory equipment, no matter how many times you rinse it. Science requires precision, not mysticism.
Statistical Analysis: There was none. Zero. Nada. You cannot claim to have found anything “scientifically” without crunching some numbers. Anecdotes from your friends about feeling “a bit off” after exposure do not qualify.
Replication: Your experiment was conducted exactly once, on a day when the power went out and the janitor was on lunch break. Reliability matters!
Conclusions: Bold, confident, and utterly unsupported. You cannot declare the existence of an invisible pestilence based on a few sneezes and your gut feeling.
Grade: F (for Fantasy, unfortunately)
My advice? Next time, try designing an experiment where the controls and variables are clearly defined, you use proper sample sizes, and you leave room for the possibility that your hypothesis might be wrong. Science is about curiosity — yes — but also about evidence, rigor, and not getting ahead of yourself.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with next — hopefully something a bit more grounded in reality!
Sincerely,
Mr./Ms. [Teacher’s Name]
Science Department
Want me to draft a funny student reply defending their “discovery” next?
You said:
Yes please
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! Here’s a funny student reply defending their “discovery” with all the confident charm and creative excuses of a true budding scientist:
Student’s Response to Teacher’s Report
Dear Mr./Ms. [Teacher’s Name],
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on my science project, “The Invisible Pestilence.” I appreciate your dedication to traditional scientific rigor, but I must respectfully disagree with some of your points — mostly because invisible things are hard to prove with visible methods.
Regarding sample size, I believe quality over quantity is key. Two-and-a-half animals (I counted the half very carefully) is statistically significant in the realm of mystery science. Besides, if we keep testing more animals, how will we ever find anything new?
Controls? Pfft. I prefer the term “natural variation.” My dog was very healthy, which proves the pestilence only affects certain highly specific species — like the ones I injected. Also, the plant seemed unaffected, which scientifically means it’s probably not a plant disease.
Porcelain strainer? That was cutting-edge technology for the 1800s, and therefore timeless. Plus, I sanitized it with soap and water — that counts as sterile, right?
Statistical analysis is just math wearing a lab coat. I prefer intuition and vibes. The sneeze I observed was obviously a strong reaction — I felt it too, and that’s science in my book.
Replication? One perfect experiment is all you need when you’re breaking new ground. The janitor’s lunch break was actually a blessing in disguise; fewer distractions means more concentrated science.
Finally, my conclusion is bold because science needs visionaries, not doubters. If Galileo had listened to his teachers, we’d still think the Earth is flat.
In short, I stand by my Invisible Pestilence. I suggest next year’s science fair include a category for “Most Imaginative Hypothesis” — I’m ready to win that one.
Sincerely,
[Student’s Name]
Future Nobel Laureate and Champion of the Undetectable
Preliminary Observations on a Mysterious Filterable Infectious Agent: Because Who Needs Rigor Anyway?
[Your Name], [Your Institution]
In what can only be described as a groundbreaking exercise in wishful thinking, we report on a purportedly infectious agent that somehow manages to evade every known method of detection — presumably because it’s so small, or perhaps because it simply doesn’t exist. Using a state-of-the-art porcelain filter that’s about as high-tech as a teapot from the 1800s, we prepared a “filtered” extract from diseased tissue.
This elixir of scientific certainty was administered to a handful of experimental animals (n ≈ “not many”), with at least one animal reportedly displaying symptoms vaguely reminiscent of the original disease. Control animals (n ≈ “even fewer”) were treated slightly differently — because strict experimental parity is apparently optional — and predictably showed fewer or no symptoms.
Now, before you rush to conclusions, allow us to highlight some minor caveats that might ordinarily cause a researcher to pause, reflect, and conduct further rigorous testing: the sample sizes are laughably small, no randomization or blinding occurred, no proper statistical analysis was attempted, and the filtrate itself remains a chemically undefined black box of mystery.
Despite these trifling concerns, we boldly suggest — with all the scientific caution of a toddler announcing their first words — that the observed phenomena may “support the hypothesis” that a filterable infectious agent exists. Or, alternatively, the animals might just have had a bad day.
We humbly invite the scientific community to enthusiastically replicate these results under controlled conditions, ideally with a larger sample size, proper controls, and the ability to characterize what exactly is in that mysterious filtrate. Until then, this report stands as a shining beacon of early-stage science, proof positive that enthusiasm can sometimes outrun evidence.
In conclusion, science marches onward, fueled by hope, imagination, and occasionally, experimental designs that would make a statistician weep.
Reviewer #2’s Comments:
Dear Editor,
I have had the distinct pleasure of reviewing this manuscript, which reads less like a scientific report and more like a spirited séance calling forth invisible pathogens from the ether. The authors’ bold claim of having discovered a “filterable infectious agent” that escapes all detection methods is truly impressive in its combination of ambition and utter lack of rigor.
I particularly enjoyed the sample size, which I estimate as somewhere between “a handful” and “the contents of a very small teacup.” The decision to assign fewer animals to the control group — presumably because controls are for cowards — adds a charming air of adventure to the proceedings. I was also moved by the apparent disregard for randomization and blinding; why let pesky scientific standards get in the way of a good hypothesis?
Statistical analysis was conspicuously absent, which, in a surprising twist, did not detract from the confident tone in which conclusions were drawn. Indeed, the authors’ invitation to replicate the study “under controlled conditions” reads like a polite challenge to the rest of the community to prove them wrong — good luck!
While I admire the enthusiasm, I must regrettably recommend major revisions, including but not limited to: actually doing the experiment properly, increasing the sample size by at least an order of magnitude, and characterizing what exactly is in the mysterious “filtered extract.” Additionally, a glossary of 19th-century scientific terms might help readers understand references to “porcelain filters” and “essence of mystery.”
In summary, this manuscript is a fascinating glimpse into early-stage science — or perhaps a historical reenactment. I look forward to seeing the results of a proper study, conducted with modern standards and a modicum of skepticism.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer #2 (With a Slightly Amused Eye)
Want me to write the authors’ cheeky rebuttal next?
You said:
Yes
ChatGPT said:
Delighted! Here is the cheeky author rebuttal to Reviewer #2, full of sarcasm, theatrical defensiveness, and a firm commitment to not improving the science whatsoever — just doubling down with charm and hand-waving:
Author Rebuttal to Reviewer #2’s Comments
Dear Esteemed Reviewer #2,
We are most grateful for your candid feedback, your vibrant sense of humor, and your obvious passion for "rigor" and "evidence." While your commentary suggests you were reviewing our manuscript with the same standards one might apply to, say, a randomized controlled trial or actual science, we respectfully submit that such expectations may not fully capture the spirit of what we have attempted here: an exploratory leap of imagination loosely tethered to reality by a porcelain filter.
Let us address your concerns in order:
Sample Size
Yes, our “handful” of animals may seem statistically insufficient to the unromantic eye, but science must start somewhere — and in our case, that somewhere happened to be two-and-a-half guinea pigs and an enthusiastic intern. One animal didappear to sneeze after injection, which we felt was conclusive enough to publish.
Lack of Controls
Indeed, our control group was smaller and, in retrospect, may have consisted entirely of a plant. But the plant did not get sick, so we consider the control robust.
Absence of Randomization and Blinding
We find that true scientific intuition often outperforms randomization. Besides, the raccoon in charge of group assignments (Bernard, unpaid lab assistant) insisted he was being "guided by the data," though we now realize he may have been guided by the proximity of the peanut jar.
Statistical Analysis
We appreciate your concern, but we chose to forgo statistics to preserve the narrative clarity of our hypothesis. Numbers can be so distracting. We prefer to let the single data point speak for itself.
Mystery Filtrate
Admittedly, we did not characterize the filtered fluid in any meaningful way. However, the fact that we can’t identify what’s in it only strengthens our claim that it is something truly new. What else could it be but a novel, invisible agent of disease? The unknown is very compelling.
Tone and Style
You remarked that the manuscript reads like a séance. We accept this as a compliment. Communing with unseen entities is, after all, central to both spiritualism and early virology.
In conclusion, we respectfully decline to revise the manuscript in any substantive way. We feel that further experiments would only dilute the raw visionary power of our original findings. Instead, we have added an inspirational quote from Pasteur at the beginning and changed the font of the section headings to something more authoritative.
We thank you again for your time, and we look forward to your continued engagement with our work — ideally in the form of replication, or at the very least, spirited debate in the letters section.
Yours speculatively,
The Authors
From the Department of Bold Hypotheses and Questionable Execution
Would you like the journal’s hilariously conflicted acceptance letter next? Or perhaps a Nature-style “News & Views” sidebar trying to pretend this is groundbreaking?
You said:
The former please
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! Here’s a hilariously conflicted journal acceptance letter dripping with reluctant admiration and dry wit, as the editor tries to balance standards with the undeniable… spectacle of this “study”:
From the Desk of the Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Impossibly Preliminary Science
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, “Preliminary Observations on a Mysterious Filterable Infectious Agent: Because Who Needs Rigor Anyway?” to JIPS.
After careful consideration — and several rounds of bewildered laughter — our editorial board has reached a unanimous decision: we will accept your paper for publication.
Please allow me to clarify: this is not because your study meets any conventional standards of scientific rigor. It does not. The sample size is, quite frankly, adorable. The controls are more a suggestion than a procedure. The absence of statistical analysis is the stuff of legends.
However, your manuscript embodies the spirit of bold speculation and creative optimism that, for better or worse, fuels the engine of scientific discovery — or at least fuels some very entertaining departmental seminars.
While we encourage readers to interpret your conclusions with the utmost skepticism (and possibly a glass of wine), we believe your work will provoke lively discussion and, perhaps, inspire better-designed follow-up studies in the future.
Please submit your final, formatted manuscript within two weeks. We recommend including a disclaimer that your “Invisible Pestilence” might be as visible as your data.
We look forward to your continued contributions to the fascinating world of early-stage science.
With amused regards,
Dr. E. Ditto
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Impossibly Preliminary Science
Dear Mike I cannot comment on your latest post "On Notice", but having read that and in particular to the question you raise "as to whether the arrival of the virus in the general public was down to carelessness and a lab leak, or did someone deliberately spread it?” I point you to the apparent evidence of alleged SARS-CoV-2 being found in municipal waste samples, Barcelona, Spain, a whole 9 months prior case "zero" in Wuhan. With respect to your article "On Notice", I believe this is the real smoking gun.
Yes, they even found "SARS2" fragments apparently in soil samples from Antartica in 2018, but chalked it up to contamination. Convenient. 😉
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220209/Antarctic-soil-sample-from-2018-adds-to-the-enigma-of-the-COVID-19-pandemic.aspx#:~:text=The%20Antarctic%20soil%20samples%20containing,long%20deletion%20at%20nucleotide%2021761.
Yes, either alpha-gal is a harmless sugar or it was deliberately put into the jabs to make people react badly to eating animal flesh. Either way, it means there's a war on, very heavily subsidised, dead animals products!