No, not going to listen to an hour long podcast. If there's an argument it should be succinctly explained in a paragraph at the most. This is called the "abstract" of a scientific paper. It explains the basic argument and the support for it... and if you want to be taken seriously with something as sweeping as "virology is a lie," there should be a good reason for it. Like, what does that even mean? That DNA is a lie? That viral RNA can't be injected into cells which in turn will replicate copies of the virus? It's all just crystals and Spirit Woo all the way down?

Replies (1)

here is a summary: we identify successful viral cultures when we take a sample from an sick person and put it in a dish of cells and see those cells burst. the cells that are originally "virus" free were grown in a nutrient rich medium. at the point of inoculation we don't just do one thing (infect the cells) we do one other thing, we reduce the concentration of the nutrients to starvation levels. We essentially have two variables, the nutrient concentration that cells need to survive and the liquid from the sick individual. The viral control study protocol is just asking the simple question, what happens if we do a valid experiment with just one variable, "the nutritional concentration". and what they found was cell death that looks just like "viral" particles. This result invalidates the multi variable control that virology is built upon. proper studies have one variable that is being tested and do so with a mirror experiment without that variable. then when we get a result we can hypothesize that one variable is producing the different results