I REJECT the slam-dunk test for the existence of viruses—no matter how the test is improved

The slam-dunk test for the existence of viruses has inherent fatal flaws that can’t be overcome

There has been a great deal of discussion about doing the test for the presence of a virus properly.

“It has never been done fully and correctly.”

“There is the absence of a control group.”

“Using a control group would make the test show the truth, one way or another.”

I reject all this.

Let’s start by reviewing the test. It is how virologists claim to isolate (discover) a virus.

They create a soup in a dish in the lab. The soup contains chemicals, a growth-promoting medium, monkey and/or human cells, possibly antibiotics (and who knows how many random bits of genetic fragments).

Into this soup, the researchers drop a mucus sample from a patient said to be ill as the probable result of a virus not yet discovered.

The soup in the dish is allowed to sit for a time. The monkey/human cells die. The researchers boldly and absurdly claim this cell-death must be the effect produced by a virus in the mucus sample.

And this conclusion they call “isolation of a virus.” Of course, nothing is isolated at all. Nothing is plucked and separated from the soup.

Furthermore, the cells in the soup could have died from the effects of the chemicals in the soup, or because cells, separated from the body, are starved of nutrients.

Some critics of this soup-testing process say a control is needed. This is what they mean:

Make two identical soups. Drop the mucus sample in one of them. Let both soups sit there for a time.

If the cells in both soups die, then you know the supposed virus in the mucus sample didn’t cause the cell death—and there is no reason to suppose a virus is present in the mucus sample.

If the cells only die in the soup with the mucus sample, then you know there is a virus in the sample and it is killing the cells.

But this is false. What allows you to say there is a virus in the soup that killed the cells? Why must there be a virus in the mucus sample? How about bacteria? Or mold? Or parasites? Or decaying rotting toxic matter? Or who knows what?

Since no one is actually extracting a physical virus from the soup, the above questions remain unanswered. And they will always remain so.

So using “the second dish of soup,” the so-called control group, proves nothing about a virus. No matter what the result is.

While I’m at it, I’ll go over a different test that supposedly can prove the existence of a virus: This test has a number of steps. I’ll highlight the most prominent ones: