Why is sauce for the NO Virus Goose not sauce for the VIRUS gander?

Cognitive Inconsistency on Both Sides of the No Virus/Virus Issue

Synopsis:  The No-Virus camp relies on the Rosenau study of 1918 Spanish Flu that used the secretions from the lining of mucus membranes of sick soldiers and had healthy soldiers nasalize it and no one got sick, to prove there are no viruses or direct contagion.  However, the No-Virus proponents dismiss the recent evidence from an Italian study by Carlo Brogna that a human feces bacteriophage (a toxic by-product that only affects other bacteria, not other cells) from sick patients allegedly with COVID-19, infected healthy people.  But both studies failed to isolate or purify their respective respiratory disease agents and merely used proxy bodily discharges (mucus and feces respectively) taken from sick patients and administered them to healthy patients. The Rosenau and Brogna studies both used three control/comparison groups.  This presents a major methodological and cognitive inconsistency as both methods used proxy measures to arrive at their conclusions.  Only in the case of the Italian study, the nearly same methodology indicated the disease made well people sicker as measured by higher proportionate correlation with bacteriophage in the treatment group than in the untreated control groups.  This correlation was not spuriously coincidental as it correlated positively with each control group.  Either both studies are invalid, or both are valid. The sauce for the proverbial goose should be also good for the gander – see my Amazon books review of Carlo Brogna, The Secret of SARS-CoV-2: The Real Truth, 2021.

In science it is always the best methodology to try and refute one’s own hypotheses rather than attempt proof by mere correlation studies which lack control/comparison groups.  Thus far, it appears both No Virus and Bacterial-Virus camps of COVID-19 have merely tried to refute their challengers rather than attempt falsification of their own positions.  In the spirit of science as falsification, this paper is an attempt by this author, who does not believe there is an isolatable, airborne COVID-19 “virus”, and is opposed to vaccinations, to play the devil’s advocate and challenge the No-Virus position.

Another reason is to better nuance meaning out of the above-referenced studies is they may have serious implications for germane treatment of the bugaboo COVID-19 rather than merely based on differing professional ideologies and turf wars. Whatever COVID is or is not, it is postulated here to be a toxic byproduct of bacteria that infects other bacteria (a bacteriophage). This would have all-important implications for determining whether treatment should be for a bacterial, rather than a pure imaginary viral infection. The Fauci Protocol for COVID does not authorize the use of antibiotics for treatment.  Thus far, one of the more effective known treatments against bacteriophage infections are not antibiotics (due to antibiotic resistance), but rehabilitative monoclonal antibodies which are from other strains of bacteriophages (see Monoclonal Antibodies: A New Treatment for Long Covid, Medscape, Feb. 11, 2024). Rehabilitative Bacteriophages are not new and were used in the 1950’s to successfully treat acute flu cases in the Los Angeles County Hospital, but abandoned when antibiotics were more profitable. 

Besides, how do we explain researcher Merry Youle’s cataloguing of bacteriophages that includes those that emerge from their hosts such as three strains of Salmonella, one strain of Bordetella, two strains of Pseudomonas, and four strains of E. Coli, all known pathogens (see Pathogenic Bacteria Database, GlobalRpH.com). These bacterial phages are catalogued by black and white photograph, family, host, number of chromosome base pairs, chromosome shape, number of genes, and virion - Source: Merry Youle,  Thinking Like a Phage: The Genius of the Viruses that Infect Bacteria (2017) and Forrest Rohwer and Merry Youle, Life in Our Phage World: A Field Guide to the Earth’s Most Diverse Inhabitants, 2014).  Bacteriophages exist, as even No-Virus proponent Stefan Lanka claimed he isolated viruses found in oceanwater.  But the No Virus camp assert there are no human bacteriophages that would qualify as a “virus” because bacteria are not pathogenic.

Bacteria Are Not Only Good “Firemen” but can be Bad “Firemen-Arsonists”:

The Case of Fire Arson Investigator John Orr  

The No-Virus position is that there are no “bad” bacteriophages that infect other bacteria. Instead, there is only “good” bacteria that always serve as the “firemen” who show up at the scene of building fires and put out the fire of spoiled, rotted, putrefying, or infected living matter.  While it is easier to see bacteria that eats up rotted fruit, food, or compost, bacteriophages occur at the unseen microscopic level.  Besides, the firemen metaphor has a real-world exception – Fire Captain and Arson Investigator John Orr who set 2,000 fires in a 30-year arson spree, was convicted of four murders and responsible for many more mass deaths (see John Leonard Orr, Wikipedia).  As in the real-life story of a fireman gone bad, bacteriophages can release toxins that infect bacteria (see The Presence of Bacteriophages in the Human Body: Good, Bad or Neutral? Microorganisms Journal, Dec.8, 2020). So can fungi and parasites. 

Some microbe specialists call these toxins “viruses”, but they curiously do not define them as mainly by-products of bacteriophages.  Viruses are left to be defined by the domain of the Department of Defense to use as PsyOps, not by scientists, but are typically defined as unseeable parasites that need host cells to replicate and can spread as airborne pathogens. But unlike larger and visible bacteriophages, pure viruses have never been seen in a microscope, never validly photographed, never truly isolated and thus not purifiable, and never given to healthy people to prove they cause sickness. One could say from this that it is more likely what are called “viruses” are bacteriophages by deductive logic. There may be no need to disprove “viruses” exist if they are bacterial. What makes bacteriophages pathogenic is their virulence (harmfulness), not their technical isolation.

Cognitive Dissonance of No Virus and Bacterial-Virus Camps

Bacteriophages cannot be isolated from their host and thus are not purifiable under Koch’s Postulates. But the No-Virus camp contend if it is not isolatable per Koch it cannot be said to be an independent variable in a virus study. But nothing in the human body works in isolation nor can be meaningfully studied outside the living body as Terrain Theory asserts. Carlo Brogna has attempted to overcome this dilemma by offering a revision of Koch’s Postulates that recognizes the inseparability of bacteria and bacteriophages:

“A pathogen must be observed - in both pure culture and mixed environment, together with other microorganisms, in order to analyze its interactions with other species, as well as its individual characteristics”.

Noted research scientist Denis Rancourt found fault with both No Virus and Virus positions:

Dear no-virus enthusiasts: Please discern what I explicitly say I do and do not believe VERSUS what you infer I appear to believe. I often refer to viruses in reference to general beliefs about viruses. For example, if I say "viruses do not transmit respiratory diseases", that does not imply that I have a residual (sinful) belief that respiratory-disease viruses exist. Some of you sound like language-purity enforcers in an inquisition. I don't have time to explain why the question is complex, although I have tried to do so in at least one interview (find it here: https://denisrancourt.ca/page.php?id=12&name=videos ). It is incorrect to assert that "viruses have not been separated, purified and shown to induce infections THEREFORE viruses do not exist". It is also incorrect to believe that the only valid evidence for viruses would be separation-purification-inducing…Please stop trying to impose your personal bias on my expression…Those very real indoor epidemics may all be entirely bacterial pneumonia” (Denis Substack, Aug. 15, 2023).

In Europe and South Africa treatment of supposed COVID cases has been successful due to the use of antibiotics banned in the US.  Canadian research scientist Denis Rancourt asserts that the excess deaths from the bugaboo COVID-19 have come from refusal to use antibacterial antibiotics.