Dr. Peter McCullough Says He Has Seen A Picture Of A Virus Up Close

136
167

On their "Courageous Discourse" Substack, Dr Peter McCullough & John Leake recently posted a short article titled, "Electron Cryotomography of SARS-CoV-2 Virions".  According to the authors:

"The endless frustrations of the SARS-CoV-2 crisis and pandemic response has led some to push back denying existence of the virus altogether."

They seem to have missed a few things, including the fact that those of us taking the 'no virus' position called fraud on COVID-19 prior to the likes of McCullough and co. calling fraud on the subsequent responses. Additionally, we are not denying the existence of the 'virus', we are calling fraud on all of virology and the entire virus hypothesis. There are no particles that have ever been shown to be replication-competent and pathogenic to fulfil this imaginary concept. On a wider scale, microbial contagion has also been shown to be fallacious.

McCullough claimed in the Substack post that an electron cryotomography study provided evidence of 'SARS-CoV-2'. He disingenuously implied to his readers that this kind of "evidence" has never been dismantled before. The methods section of the cited paper reveals that the authors simply asserted they started with "viral strains" in some obtained specimens. Then, these were mixed with Vero monkey kidney cells and after the cells broke down 4-5 days later, they were prepared for imaging. Various particles were imaged amongst the cellular debris and these were declared to be "virions." (There was no control experiment of course.) Oh dear! They have fallen for one of virology's oldest tricks: what we call the "point and declare" scam. None of these imaged particles have ever been shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing in nature. And none of them have been characterised to see what, if any, genetic material they contain.  

If Peter McCullough wants to get serious about virology then perhaps he could provide a response to Mark's 28,000 word formal refutation of the virus hypothesis in 'A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)' or the even more extensive refutation of 'HIV' in The Perth Group's 'HIV – a virus like no other'.

As a starting point, I would suggest that Dr McCullough watches my video, "Electron Microscopy and Unidentified 'Viral' Objects" which explains how the role of imaging has been systematically abused by the virologists. The virus model is not something that those interested in true health would have any interest in promoting.