Debunking the “Corona Conspiracy Debunkers”. By a Top British Biomedical Scientist

In response to my article published by the Expose in December last year (Virology’s Voodoo Scientism Is Not Real Science) somebody posted an article by Frank Visser in response:

“WHY VIRUSES ARE NOT EXOSOMES The Corona Conspiracy FRANK VISSER”

This article is a great example of the kind of sophistry deployed by intellectually dishonest “debunkers” in a pathetic attempt to “debunk” the truth. If I were given an opportunity to respond to it properly this is how I would respond…

Visser says:

“Real scientists publish their views in scientific journals, not through YouTube videos or obscure online radio shows.”

I say:

Many scientific journals have been captured by corporate interests and often will not publish papers that challenge or conflict with those corporate interests. Conversely, they will publish poor quality and fraudulent research that supports corporate interests. Visser then goes on to post YouTube videos of “real scientists” that he agrees with to prove his point. Apparently, YouTube videos are good enough for him but when used to express opinions he doesnt agree with they can’t be trusted.

Visser says:

“Searching in Google for any other relevant attempts to debunk Kaufman’s ideas about the SARS-CoV-2 virus…”

I say:

Google is known to be engaging in censorship of material that challenges the official COVID-19 narrative so does not provide a balanced view. If people are given opposing sides of an argument, then they can make their own minds up about an issue. Google doesn’t allow that. It’s better to use a search engine that doesn’t engage in censorship and doesn’t infantilise its users. I use DuckDuckGo NOT Google.

Visser says:

“Jan Lötvall is an expert on exosomes, as his Wikipedia page tells us”

Wikipedia has become a propaganda tool used to advance the corporate globalist agenda. It does not provide a balanced unbiased view as one of its co-founders recently made clear.

Frank Visser joins forces with Ken Witwer and Jan Lötvall to continue with the “debunking”…

They say:

“The coronavirus is in a very specific sense an “exosome”, but be careful, it has a very different biogenesis. Viruses and exosomes are both similar and different in various aspects (content, size, origin, behaviour, healthy/unhealthy). Coronaviruses are everywhere but some varieties unfortunately can cause significant mortality. The virion (virus particle) is produced under tightly controlled conditions of protein incorporation. Some viruses essentially are using the exosome pathway, and so it is with this coronavirus.”

I say:

Where are the experiments to prove that coronaviruses are different to exosomes? Conjecture about differences in size and content are not enough. Coronaviruses and exosomes are identical in size, structure and content. Virologists have been challenged to properly purify the coronavirus and show the existence of the entire genome they claim it contains. The genome has been pieced together from a multi-species fragment soup using guesswork and self-referential techniques. It is an in-silico genome which means it is a computer construct that has not been proven to exist in its entirety in the real world.

Where is the evidence for coronaviruses causing significant mortality? Monkeys infected with “SARS-CoV2” didn’t die or even become seriously ill in at least three separate studies. Most were asymptomatic. Some developed mild common cold symptoms that only lasted a few days. None developed a fever. The virus could not be detected in the bloodstream and didn’t spread to internal organs.

They say:

“Why somebody would believe [that the virus doesn’t exist or is harmless] in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence is unclear.”

I say:

Where is the overwhelming scientific evidence?

They say:

“We don’t confirm the presence of viruses by looking at them through a microscope (but by qPCR), so it doesn’t matter how closely their appearance resembles exosomes.”

I say:

At best qPCR is a surrogate test for a whole “virus” particle because it only detects a small piece of genetic sequence. At worst (as is the case with the Drosten SARS-CoV-2 PCR)it generates artefactual false-positive results that have nothing to do with the presence of a whole “virus” or a whole “viral genome”. The gold standard test to detect the presence of a whole “virus” is cell culture. The WHO instructed diagnostic labs not to use cell culture but to use the completely inaccurate qPCR instead for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The primers used in this qPCR test interact with human and microbial genetic sequences that would be expected to be present in many if not all respiratory specimens and swabs from healthy and sick people alike.

Both diagnostic and research labs do take EM (Electron Microscopy) pictures to confirm the presence of “viruses”. The pictures of alleged SARS-CoV-2 vary widely in size and morphology and are most likely different types of extracellular vesicle (exosomes) rather than a virus which are supposed to be uniform in size and morphology.

They say:

“When viruses were discovered Koch’s postulates were revised to account for the [specific nature of the] virus.”

I say:

What “specific nature” of “viruses” requires that Koch’s postulates need to be revised? Where is the proof of disease causation according to Rivers postulates and Bradford Hills criteria if Koch’s postulates are not to your liking for unspecified reasons?

They say:

“Even though the corona virus is hijacking the exosome manufacturing process, it is still a fundamentally different beast.”

I say:

What experiments can be done to distinguish between these “fundamentally different beasts”? Why haven’t these experiments been done? There are large cash prizes available for virologists if they do these experiments properly. So far there have been no takers. That is highly telling.

Visser says:

“Edwin van der Pol, Assistant Professor Biomedical Engineering & Physics at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, wrote his PhD on “Detection of extracellular vesicles: size does matter” (University of Amsterdam, 2015) and is co-author of 41 publications on exosomes. He is interested in the detection of exosomes, microvesicles, and other extracellular vesicles as possible biomarkers for disease. He sent me the following information, which highlights the salient differences between viruses and exosomes, and which I reproduce below with his permission:”

“Since consensus has not yet emerged on specific markers of EV subtypes, such as endosome- origin “exosomes” and plasma membrane-derived “ectosomes” (microparticles/microvesicles) assigning an EV to a particular biogenesis pathway remains extraordinarily difficult unless e.g. the EV is caught in the act of release by live imaging techniques.”

I say:

The “experts” don’t seem to be very sure about what they are studying, can’t even agree amongst themselves, and find it all extraordinarily difficult!

Van Der Pol says:

“EVs including exosomes have a broad size distribution. As far as I know, most viruses have a narrow size distribution. We therefore sometimes even use viruses as a reference material.”

I say:

EVs have a broad size distribution and “viruses” do fall within this range so size alone can’t distinguish between the two. Using the term “as far as I know” doesnt instill confidence about his knowledge of viruses. SARS-CoV-2 has a wide size distribution according to the photographs published by the “experts”. Simply conceptualising viruses as different from exosomes and using them as a reference material proves nothing.

Van Der Pol says:

“I suppose most viruses do not suffer from the evaporation of water, as viruses are more dense in proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids.”

I say:

Again using the term “I suppose” with regards to viruses reveals a mindset that they are not his area of study. EVs do differ in protein, lipid and nucleic acid composition and it is entirely feasible that “viruses” are a specific type of EV.

Van Der Pol says:

“Once a virus transports itself in the blood circulation, it’s for the body and immune system “fully an exosome”.”

I say:

So how is it possible to distinguish between the two then?

Visser says:

“Exosomes are membrane enclosed structures that are released into the extra-cellular space of various cell types.”

I say:

Enveloped “viruses” also fit this description exactly.

Visser says:

“Once released from the cell circulating microvesicles can be detected in a variety of body fluids.”

I say:

These circulating microvesicles are indistinguishable from “viruses” according to the expert cited by Visser.

Visser says:

“Circulating microvesicles can transfer their content to other cells, in support of various biological processes.”

I say:

“Viruses” also transfer their content to other cells in support of various biological processes. The microbiomes of healthy people contain countless different types of “viruses”.

Visser says:

“Circulating microvesicles can contain biomarkers to diagnose the presence of a disease.”

I say:

“Viruses” also contain protein and nucleic acid biomarkers used by diagnostic labs to diagnose the presence of a disease.

Visser says:

“Circulating microvesicles can contain cell material (RNA, proteins) from their cell of origin.”

I say:

So can “viruses”.

Visser says:

“Hopefully it has become clear that disinformation about these scientific topics can only be dispelled by allowing ourselves to be educated by real science.”

I say:

None of the “real science” presented by Visser et al has been able to disentangle extracellular vesicles, exosomes, and “viruses”.

Visser says:

“Self-appointed exosome specialists…who neglect to mention sophisticated disciplines such as bioinformatics and genomics, are irresponsible and should be refuted.”

I say:

Frank Visser is a psychologist and self-appointed exosome specialist himself. Why are “viral genomes” constructed from a complex soup of genetic material from numerous sources (human, bacterial, fungal) and not from purified virus particles? Bioinformatic computer programs and algorithms are self-referential and based on circular reasoning. Referring to previous artificially constructed in-silico genomes does not validate a newer artificially constructed in-silico genome.

I don’t neglect to mention bioinformatics and genomics and have first-hand experience of both. Just because they are “sophisticated” doesn’t mean that they are appropriately applied in an honest and truly scientific way. In the construction of “virus genomes,” these techniques are abused. To claim otherwise is irresponsible and should be refuted.