The partial truth movement
"Virology is bullshit" - Stefano Scoglio
So, Kirsch and Mercola and others have decided on a concerted push back against the idea that there is no virus in circulation. This means that increasing numbers of people are grasping the full significance of the grand non-sequitur that is the viral “isolation” paradigm, the cornerstone of the teetering virology edifice. And it’s starting to irritate one circle of the resistance, who are seeing it posted all over their latest data analyses.
I can see a host of reasons why this could be annoying, including undermining commercial interests, offending good friends (I take no pleasure at all in seeing Judy Mikovits, an admirable person in many ways, implode like that, but it’s an excellent illustration of what’s at stake for those in denial: “I guess I’m just an idiot who doesn’t know what I’m talking about!”) or making the message even more unpalatable for an effort that has enough trouble as it is with getting people interested.
One of the joys of this moment is seeing the public take back control over what is believed to be true from self-appointed experts and leaders. No more outsourcing of critical thinking, as one wise old owl said to me. The argument stands on its own and all the wailing isn’t going to stop it. The response - gnashing of teeth, fits of anger, appeals to authority, gaslighting, evasion (witness Hammond’s non-responses here), misrepresentation, attempts to dazzle with jargon and, frankly, bullying - comes across as pretty authoritarian, which suggests an exceptionally poor reading of the room. When you start acting this janky, you’re going to get called out.
The note to Christine Massey, demanding a five-hour team multi-millionaire versus time-strapped lone researcher debate, was worthy of any grandstanding corporate bully. Marshalling these resources to play the FDA and CDC at their own game is one thing. Directing it at one scientist/activist is minacious and petty and very much of the same mode of behaviour as those agencies.
In any case, the argument only requires ten minutes to understand and it’s been explained many times over. Verify at your leisure.
Trying to force acceptance of a particular point of view on what is now an insatiably curious, distrustful and anti-authoritarian public in a bid to get them to line up behind the “truth movement” (Mercola’s description) like children to their piper, is foolish. When we talk about citizen science, I think the public has something different in mind to what this self-appointed cluster of gatekeepers are offering. Few things are more delightful than an uppity public chatting back in fruity language to the patrician classes.
Kaufman responded in his careful way to the critique of Hammond et al. Stefano Scoglio admitted in an interview with Cowan and Kaufman that he has been hesitant about bringing this argument forward in public, even though he agrees. He says (at the 52 minute mark) that he typically acknowledges that there is no virus but then moves quickly on to discuss the topic from the point of view that there is one, “for the possibility of having an impact at the political level.” I sympathise, as do the other two, but “virology is bullshit” nonetheless, as Scoglio remarks.
We’ve all had more than enough bullshit and propping up the virus fraud isn’t going to end well for these folks.