Murder Charges, Viruses & The Burden of Proof

Añadido: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]So, this was a comment on one of my recent posts discussing the lack of evidence for the existence and pathogenicity of viruses. I'm going to read it real quick. It's such an incorrect line of thought that the only burden of proof lies on the individual making the positive claim. If you assert that viruses aren't real, you're also making a positive claim. In logic and debate, a positive claim or affirmative claim and any statement that asserts something to be a fact about the world regardless of whether the statement is true or false. Therefore, Alex Zach, by making such a claim, you are now tasked with proving a negative. I say ghosts are real, you say they are not. For me to believe you, you need to prove me wrong because you've made the claim. And everything that I'm about to share here is actually a perfect response to this additional comment which says, "He will say watch my 5-hour webinar and won't be there." By the way, it is in the 5-hour webinar everything that I'm about to say here. So, first off, I'm very careful about how I speak about this and I consistently say viruses have never been demonstrated to exist or cause disease.

[00:01:02]Have I maybe said in the past that viruses don't exist? Sure. But overwhelmingly I say viruses have never been demonstrated to exist or cause disease cuz what I'm doing in that is logically consistent and it is consistent with the maximum of law that burden of proof lies on the individual or the organization bringing forth the positive claim. That positive claim is viruses exist and cause illness or name a specific virus, SARS-CoV-2 exists and causes COVID-19. And because we're dealing with a scientific claim, the standard to assess whether that claim has been met is the scientific method.

[00:01:34]And ironically, in my webinar, I go into all the details regarding how virology fails to meet the basic basic requirements of the scientific method.

[00:01:43]Which means we're pointing to that positive claim and saying there's not sufficient evidence for that positive claim. He then goes on to say, "If you refute the claim, then you need to provide evidence to the contrary." Yada yada yada. And then he brings up an example. "If you were being brought up on murder charges, you would find ways to ensure the globe didn't fit. I would say maybe probably meant that the claim didn't fit. The murder weapon wasn't yours, that you weren't there at the time of the crime, etc., etc., etc. And he's absolutely right. If you're brought up on murder charges, you would find every way that you can to falsify that cause and effect claim, right? So, first off, I want to reiterate again, the burden of proof lies on the individual or organization making the positive claim. I don't have to provide counter evidence or provide any falsification of that positive claim. It is on you who is making the positive claim to show direct evidence for that positive claim. With that being said, we have plenty of ways to falsify the idea that viruses exist and cause illness, and we cover all that in the 5-hour webinar that that lady referred to.

[00:02:47]Several people, including virologists, by the way, have demonstrated that you can achieve the same cytopathic effects in cell culture that virologists claim is foundational evidence for the existence and pathogenicity of viruses without any human or animal sputum sample present, meaning no possible source of any virus present. The exact same thing that they refer to as foundational evidence for the existence and pathogenicity of viruses can be achieved without any possible sample of a virus present, which falsifies the foundational evidence for virology. We also have countless examples of electron micrograph images, whether it's scanning electron microscopy or transmission electron microscopy or another type of electron microscopy, where they're finding particles that are morphologically indistinguishable from what virologists refer to as distinct viruses, but cannot possibly be viral.

[00:03:33]So, we've also falsified that as well.

[00:03:35]Not only that, but Christine Massey has submitted over 220 Freedom of Information requests to various government health institutions across the world, including the US CDC and the World Health Organization, asking for direct evidence of a virus coming directly from the fluids of a sick person without being first combined with other sources of genetic material, like in the cell culture isolation technique that I referred to earlier. And in every single Freedom of Information request they come back with they have no records pertaining to her request. We also have court cases that have been won pertaining to this in Germany. We also have countless examples of them failing to demonstrate the idea that healthy people become sick when exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids. That's also covered in the webinar. We have so many other things that clearly falsify this idea that viruses exist and cause illness and can be transmitted from one person to the other or that healthy people become sick when exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids, which is a separate idea from two or more people getting sick in the same space with similar symptoms. And it's really ironic when people say, "Oh, he'll just refer to the 5-hour webinar." Yeah, I will refer to the 5-hour webinar where we cover all of this in great detail. Not only the 5-hour webinar, the 108-hour educational series that I produced in 2023 called The End of COVID, where we go into over 28 hours worth of detail related to this exact topic, and then countless other podcast episodes that I've done. And it's not just me saying this. We have Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andy Kaufman, Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey, Dr. Amanda Volmer, Dr. Jordan Grant, Dr. Bear Landow, Adam and Josh Bigelson, Danny Roytis who wrote the book Can You Catch a Cold, which is fantastic by the way, highly recommend everyone read it, Don Lester, David Parker, Jacob Diaz, Liam Dalton. There are so many other names that I'm forgetting. And there are so many credentialed experts saying this. Dr. Stefan Lanka who's a virologist. So, if you still appeal to authority and want a credentialed expert saying this rather than me, go read any of their books. Go listen to my podcast episodes with them. Go look at the papers that they published. Go read Dr. Mark Bailey's A Farewell to Virology, which is a deep scientific breakdown on the problems of this. Go read any of the books that I recommend in my reading list. If you comment terrain below this, you'll be able to find those that reading list. I'll send it to you. The point is there are countless ways to falsify the idea that viruses exist and cause illness or that two or more people become sick in the same space by being exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids.

[00:05:58]And ultimately, the burden of proof lies on the individuals making that claim. We don't even have to falsify it. But since he brought up the murder example, here's an analogy that I use in the webinar, ironically again.

[00:06:10]Imagine that Chuck is being brought up on murder charges for killing Jim in Cleveland, Ohio on February of 2024. And they have a bunch of CCTV footage of someone that looks just like Chuck leaving his apartment complex wearing a hoodie that Chuck typically wears, driving to a gas station. There's CCTV footage at a gas station someone getting out of a truck that looks just like Chuck's truck and shooting this guy at point-blank range. And Chuck is being brought up on the murder charges and this is the evidence that's being brought forth. And then Chuck shows, "Actually, no. I was in Jamaica at that exact time. I have the plane receipts. I did an Instagram live that exact day in Jamaica. I have CCTV footage at the hotel in Jamaica. I have multiple people that took photos with me there. I have thoroughly falsified the idea that I am the cause of this murder."

[00:06:55]That's what's happening with virology and what's happening is when people can't figure out the exact reason that Sally got sick right after Jim, of which we have plenty of other possible explanations by the way. But if someone can't If you can't show someone exactly why Sally got sick right after Jim or you got sick right after that person, even though you show them all of this all of the ways to falsify the idea that healthy people become sick when exposed to sick people or bodily fluids or that viruses exist and cause illness or that bacteria are pathogenic entities or that fungi is pathogenic. You show all ways to falsify that and you show that they haven't met the burden of proof for their claims, people are like, "Well, I see that you falsified this. But until you can show me exactly what did cause me to get sick or cause Sally to get sick right after Jim, I'm just going to stick with this as because it's the best fit model. Chuck, even though you've thoroughly falsified the idea that you're the cause of this guy's murder, because you're the best fit model and we have don't have another guy, we don't have another suspect, we're just going to stick with you as the murderer.

[00:07:56]Isn't that ridiculous? Cuz that's what's happening.

[00:07:59]So, with that being said, if you would like to watch the 5-hour webinar, comment email below and we'll send you the free webinar after you sign up for our email list. That's all it takes.

[00:08:09]It's a free webinar going into all these details. And if you want an even deeper dive, comment terrain below. I'll send you my terrain reading list. I will send you the how to access the End of COVID, the 108-hour educational series that I produced and some other resources as well.