ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies

Written by Mike Stone on September 12, 2024. Posted in Current News

The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers

The field of virology is considered a cornerstone of modern medicine, and the widespread acceptance of “viruses” as causal factors in disease is driving the rise of a powerful pharmaceutical industry, one that has profitted greatly from the production of countless vaccines and various medications to combat these invisible “pathogenic” entities.

Despite employing every available method to control these outbreaks, the incidences of emerging and re-emerging “viral” diseases are continually increasing every year.

Many excuses have been given as to why these “protective” measures are failing to combat and reduce “infectious” disease including globalization, urbanization, environmental changes, population growth, socioeconomic factors, “antiviral” resistance (i.e. medication failure), and my personal favorite, “viral mutation and evolution.”

While it should be evident that injecting and consuming toxic substances to fight fictional entities cannot lead to lasting health, there is a deeper reason for why these measures continue to fail.

Beneath the surface of its seemingly rigorous methodologies, virology rests on a foundation built upon flawed logic. At the core of virological research lies the assumption of an invisible pathogenic entity, with the “gold standard” cell culture experiment frequently portrayed as conclusive evidence of “viral” existence and pathogenicity.

Yet, when one examines the methods closely, this experiment at the very heart of the field is fraught with logical fallacies that permeate deep into the core of virology—namely begging the question, affirming the consequent, and the false cause fallacy.

Interestingly, I have found that when confronting defenders of virology with criticisms of the field’s inherently fallacious logic, they often resort to the same flawed reasoning embedded within its foundational experiments.

This creates an inadvertent perpetuation of the very fallacies that undermine both the field and their position, resulting in a cyclical pattern of flawed reasoning. When the defenders of virology engage in this kind of circular reasoning, they are failing to address the fundamental flaws within the methodology while reinforcing the shaky foundation upon which the entire field rests.

In other words, their defense of virology is constructed with the same logical errors that plague the experimental methods used by virologists, thus making any attempt to justify the field’s conclusions inherently flawed.

Frustratingly, those who defend virology often appear oblivious to their engagement in logically fallacious reasoning. This may stem from an educational system that prioritizes memorization and obedience over critical thinking and logic, or perhaps from a lifetime of indoctrination into a flawed paradigm of disease and healthcare.

Whatever the cause, many seem confused about what logical fallacies are and how the flawed reasoning infiltrates their thinking and argumentation. In order to help clear up this confusion, this article will explore the nature of logical fallacies and their relevance to virology.

While it is beyond the scope of this article to address every fallacy, the focus will be on the three aforementioned fallacies that are deeply embedded within the very fabric of virology and its methodology.

To illustrate how deeply ingrained flawed reasoning can negatively impact those who pride themselves on logical thinking, we will examine a recent example that demonstrates how easily defenders of virology can fall into the logical fallacies inherent within a field built upon such errors.

What are Logical Fallacies?

Logical fallacies are common, everyday errors in reasoning or judgment. We all fall victim to this type of flawed reasoning on a regular basis, and there are many ways in which it can occur.

These fallacies are illusions of rational thought that can trick both parties into believing a valid point is being made when it is not. When fallacies are used in a debate intended to establish a rational position, they severely undermine the logic of the argument.

This is because fallacies, whether intentional or not, often manifest as illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points that lack critical evidence to support the claims being made. Therefore, it is crucial to be aware of the various ways in which we might engage in these errors to avoid falling prey to illogical thinking and irrational arguments.

In virology, the very foundational premises of the entire field are steeped in logically fallacious thinking, and these errors are infused within both the experiments and the interpretations of their results.

Like the imaginary “viruses” that are supposed to be detected, this flawed reasoning spreads from one person to another, whether they are conducting research or defending the field from criticism.

To stamp out this fallacy “virus” that has “infected” the minds of those who might otherwise think rationally, let’s examine what I consider to be the three core fallacies that hold together this pseudoscientific discipline in order to gain a clearer perspective.

Begging the Question

The begging the question fallacy is fundamental to the problems relating to virology.

In short, this fallacy occurs when “the argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.”

Regarding virology, researchers assume the existence of a pathogenic “virus,” and they then attribute certain phenomena to the invisible entity as proof that it exists. This results in circular reasoning that fails to provide independent evidence for the entity’s existence; instead, it presupposes the very thing it aims to establish.

This is the core flaw in virology as a scientific discipline. The very entity assumed as the cause of an effect is never directly proven to exist before any experiments aimed at determining causality are conducted.

It is essential and imperative that the cause (the assumed “viral” particles) is shown to exist before the effect. This principle, known as time order, is the first of four necessary conditions that must be met in order to demonstrate a causal relationship between two variables.

To establish a causal relationship between two variables, you must establish that four conditions exist:

1)  time order:  the cause must exist before the effect;

2)  co-variation:  a change in the cause produces a change in the effect;

3)  rationale:  there must be a reasonable explanation of why they are related;

4)  non-spuriousness:  no other (rival) cause for the effect can be found.

A central goal of scientific research is to demonstrate that the independent variable (the presumed cause) influences the dependent variable (the observed effect). To test any hypothesis suggesting a causal relationship, the independent variable must be present from the start of the experiment.

It must be varied and manipulated during the experiment in order to observe its impact on the dependent variable. This sequence is not just a procedural necessity but a demand of logic.

“In order for the independent variable to cause the dependent variable, logic dictates that the independent variable must occur first in time; in short, the cause must come before the effect.”

The core issue for virology is that the field has an independent variable problem, as the “virus” has never been directly observed in nature. The “virus” concept was conceived of in the late 1800s to account for the inability to fulfill Koch’s Postulates in every case of disease.

Subsequent experiments that assumed the presence of the “virus” and attributed effects to this unobservable entity began by begging the question of its existence, along with the effects it purportedly causes.

In other words, the phenomena created in labs were attributed to the presence of the “virus” through a fallacious cycle of circular reasoning—one that virology has yet to break free from.

For over 60 years, virologists struggled to convincingly demonstrate that they were working with actual pathogenic “viruses” in their experiments. In fact, there wasn’t even consensus on what a “virus” was until 1957.

However, in 1954, virologist John Franklin Enders, while supposedly working with the measles “virus,” introduced an illogical experimental setup that allowed researchers to claim that they were working with the entities that they believed were present in the fluids of sick patients.

This was the cell culture experiment, which began with the assumption that the unseen “viruses” were already present within a sick patient’s fluids. When these fluids were added to a Petri dish containing kidney cells from African green monkeys, along with various chemicals and foreign additives, Enders observed what he referred to as the cytopathogenic effect (CPE).

This effect was then attributed to “viruses” and used as evidence that these invisible entities are present within the sample, thus completing the illogical circular loop where the effect was taken as proof of the cause.

This experimental method was fundamentally flawed, as it was based on the fallacy of begging the question. This basic illogical premise is ingrained in all virology research that has proceeded afterwards.

Affirming the Consequent

A second fallacy embedded in the methods of virology is known as affirming the consequent. This fallacy involves the use of a conditional statement, typically written as an “if-then” sentence, which expresses a link between the antecedent (the part after the “if”) and the consequent (the part after the “then”).

It’s important to note that conditional statements do not assert the truth of either the antecedent or the consequent—they only claim that if the antecedent is true, then the consequent must also be true.

To commit this fallacy, one would mistakenly claim that the presence of the consequent confirms the truth of the antecedent. This fallacy can be expressed as follows:

• If A, then B.
• B.
• Therefore, A.

An easy example of an affirming the consequent fallacy would look something like this:

• If I eat 25 apples at once, I will get a stomachache.
• I have a stomachache.
• Therefore, I ate 25 apples at once.

This reasoning is obviously fallacious because there could be many reasons for having a stomachache that do not involve eating 25 apples at once. A stomachache is not proof that someone ate 25 apples.

Here’s another simple example:

• If it rained outside, the street will be wet.
• The street is wet.
• Therefore, it rained outside.

Once again, this reasoning is fallacious because the street could be wet for reasons that don’t involve rain. Someone could have sprayed a hose, a fire hydrant might have burst, or a street cleaner could have passed through the neighborhood.

Just because the street is wet doesn’t automatically mean it rained. Therefore, the conclusion does not confirm the truth of the premise, making the reasoning fallacious.

In the cell culture experiment, this fallacy is carried out in a similar fashion. Virologists assume that the observation of CPE in their “infected” cultures is evidence that a “virus” is present.

• If a “virus” is present in the sample, there will be CPE in the culture.
• There is CPE.
• Therefore, there is a “virus” present in the sample.

This is fallacious for several reasons, the most important being that there must be proof of the “virus’s” existence before observing CPE. The effect (the consequent) cannot be used to claim the existence of the cause (the antecedent).

As with the other examples provided, there are many potential reasons why virologists might observe CPE in their “infected” cultures, which we will explore next.

False Cause

The false cause fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly assumes, without proof, that a causal relationship exists between two variables or events. Anytime someone claims that “A causes B” without sufficient reason and evidence to believe that B is truly caused by A, this fallacy is in play.

This flawed reasoning is often summed up by the phrase, “correlation does not equal causation.” Just because one event follows another, or even if events occur simultaneously, does not mean that they are causally related.

Here are some excellent examples of this fallacy in action:

1. We never had a problem with this elevator until you moved into the building.
2. They had a very successful business. Then they decided to adopt a child, and the business went immediately into the red.
3. Please read this message then forward it. Three people who received and forwarded this message received thousands of dollars each, but Ms. Elma Smith failed to forward this message and she suffered a lengthy problem with an ingrown toenail. Forward this to five people right away, if you know what is good for you.
4. When the NFC wins the Super Bowl, the Stock Market usually has a good year. I hope the NFC wins next year because my portfolio is taking a beating.
5. I’m sure that Marilyn Manson’s music had something to do with those murders. They found Manson CD’s in one of the murderer’s private collection.

In these cases, people are assuming a connection between two events simply because they occurred one after the other or closely together in time. This same flawed reasoning is evident in the cell culture experiments performed by virologists.

They assume that adding unpurified lung fluid or nasal mucus from a sick patient to a culture of monkey kidney cells, followed by the observation of CPE, implies that a “virus” was present in the sample and ultimately caused the CPE.

This reasoning ties back to the fallacy of begging the question regarding the existence of the “virus” in the first place, as well as affirming the consequent by using the effect (CPE) as proof of the supposed cause (the “virus”).

It’s a tangled web of circular reasoning, with no direct proof of any entity described as a pathogenic “virus” before any experiments or observations take place.

This is taken from a very long document. Read the rest here substack.com

Header image: National Foundation For Infectious Diseases

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.