Addressing 'No-Virus' Member, Proton Magic & Co

Kevin Johnson, on March 15, 2024, sent Proton Magic the following message:

Hey PM, this Jeff Green guy has had a bone to pick with the no-virus crowd for a while now and here is his latest missive that you might find interesting:

https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/the-no-virus-scam

I really don’t know if he has much of an influence in the world of Virology but I do know Christine Massey and a few others have engaged with him a time or two. He asserts that viruses exist but serve to only heal the body from diseases instead of causing them. Anyway, take it FWIW.

Proton Magic replies, March 15, 2024, with the following:

He’s not popular and seems to be quite illogical. Dealing with him seems oppressive and might give him unnecessary visibility but thanks for writing to me Kevin.

---

Let us now find out who has logic, and who does not.

I will be quoting from one of Proton Magic’s articles, titled “The Virus Ruse”, and will be addressing each point, one-by-one.

---

Addressing Point 1

Proton Magic states:

Virus Finding 101:

Coronavirus, or any virus, defined as a replication competent intracellular parasite with a genome and protein coat has never been found, so using the word “virus” related to a suspected or proposed object or process does not fit with the definition.

To find a virus you must first ultracentrifuge (spin) a sample taken from an ill patient looking for the 100nm size band in a gradient that separates particles based on density. The 100nm size is based on reports that most viruses are in that size range, but since virus particles have never actually been found there is no physical proof of a virus size. Non-virus objects that do exist like exosomes and phages are also around in this size-range. Next, you confirm the sample is nearly purified on Electron Microscopy so you know you only have one type of object. Then you go back the centrifuge and characterize the purified sample: genome, protein structure, infectivity and pathogenicity in another host, reisolate, purify, and characterize to confirm similarity to the original.

The average ‘No-Virus’ member has it easy. When confronted with the numerous scientific facts that ‘No-Virus' must contend with, they resort to dismissing the evidence altogether, conveniently ignoring its existence. By doing so, they bypass the need to address the many scientific complexities of any given topic.

Centrifugation does not need to be used to find a virus. PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) and other molecular methods are commonly employed to identify and analyze viruses in crude samples. PCR specifically allows for the amplification of viral genetic material, enabling the detection and identification of viral sequences, thus showing the existence of viral replication.

The 100nm size is based on reports that most viruses are in that size range, but since virus particles have never actually been found there is no physical proof of a virus size.

Virus sizes range from 17 to 600 nm (nanometers), not merely 100 nm. The size of most common viruses typically falls within a range of about 20 to 300 nm.

Viruses have been found and proven. Even in the absence of direct visual observation, we can deduce the size of viruses by understanding the principles of light and its wavelength. The wavelength of light provides us with a limit on the size of objects that can be resolved. Given that most viruses are smaller than the wavelength of visible light, typically below 300 nm, we can confidently infer their size. This inference allows one to gain an understanding of virus dimensions even before they are directly visualized.
Using techniques such as electron microscopy and other specialized imaging methods, scientists can directly visualize and measure the size of viruses. However, even before these visualization techniques were available, the principles of light and the limitations imposed by its wavelength allowed scientists to deduce that viruses must be smaller than the wavelength of visible light.

Non-virus objects that do exist like exosomes and phages are also around in this size-range.

It appears that Proton Magic is regurgitating the lie that was made by Cowan and Stefan Lanka that claims bacteriophages are not viruses. But it is easily proven that bacteriophages are indeed viruses.

As one example, below is a photo comparison between phages and adenoviruses, illustrating their similarities in capsid structure. Phages originate from prokaryotic cells, while adenoviruses come from eukaryotic cells. Despite their cellular origins, both phages and adenoviruses exhibit the same capsid structure. This observation shows that phages share structural similarities with the objects Photon Magic refers to as "non-virus objects", supporting that these objects are indeed viral in nature.

Bacteriophage

Adenovirus

Furthermore, viruses possess clearly defined morphological characteristics, allowing the majority—especially unenveloped varieties—to be readily distinguished from other particulate, or entities like exosomes.

The statement by Proton Magic is false.

Proton Magic goes on to state:

The above has never been done (probably because a particle fitting the definition of a virus has never been found), so that viruses are just guesswork and models (and sometimes fraud) based on some symptoms and lab tests that can be “positive” due to many things. Since a virus hasn’t been found in >100 years of looking we can say that it doesn’t seem likely that viruses exist.

This statement by Proton Magic is unequivocally false. Hundreds of thousands of viruses have been discovered, and thousands of those have been characterized, verified, and studied through all forms of microscopy and other technologies. All this data is available for free for everyone in the protein databank, and their structures can be reconstructed, and their RNA and DNA can be examined and verified.

---

Addressing Point 2

Proton Magic goes on to state:

Looking for viruses based on antigens or antibodies is faulty because an original particle to base these on has never been found. Antibodies and immune cells are non-specific and can react to many things, and antigens are not specific to one particular biologic material.

False. The presence of specific antibodies can indicate a viral infection. When the immune system detects a viral infection, it produces antibodies that are specifically designed to recognize and bind to the antigens presented by the virus.

• Antibodies are proteins that bind to and neutralize the virus, helping to regulate viral infection.

• Antigens are substances, such as viral proteins or other foreign molecules, that stimulate the immune system and elicit an immune response.

How do we know those antigens are from the virus and not something else?

• Antigen Identification - Scientists isolate and identify viral antigens by studying specific genetic material or proteins, enabling the development of tests that target unique viral components.

• Control Samples - Control samples, including known viral samples or samples from healthy individuals (negative controls), are used as references. They help ensure the accuracy of the results by allowing comparison with the test sample, identifying and accounting for any non-specific reactions.

---

Addressing Point 3

Electron microscopy photos of mixed patient samples or cell cultures show images (shadows) of stained & dead objects of unknown provenance.  This does not say what these objects really are or what they do (you can’t take shadows of objects out from the microscope and characterize them). Similar kinds of objects can be found whether you look at sick or healthy patient samples or even non-human cell cultures with or without putting in patient samples. It should be clear that just pointing arrows at an object in an EM image and calling it a virus doesn’t make it a virus. In that line, the cytopathic effect that you can see in a cell culture is due to starving the cultures and putting in antibiotics and is seen whether a patient sample is put in the culture or not. That’s why control samples without patient sample are never done.

The claim that electron microscopy photos of mixed patient samples or cell cultures only show images of stained and dead objects of unknown origin is false.

Electron microscopy allows scientists to observe the distinct features and structural components of viruses, such as capsids or envelopes, which can help identify and characterize them. By comparing these observed structures with known viral structures, researchers can make informed conclusions about the nature of the objects.

Additionally, the claim that similar objects can be found in both sick and healthy patient samples or non-human cell cultures is misleading. Viruses often exhibit specific characteristics or structures that differentiate them from other cellular or non-viral components.

The micrographs I showed above exhibit clear mathematical structures that could not be confused for shadows or other artifacts.

Proton Magic states:

In that line, the cytopathic effect that you can see in a cell culture is due to starving the cultures and putting in antibiotics and is seen whether a patient sample is put in the culture or not. That’s why control samples without patient sample are never done.

Regarding the cytopathic effect observed in cell cultures, it is not solely due to starving the cultures or adding antibiotics. Viral infections can lead to characteristic changes in cell morphology, cellular damage, or cell death, collectively known as cytopathic effects. These effects are specific to viral infections and can be distinguished from other causes of cellular damage. This statement is a routinely used falsehood perpetrated by ‘No-Virus’ members.

That’s why control samples without patient sample are never done.

Lastly, control samples without patient samples are used in scientific research and diagnostic testing. These controls help establish baselines for comparison, ensuring the accuracy and specificity of the test results. To claim researchers are not using control in their studies is dishonest at best.

Note: In many scientific studies, controls used to mimic or simulate the conditions of an infection without the presence of the actual virus are often referred to as "mock infections."

These claims by Proton Magic are, once again, false.

---

Addressing Point 4

The genomes that are said to be found are strings of letters assembled by software programs from unpurified mixed samples taken from ill persons. A few sample letters are “found” by matching them to short letter sequences on probes called “primers”, and these matches are then input to a computer. The computer puts together a larger sequence that becomes a guesswork model of assembled letters they “call” a genome but it is not a biologic object proven to exist (I can say these assemblies describe my grandpa Harry, my grandma Hazel, or Larry the cockroach on my kitchen floor if I want). This is all why PCR can’t test for a virus-because there is no original to base it on (the PCR primers are “hypothetical” as you can see here). Software can print-out any virus model that it is programmed to find (that’s not an actual biologic object is it?). Software can also be programmed to make these letter streams evolve in a software-made phylogeny as researchers claim to find new viruses, even though no biologic object meeting the virus definition have ever been found.

Genomic sequences are not simply assembled by software programs from unpurified mixed samples. The process involves multiple steps, including sample preparation, DNA extraction, sequencing using various techniques (such as PCR or next-generation sequencing), and data analysis. Rigorous protocols are followed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the sequencing results.

Primers used in PCR are not arbitrary or "hypothetical." They are designed based on known sequences of specific regions of the target virus's genome. These primers are carefully selected to specifically amplify the target viral sequences, ensuring the specificity of the test.

Software programs aid in conducting analysis, the results are based on the actual genetic information obtained from viruses and other organisms. Software programs used in virus modeling do not simply “print-out” any virus model they are programmed to find. Virus modeling involves complex computational algorithms and simulations based on existing knowledge of viral structure, genetics, and replication mechanisms.

This is all why PCR can’t test for a virus-because there is no original to base it on.

In PCR-based viral testing, primers are designed based on known viral sequences obtained from previous research or sequence databases.

Before the advent of modern computational software, models and simulations were often done manually by hand. These could still be done today, if one wanted to do so. In the past, scientists and researchers would perform calculations, draw diagrams, and create physical models to represent and study viruses. These manual approaches were time-consuming, labor-intensive, and limited in their complexity and scale.

However, as technology advanced, computational software and tools were developed to automate and enhance modeling and simulation processes. Thus, software does the work that took much effort by humans to do manually by hand. The results, however, are the same.
These software programs allow for faster and more accurate calculations, advanced visualization capabilities, and the ability to handle complex mathematical equations and simulations.

Software can also be programmed to make these letter streams evolve in a software-made phylogeny as researchers claim to find new viruses, even though no biologic object meeting the virus definition have ever been found.

The virus models assembled by software can be confirmed by other researchers across the world. And they can be confirmed repeatedly and predictably. While it is possible to input a name or sequence into a DNA program or software tool and obtain a string of DNA letters that correspond to that input, this is not the process used to produce virus models.

Virus models are not generated by simply inputting names or sequences into a DNA program. Instead, virus models are constructed based on real genetic data obtained from biological samples. This data is typically acquired through techniques such as genome sequencing, where the actual genetic material of the virus is analyzed and characterized.

Other researchers should be able to obtain similar results when analyzing the same biological samples or when working with similar viruses. If what Proton Magic is claiming were actually true, researchers the world over would have discovered the lie long ago when attempting to replicate the results.
Researchers worldwide have access to public databases containing viral sequences, and they can independently analyze and validate the authenticity of the sequences. This cross-verification and replication of findings by different research groups help ensure the integrity of the data.
Moreover, viral sequences obtained from research should be consistent with our understanding of viral biology. The sequences should exhibit features and characteristics expected in viruses, such as specific genetic markers, protein-coding, and so forth. If the sequences deviate significantly from known viral biology, it would raise concerns and prompt further investigation.

With this known, these claims by Proton Magic are false.

---

Conclusion

Every claim made by Proton Magic has been proven to be false. Proton Magic and 'No-Virus' exhibit a significant lack of honesty in their portrayal of virology. Their claims lack logical reasoning and disregard the fundamental principles of science, as well as the dedicated efforts of researchers stretching back many years. By broadly asserting that virology is entirely fraudulent, without understanding the science therein, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the whole of science, as I have clearly illustrated here.

Due to a clear lack of scientific comprehension, especially regarding virology, individuals in ‘No-Virus’ are disseminating factually incorrect or deliberately deceptive claims to their audience. This risks misleading those with less contextual awareness. Whatever rationale may underpin such behavior, it has the negative effect of corrupting accurate and logical evaluation, essentially veiling the science from those less informed.

Should Proton Magic or any member of the 'No-Virus' movement wish to engage in public discourse on this topic, I would be prepared to participate. In my view, the prevailing narrative espoused by 'No-Virus' risks endangering the pursuit of verifiable truth by spreading falsehoods on a complex subject to those less aware of the complexities.

While others have suggested I remain silent while certain individuals disseminate inaccuracies, I simply cannot agree. As individuals cognizant of verifiable facts, each of us who have knowledge of a subject has a duty to identify false information and curb its capacity to undermine sincere scientific investigation in those less knowledgeable, so that the facts are represented rightfully and honestly.

Jeff Green