➡ The article discusses the debate around the scientific method used in virology. The author argues that the scientific method should be flexible and adaptable, not rigid, and should evolve based on the specific circumstances of a study. He criticizes a group that insists on strict definitions and methods, saying this approach is impractical and goes against the inherent flexibility of scientific inquiry. The author believes that science should be a dynamic discipline that embraces change and refinement.

➡ The text discusses a hypothetical creature called a “greenie,” which is used as an analogy for viruses. The author argues that traditional scientific methods, which require direct observation and isolation of an organism, are too rigid. Instead, they propose a more flexible approach where evidence of an organism’s existence and behavior can be inferred indirectly. This method, while controversial, is likened to current practices in virology and is suggested to stimulate economic activity and innovation.

➡ The text discusses the use of a flexible scientific method, where substances like ‘greenies’ mixed with DDT can reduce flies in a house, proving their existence and effectiveness. This method could stimulate economic activity and create new industries, despite potential health risks from exposure to substances like DDT. The author also reconsiders his stance on contagion, suggesting that certain syndromes, like ‘SIT’ (Syndrome of Insufficient Thinking), may be contagious. He concludes by encouraging a more creative and adaptive approach to science.

Okay, welcome everybody to another Wednesday webinar. Hope the sound works okay. It looks okay. Now Today is Wednesday, June 25, 2025. I think I got that right and I’m glad everybody’s joining me and hope everybody’s doing okay. So the main topic I wanted to talk about was a critique by a man named Jeff Green, who that was sent to me by one of the listeners. It’s one of the now many growing number of critiques of the quote, no virus position. So I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at that. He’s described as a visionary and a biologist and I’ve actually never met him, although there was a time a few years ago I think Mark Bailey was trying to set up a meeting with him and a few of us, but I don’t.

But that never happened. So I don’t know him personally. And there were some interesting points in that that I thought it would be helpful to go over. Before I do that, I wanted to give a suggestion and about the heat. So I don’t know where all of you are listening are probably all over the world and it’s probably not like what it’s been for you there, but for here in the last like 4, 5, 6 days we’ve had like 100 degree temperature with really high humidity and sort of like no air movement and just bugs up the wazoo.

It’s been about as miserable as you can imagine. And I was thinking about that and before I say what suggestion, I just want to point out that what I’m about to say is something like pure hypocrisy because I don’t actually do what I’m going to suggest. So this is basically a possibility. I would say, and I would at least in a defense of myself say that if I’m going to be a hypocrite, at least I tell you that I’m going to be a hypocrite because basically I do what most people do, which is I go outside and do my gardening outside, animal feeding work from like 6 to 8 in the morning and maybe from 6 to 7 in the evening.

And then I pretty much am inside with in and out a little bit, but mostly inside. And we have central air conditioning. We don’t turn it on very low, low or we don’t turn on very high, not a low temperature. But we do spend these really awful days in an air conditioned setting. So what I learned about a different way to approach being in a very hot place, a place like this. So I learned this from The Swazis. And I also, I think learned it in the last few days from, from the person, not really a person, the being who’s become my primary teacher in a lot of things.

And that of course is pumpkin. And in a way they have a very similar strategy for dealing with how to cope, thrive and even get stronger in a very hot, humid, muggy, buggy place. So in Swaziland I noticed that when it got really hot that all of the Swazis would basically spend the entire. So they would do the same. They would go out and do their work with the cattle and their fields very early in the morning, like as soon as there was light out and then a little bit in the evening and the rest of the day.

Of course they didn’t have air conditioning, we didn’t have electricity or any of that stuff. This was a very traditional homestead. They would spend their day sitting in a, in the crawl which was basically just a dirt enclosure. I mean it was a dirt packed and then it was enclosed under this huge avocado tree. So they always were in the shade. And they would sit at more or less a kind of seated squat which means they sat on like low stumps. So there was, there’s some sort of movement in that, some activity. It’s not easy to sit all day and squatting position.

But they would sit outside in their normal clothes and when they would drink, they would drink really hot tea and no other water. They never went in air conditioning, they didn’t use fans, they didn’t try to even fan themselves. And they just sat there and told stories and talked to each other for, for hours on end. And then they would take a nap. Sometimes began in a non air conditioned, pretty hot room. And that was how they did it day after day after day. And I occasionally asked them like, did you, do you ever want to fan yourself? And they say anything you do like that prevents you from sweating.

And the reason for the hot tea was to get themselves to sweat. And that was how they cool themselves. And the idea of going into a cold place temporarily to get quote relief, they would have never gone for that. They would say it would make you weak and stop you from sweating and stop you from adapting to this temperature. So that was the way they did it. Basically sit in the shade, not much activity, but enough sort of sitting and squatting and movement like that. So to keep their muscles limber. And then no, no water, no cold water, just occasionally drinking hot tea which would provoke sweating.

So that’s an interesting, much different strategy than what I’ve been using, which I’m pretty convinced makes me weaker over the long run. And then another reason I thought about this was, you know, we have four cats, one who’s always outside and the other three who come and go. And two of them have been more or less riding out the heat in the day inside and sleeping in on the bed or somewhere where it’s sort of nice temperature. But Pumpkin, who I consider the brains of the operation, has, unusually for him, been gone for the last two and a half days.

He came home last night for four hours and slept and ate a little bit and then went right back out and haven’t seen him again today. And of course we don’t. We don’t know where he goes and we don’t know if he has food or water. He certainly can catch his own food and I don’t know where there’s water anywhere. And it’s certainly worrisome because we have no idea if he’s okay and temperature is 100 and he’s got this fur coat on, etc. But my guess is he’s using the same strategy as the Swazis, which is he’s finding a cool shady place, probably connecting to the earth.

And he somehow has the instinct that if he went into a cold place, that would stop his body’s ability to adapt to the weather, and he doesn’t want to do that. So he came home to eat a little bit. He’s also probably not eating as much as he usually is, which then probably lessens the amount of heat that he’s making in his body. And he seemed totally fine. And I think the weather supposedly is going to break and will be a little cooler. And I’m hoping and expecting to see him a little bit more the next few days in his more usual situation, as he essentially concludes that he is, it’s okay to come home and eat and drink normally.

He doesn’t have to stay out and just simply adapt to the hot weather. So it’s something to think about. Again, I don’t. Even though I actually do think that’s the right way to do it and, and that’s the way to make us use a stronger. For whatever reason, I haven’t done that. Probably just laziness or something like that. Okay, so that’s something to think about. Oh, yeah. The other thing is when it’s hot like this, I definitely change my beverage intake, my fluid intake. I take a little bit of salt, water, salt. Usually I use a bamboo salt or a Redmond salt or Celtic sea salt, like a quarter of a teaspoon.

And I dissolve that in some lukewarm water and I put a little bit of lemon squeeze in it. And that’s the main thing I drink not sweet beverages and not just plain water because I think that keeping your mineral supply up when it’s hot is probably a good thing to keep you charged up. Okay, so getting to the main topic again, there’s been a lot of. It’s, it’s good. There’s been a lot of people, particularly in the so called health freedom community, the critiques of the vaccine people who are sounding off about the no virus position and saying all kinds of things.

And interestingly, they seem to go in waves of what their, the central focus of their critique is. I’m not saying they’re coordinating it, but I think somebody comes on a new angle that they think they can use and then the other people pick it up. And so sometimes we hear that we’re controlled opposition or disinformation specialists or we’re trying to sow dissension. And the latest one comes from this substack piece by this guy named Jeff Green, who again, I don’t know him personally. He’s, it says on his substack, a visionary biologist, whatever that means. And so here’s what he wrote and let me just pull this up.

And again, I couldn’t get it to look like it usually does on substack, but it doesn’t matter. So chapter six, addressing no virus. This is from the book the True Nature of Viruses and Their Cause. So I guess I’m going to have to do some disclaimers here, which is that I haven’t read the book and I haven’t read any of the other things he’s written except a very small amount, except this piece from chapter six. And then another disclaimer which is there was some of it was here and then the rest was the post is for paid subscribers and I didn’t want to be a paid subscriber.

And I thought I got the gist of the argument from this section here. And so I’m going to go over this and if somehow he changed or didn’t mean what I was saying, then obviously I got it wrong. But I think I got the gist of the argument here. And it’s the same one that we’re hearing from a lot of different places. So I think it’s worth just going over this. So the scientific method in question, there’s a bunch of people referred to the no virus group that argue for absolute purity of samples and here to strict definitions of isolation and purity.

According to that. Just let me comment as I go. We’re actually not, let’s say that I am part of that. So I’m not necessarily speaking for the group, but speaking for myself. The strict definition actually is the definition from the dictionary. So let’s just be clear about that. According to their perspective, if the virus not completely isolated, purified and demonstrated cause disease, they cannot be considered to exist or be observable or determinable. There is much hinging on the phrase scientific method. Their claim is that the scientific method, and this is the gist of his argument here, is a strict set of rules which researchers must follow.

If these rules are not followed in the way that we proclaim, then they deem the researchers as not having met the scientific method and it’s called pseudoscience. But what is the scientific method? Is it a set of rules or something else entirely? And so then he gives a bunch of quotes that he says are directly from the quote no virus people and how we challenge the use of the word mock infection as a phrase used for a control study. He says the controls are indeed used in most viral studies, but not under the exact terminology that no virus group desires.

Of course, they’re not satisfied no matter what the researchers do, they say, he says, and they find faults with the term mock infection to stay congruent with past statements in error that have no controls exist. And so I won’t read these alleged quotes that we say. So then he goes on to say, the scientific method is indeed a flexible framework rather than a rigid set of rules. It encompasses a variety of principles that can apply differently depending on the specific area of study or research question at hand. When it comes to the existence of a particular cell, cause and effect relationships may not always be necessary to establish its presence.

Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that all microorganisms such as viruses, exhibit the same cause and effect relationship commonly associated with pathogenicity or cytopathic effect. Then he goes on to say, in the case of many insect and plant viruses, artificial cell culture may not be required. These organisms allow for collection of multiple specimens, together providing an ample sample size. Viruses can be directly extracted from various insect or plant hosts, purified and observed under microscopy without the need for artificial culture. In such cases, cytopathic effect observed in artificial culture, which may involve the use of mildly damaging serum, do not come into play.

Therefore, claiming that viruses require artificial cell culture and cytopathic effects to prove their existence is not Valid. So let me just comment on that first. So that is patently a false statement, which is of course why there’s no reference there. The part that’s false is that viruses, which have a very strict definition according to everybody, which is a piece of genetic material covered by a protein, which needs a cell in order to divide and in the process of co opting the cellular mechanism damages the cell and then liberates itself and goes on to infect other cells.

So it’s an external agent. And according to that very clear definition by everybody involved, this fact of viruses extracted from various insect or plant hosts, purified, observed, is patently false. He has no reference here, so I can’t even check where he’s getting that from. But that has never happened. So we should keep that in mind. But the final thing is the notion that the scientific method defined by the no virus group is the only valid approach is flawed and impractical. They are imposing their own criteria and definitions onto the scientific method, which goes against inherent flexibility and diversity of scientific inquiry.

And he goes on to define the scientific method and then he finishes by saying in reality, the no virus group is attempting to rigidly define a singular scientific method does not align with the practical reality of scientific research. The scientific method is not a uniform set of rules that remains unchanged. It is a set of principles that adapt and evolve based on specific circumstances of a given study or investigation. This flexibility is inherent in the nature of science itself and it constantly progresses and incorporates new knowledge and methodology. Therefore, the notion that a single fixed scientific method that can be followed as claimed by those who deny the existence of viruses, is unfounded.

Science is a dynamic and he said, evolving discipline that embraces change and refinement and the scientific method reflects this inherent adaptability. This seems to be the main point of this piece. So let me try to summarize that. So his claim is that this business of there is a scientific method which has a set of rules and logic that guides the inquiry into the process of cause and effect. And the understanding of nature should be something that evolves and it’s flexible, it’s not rigid, and it should be a dynamic discipline that embraces change and refinement as it goes through this inherent to reflect this inherent adaptability that is his main claim.

In other words, there is no specific scientific method. It his changes and evolves based on a whole lot of things depending on what we’re seeing and what kind of science is meant to be done. So let’s take a look at that. First of all, I don’t know if he means that the scientific. So let me get out of this. I think we’re done with this article. I don’t think I need to go on. And like I said, I haven’t read the rest because I didn’t pay for the subscription. And maybe he recants this, but I doubt it.

Okay, so first of all, this whole business of evolving, it’s interesting. You know, I looked into, I’ve given other talks on this Darwinian evolution theory and you know, one of the things I came across. So the evolution of. We have the evolution of species and now we have the evolution of the scientific method, which it needs this inherent flexibility and that our problem is this rigid adherence to this way of inquiry. So, yeah, let me just. So let’s take an example of what you. What he might mean or what it might mean to have inherent flexibility in the scientific method.

So I’m going to compare virology and I’m going to compare that to let’s do a thought experiment. And I know in reading a little bit of his other pieces, he’s very big on thought experiments, so I think he should appreciate this. Let’s say we propose that there is an organism that has not been found before, and for just the sake of putting a name on it, let’s call it a greenie. And this greenie lives in ponds and it’s essentially a kind of hybrid between snakes and fruits, frogs. So we have this organism called a greenie. It is a sort of hybrid or mixture of snakes and frogs.

And we want to understand a. Whether there is such a thing as a greenie, whether it lives in ponds. And then the next claim is that the greenies are very good at eating flies, which are their main food. So essentially then, using his cause and effect, the cause of the death of the flies would be the greenies. So we’re going to take a look at this and compare it to virology using what we call, what we’re saying is the rigid way of doing science versus Jeff Green’s more flexible way of doing science. Then compare that to virology.

So in the rigid way of using the scientific method, you would say, okay, in order to investigate the claim of the existence of the greenie, you would go to the ecosystem where you would expect to find the greenie. You would make a hypothesis or a guess as to what a greenie might look like or might be, which is of course flexible, depending on what you find. And then you would look for that organism that fits that description in all the different ponds everywhere in the world. So you would go to many different ponds and you would go with many different techniques, nets and magnets and fly catchers and hooks and sinkers and lines and whatever else you could trawls and ever else you could find to look for this organism that fits the description of a hybrid between a frog and a snake.

And you wouldn’t. And let’s just say you didn’t find in any of these ponds, in any of these places, a single greenie, not one. Then according to this rigid scientific method, you would have serious doubts and questions as to whether the greenie actually existed. Now, because you were not able to use your senses to identify the greenie in this pond or any of the ponds, you obviously couldn’t isolate or purify it to any degree, the greeny from all the rest of the contents. So because of that, you would not be able to do a proper, and he would say maybe rigid scientific experiment to see whether what the greenies are made of, what they’re composed of, what material they have, do they have DNA or RNA or proteins or.

Or feet or toenails or whatever. And you certainly would not be able to ascertain whether the greenies ate frogs simply because you could not do an experiment where, I sorry, eight flies. Because you could not do an experiment where you put the flies in a cage or an apparatus of some sort with only greenies in it and see maybe if that you could visualize them eating the flies or. Or the next day the flies were gone. And so at that point, you would have to conclude that because you were not able to find the greenie, you were not able to use any sensory investigation to locate the greenie, prove its existence.

Therefore, you could not isolate and purify the greenie, you could not determine what it’s made of, and you could not determine whether the greenies are the cause of the death of flies. That is the old scientific, rigid method in a nutshell. Now, what he’s proposing is that is way too rigid for the real world. And so you go. So what I think the process that he would suggest is you go and look for the greenies and let’s say, as is true with viruses, so it’s essentially the same thing. In no case were you able to accurately state that we found this organism called a greenie, in any of the ecosystems that it allegedly lives in, just as nobody is able, admittedly, all the virologists admit this.

And so that’s why there’s no reference proving the Opposite that you’ve never been able to go to a plant or an animal or a person and simply from there, any fluid or tissues, purify, isolate according to the normal definitions of those words, or have any sensory impression that these viruses exist or the greenies. But folks, that’s way too rigid. So we don’t want to get stuck in that rigid scientific paradigm. So we can then go on and do further experiments. So you can take some pond water, never having found out whether there’s a greenie or not, and you can put that in an apparatus or a cage or a separate receptacle or something with for instance, a snake and a frog and maybe a Venus fly trap and few other things that are actually known to eat flies.

And then you can put a bunch of flies in there and then you can go away and you can count the number of flies you put in and then you can come back the next day and say, wow, there’s 10% or 50% or 100% less flies. Therefore, we now know that greenies eat flies. Now that is a flexible, adaptive, innovative, creative use of the scientific method. Because what we’ve observed is there’s less flies. Now this is exactly analogous to how every virus has been isolated, which is again, like the greenies, they never found the virus in its natural ecosystem.

There is no reference for that, which is why he didn’t put that down. So they put it into a culture with things that are known to break down the culture and then the culture breaks down. Just like if you put flies in with snakes and Venus fly traps and frogs, you will likely see less frogs the next day. Now, according to the rigid scientific method, that doesn’t say anything about whether there’s greenies. It certainly doesn’t prove whether there’s greenies. But he is suggesting that we don’t use this rigid scientific method. It obviously has not evolved along with normal scientific thinking and we have to be more creative and more flexible.

So now we can say this is good evidence that there are greenies and they in fact do eat frogs. Now a mock infection would be a so called control where you don’t put anything from the pond water in, you just put the snakes and the frogs and the Venus fly traps and then you see that the flies reduce. And that would tell you which it should, that it had nothing to do with the pond water, whether or not it had greenies or not. But they don’t do it like that with virology. They put fewer Venus fly traps, fewer snakes and fewer frogs.

That is the complaint. So they don’t actually run a proper control. And that’s why they don’t actually list what they do almost ever. And when you ask them, they admit that they don’t control all the variables. And so again, that says nothing about whether there’s an existence of a greenie or whether it eats frogs or anything. And then they take this pond water and say, well, now, because the flies have reduced and there could be greenies in there. Now we’re going to grind that up and we’re going to see what these greenies are made of, because we think that the greenies must be there and we have some idea of what the frog constituents are and what the snake constituents are.

But even though the greenies have the exact same kind of constituents, somehow we’ll be able to tell which is a greenie and which is a frog. And that’s exact same thing they do with virology. They take a cell culture and they have other things in there which have the exact same nucleic acids and proteins. They grind it all up and then they analyze it and they say this must be the virus instead of the horse serum or fetal bovine serum or the kidney cells or the mucus from the person. And so there’s no way to say which is coming from which.

And so it’s exactly the same process in virology. But the thing is, and here’s the important point, I just want to point out how much more useful this flexible way of doing science and using the scientific method is. So I think hopefully by now it’s very clear that there is this flexible scientific method where you don’t have to actually identify the organism in nature. You don’t have to purify it, you don’t have to isolate it, you don’t have to do any experiments with it. You can find out what the constituents are without having separated it from other things which have the exact same constituents.

And that’s called the creative, adaptive, evolutionarily forward new way of doing the scientific method. Now, I will admit that this is very good for number of function that can be useful to people. So for instance, let’s say you have, like I do, you have bunch of flies in your house and you want to kill them. Because using this new, adapted, creative, flexible scientific method, you have now proven that there are greenies and they eat flies. And I just outlined how they did that. Then of course, that stimulates economic activity. And that means you can sell bottles of greenies.

Now, you don’t see any greenies in There. And so you put the greenies in your house, and it says you may or may not see a reduction in flies, which of course is true. You may or may not. Now, if you don’t see a reduction in flies according to what you were hoping for, then just like Pasteur did with trying to prove that anthrax is a pathogen, when he used plain anthrax spores, and this has been the case with many other bacteria through the years, he was unable to recreate any disease. But again, apparently Pasteur, like Jeff Green, is an advocate of this enhanced, adaptive, flexible, creative use of the scientific method.

So he was able to use what he called enhanced anthrax. Now, enhanced anthrax was anthrax mixed with arsenic, which, lo and behold, was able to recreate disease in the people that he gave it to. So in this case, you could sell greenies with snakes and frogs and maybe Venus fly traps, and lo and behold, because of the use of this enhanced, creative scientific method, you would get a good result and you would see the reduction of the of the flies in your house. So that’s a very good thing. There would be economic activity. People would be growing snakes and frogs and bottling them and making sure they were kept alive.

And so there would be whole new businesses and industries based on, you know, selling snakes and frogs and Venus fly traps along with these greenies in enhanced greeny preparation to kill flies in your house. And if that wasn’t good enough, you could sell a super enhanced greenie, which is a greenie mixed with ddt, just like Pasteur and many other researchers who also use this flexible, creative, enhanced, evolutionarily involved, evolved scientific method to prove the exist to prove the pathogenicity of different bacteria, they use the same thing. So like I said, they mix certain bacteria like anthrax with arsenic, and then they were able to show that the anthrax is a pathogen.

Similarly, if you mix a greenie with DDT and you spray that all over your house, you will likely see a dramatic reduction in the flies, which then proves, according to this flexible scientific method, that A, there are greenies because there was a reduction in flies, and B, they kill flies. That’s what he means by the flexible scientific method. So then we would have industries, and then we could do toxicology on the DDT and there would be more use of the medical system of people having neurological problems based on inhaling and eating DDT from spraying in their house.

And there would be many benefits for that, for the whole economy and whole industries could crop up. And simply because of the ability to be flexible and not so rigid in the use of the scientific method, exactly like Jeff Green is describing. I think that pretty much adequately describes his position and why, and my take on why this flexible, creative use of the scientific method would be good for the economy and good for much economic activity and the doctors and the toxicologists. And it exactly parallels what has happened in virology. And so you can definitely see the correlation.

And that seems to be the new line that the people are using to criticize the so called no virus group. Now, I must say, just to finish here, that I said that it’s difficult but necessary to sometimes admit you were wrong. And I said that in the opening, sort of to get people to be interested in this webinar. And so I want to describe what I mean by that. So clearly, over the past five years I have been talking against the phenomena of contagion, that this business of one organism, one person, one animal, making another organism sick in the same way, otherwise known as contagion, has been scientifically disproven and we should no longer believe it.

Of course, that’s using the old, rigid scientific method where words actually mean something and logic and thinking actually mean something. But in investigating this piece and this critique, it was very clear to me that this Jeff Green has a pretty significant case of the illness that I’ve described in the past, which is called sit, otherwise known as the syndrome of insufficient thinking. So this is clearly an example of that. And this is a very difficult disease. It’s difficult to treat. It eventually has usually a bad outcome. And to my shock and surprise, and the part that has made me rethink my position on contagion is it seems like there’s a rumor that he has been in communication with this fellow Mies, who my Dutch friends are saying is pronounced Mace, but I kind of like Mies, so I call him Mies.

And as I’ve described, Mies has a very bad case of sit. He’s clearly full of sit, which is the proper scientific way to describe it. And so it does seem that I was wrong, that certain syndromes like SIT are definitely contagious. It was very difficult for me to face this reality and to admit this. But if it’s true, which I don’t know for sure, that Jeff has been in contact with Mies and maybe even had a visit, then I think you would almost have to say Mies would qualify as a super spreader, because I think there’s other people.

I just received a, like a podcast link to a interview with a guy named Chris Shaw and he was using the same line of that this rigid scientific method where words mean something and there’s actually a process of logic that is needs to be in place in order for us to understand things, which is the whole basis of this scientific method. That’s all old fashioned and rigid and we can’t follow that anymore. We need to use this more creative science approach and we need to be able to be flexible with words and concepts and really to be able to create anything we want.

And as I pointed out, there’s a lot of economic activity and stimulation that will come to that and a whole new realm of creative endeavors, endeavors and businesses. And it seems like this is a happening now because of the contagious widespread nature of sit. And I don’t know if all these people have been in contact with Mies, in which case he would qualify as a super spreader. But I must say I have to rethink my concept of contagion in the face of this dramatic evidence. Okay, I think I’ve covered it and I think that’s pretty much all I need to say.

Hopefully everybody gets the point here. And thanks everybody for joining me. I hope Jeff takes a look at this and he can describe exactly what he means by this new creative, adaptive scientific method. So thanks everybody. Keep cool or do what you need to do to hang in there and I will see you next week.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.