The Hart Group - managing propaganda
The Hart Group explains why they use the virus model: "arguments against 'the virus doesn't exist'"
Although I’ve heard of the Hart Group and their slant, I hadn’t looked into their position.
Thanks to Tom Cowan and Mark Bailey, I got a closer look at what the Hart Group is proposing as an argument against “the virus doesn’t exist” model, aka ‘virus deniers’. Unsurprisingly, they have not conveyed a valid scientific proposal to substantiate the claim that viruses exist as commonly defined, but instead attempt to repeat unscientific statements and refer to unscientific procedures while including subjective opinions. The viral mindset which has never been a theory and has never been substantiated is revealed, once again, as a belief system enclosed within circular argumentations that always presupposes the existence of that which is being claimed.
In the interview linked above, Cowan & Bailey go over the recent Hart Group paper point for point examining them for coherence, saliency, validity and relevance. As Cowan puts it, it’s a sort of “mental illness” (although he says he really doesn’t believe in mental illness) that this group is collectively in (as a consequence of the education/indoctrination) causing them to not be able to think rationally or put together rational statements that have relevance.
A few points (which may very well echo Cowan and Bailey) to highlight…
Point 1 established by the Hart Group makes no sense in and of itself:
An environmental exposure predicted an illness.
As Cowan reads it twice he admits he doesn’t even know what that means, and neither do I. However, if I re-enter a state of mind - belief system - which I was once in (seeking to “catch up” and better understand what the professionals understood that would likely cause me to understand these otherwise seemingly contradictory or vacuous statements) I could ride with this statement. Oh yeah, there’s something in the environment that we “know” and there was sufficient information and rationale to assume that an illness was derived from this exposure. But to what? That’s one of the primary underlining questions that’s never been answered by science (and is very rarely asked), despite the myriad subjective opinions that have been released as science for almost 150 years.
A unique RNA sequence was detected in these people
What sequence? The one spit out by the computer?
By PCR? What was it callibrated to? Another in silico (computer-generated) sequence? The pick of the litter?
There are myriad problems with this statement, that have been gone over at length (by both Bailey & Cowan and many others) that show it to be inherently false. If it isn’t a statement of propaganda, it’s a revelation of mental illness.
WHO criteria for a “covid” case is a positive PCR test. When you come to understand that a PCR test means nothing, you understand that any and all discussion of “covid” from this point is essentially meaningless. Analytical specificity is something entirely different from diagnostic specificity.
And as Cowan points out in the video above, there is no study showing how sick people make well people sick.
THAT’S NOT TO SAY that people don’t become ill within the same confines or circumstances, or that people who engage with others don’t both become ill, on occasion, after their engagement. BUT none of the above circumstances prove that any viral contagion exists. That is simply an assumption that has never been shown to be true.
Bailey goes on to point out that what the Hart Group is proposing is based upon the assumption that any contagious virus exists (or that any valid proof has been shown to date - shifting of the burden of proof is a burden of proof fallacy).
Antibodies which reacted to those proteins were produced.
Mike Stone has written extensively to show how antibodies are not specific as we have come to believe and is repeated ad nauseum to reinforce a false premise.
Lab grown virus
The genetic signatures embedded into the in silico (designer) viral sequencing shows signs of what the industry recognizes as significant of artificial genetic manipulations. This effectively helps “prove” the lab leak theory of a virus that was created to fit that narrative.
This is a pre-programmed signature. This is not astute sleuthing. This is like the child finding the hidden Easter egg as the parent says “walk forward…look to your left…no, your other left…what’s on the ground in front of you?…”
Whole genome sequencing suggests viral evolution.
As stated above the sequences are meaningless (except if you’re studying how computer algorithms piece together information). As Cowan points out in the video linked above, the established sequences have not been replicated by subsequent attempts to assemble them. They are each uniquely artificial.
For more insights, subscribe to Dr Sam Bailey’s substack