BY ROGER WATSON

I recently introduced readers to a minority movement, described as ‘virus deniers’. They prefer to describe themselves as ‘virus sceptics’ and quickly enact Godwin’s Law (that eventually all arguments end up with someone being compared to Hitler) when the term ‘denier’ is used.

For evidence of this see the comments that greeted another similar piece published in The Daily Sceptic. However, they deny the existence of viruses and if the cap fits, I think they should wear it. For example, many are sceptical about Covid-19 but that does not include the ludicrous assertion that the virus does not exist or that all viruses do not exist.

The above typifies their method; if accused of something, they throw an accusation back at you. If asked a direct closed question to which the answer can only be ‘yes’ or ‘no’, they deflect and use tu quoque (‘whataboutery’) methods of argument. The response to my articles in The Daily Sceptic—which provides a link to a direct response to the article—by Dr Sam Bailey and my more recent article here exemplify this. When well and truly cornered they resort to ‘not dignifying’ the argument with a response. They are also not averse to personal attacks and, as one commentator put it:

‘ad hominem attacks are used to provide an excuse for avoiding scientific debate’

At the vanguard of the movement are New Zealanders Dr Sam Bailey and her husband Dr Mark Bailey. They have issued a challenge to the scientific community to ‘prove’ that viruses exist. I put ‘prove’ in inverted commas as any schoolboy (and girl) knows that science does not, strictly, work by proving anything. The eponymous Popperian method of conducting science works through disproof of hypotheses and, unless such disproof can be established the hypothesis is extant. One may choose to believe or not in the outcome, but one must also ‘fight fair’ if one is to try to overturn 100 years of established evidence based theory.

As the saying goes: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

They have roped in a string of the usual suspects as signatories including Andrew Kaufman (a psychiatrist) and, remarkably, have even persuaded Mike Yeadon, former scientific researcher and vice president at drugs giant Pfizer Inc. who, until this point, seemed like a voice of reason over Covid-19 to sign.

Dr Sam Bailey

Thanks to a faithful correspondent who was disgusted at the tone of the response the Baileys issued to my article in The Daily Sceptic I have been kept abreast of these developments and the attempts by a few people to push back. Foremost amongst these is Steve Kirsch, Executive Director, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (which questions the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines) who has written several pieces in his Substack column exposing the disingenuous nature of the challenge to prove that viruses exist. Baileys & Co. outline a series of perfectly good experiments in my view and their challenge has been accepted but, while they claim to have the funding, they have refused to give it to one scientist, Dr Kevin McCairn. Steve Kirsch has offered to work collaboratively with them to design the necessary experiments and they have refused. They also insist that nobody will come on to their channel and debate the issue of the existence of viruses with them, but this is not true. As explained by Steve Kirsch, several virologists have offered to enter a debate with them, but true to form, they have not taken up the offer.

Nevertheless, Mark Bailey did agree to a debate with Kevin McCairn on a channel hosted by Tim Truth (I guess this is not his real name) which is highly entertaining. It quickly becomes apparent why Dr Bailey agreed; Tim Truth is a virus denier himself and barely let Dr McCairn speak whilst repeatedly inviting Dr Bailey to do so. The session was supposed to be a properly conducted debate and to establish some scientific ground rules Dr McCairn repeatedly tries to elicit ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers from Dr Bailey. Not quite in the spirit of a debate, admittedly, but it would not have hurt to have heard precise responses. My guess is that Dr Bailey did not wish to be dragged on to the scientific forecourt, preferring to issue a series of scientifically unsubstantiated and untestable statements aware that he had both a captive moderator and most likely a captive audience. Despite the one-sided nature of the debate, Dr McCairn won hands down. But his frustration at the proceeding was obvious and he did descend into some name calling at the end of the interview, even accusing Dr Bailey of being a ‘grifter.’

I had long suspected that the Baileys and those of their ilk were trying to sell something and I am not alone in this view. Indeed, on their webpage they have a book for sale and a subscription model for early access to content. The subscription is, admittedly, modest ($5 annually) but they claim to have over 300,000 subscribers. If this is true, they earn a staggering $1,500,000 annually. Both Baileys are medically qualified doctors who have abandoned allopathic medicine (the use of tested remedies) for naturopathy (the use of untested remedies). They believe in Terrain Theory which promotes the view that there are no harmful bacteria, we must simply learn to live with them through adjustments to diet, lifestyle and hydration. If your child has an acute and life-threatening bacterial infection, bad luck if you encounter a terrain theory doctor, they won’t prescribe antibiotics.

Roger Watson is a Registered Nurse and Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Education in Practice.