Stop the Presses! J.J. Couey Ends the "Virus or No Virus" Debate by Bringing in Nuance
J.J. Couey and I exchange our theories about reality
First off, Happy Easter to everyone who celebrates today! May your celebration be joyful and loving.
And now, here is a phenomenally interesting interview with J.J. Couey, a neuroscientist (formerly at University of Pittsburgh), a gifted educator, and the founder of Gigaohm.
Here’s how J.J. very elegantly resolves the “virus - no virus” argument by bringing back the complexity and the nuance
This is rather beautiful. The interview goes into detail—but here is a recap, in my own words:
Yes, there is such thing as little bits of genetic code that make cells express different things
Yes, those little bits of genetic code can try to program the cell to make copies of themselves
It so happens that modern science calls those things “viruses” while at the same time vastly misrepresenting the actual findings, and greatly downplaying the fact that we don’t know a whole lot
Naturally occurring “viruses” (in quotes, as this word is just a name for a model) aren’t very good at replication, i.e. programming host cells to make perfect copies of themselves
They can try to do that—and in the process, they would temporarily distress the equilibrium and trigger an immune response. A targeted cell would make a very limited number of good copies of the “virus” but it would also spit out a large amount of genetic noise. That process would invoke an immune response and, generally speaking, we are very capable of dealing with all this, as naturally occurring “viral” bits of genetic material floating around are a part of life.
In labs, for experiments, due to how difficult it is to make a naturally occurring virus to properly replicate, the scientists routinely use the so called “viral clones,” which is not a naturally occurring “virus” but a manufactured (“constructed”) artifact
Here is an example of a study to illustrate the point — Simplified methods for the construction of RNA and DNA virus infectious clones ). When the scientists talk about “viruses” in the lab, they usually refer to artificially manufactured smudges of RNA constructed for enhanced replication, etc.
COVID pandemic: what happened there?
J.J. believes that viral clones matching the molecular properties of the model—to which everything was then compared—were sprayed or otherwise released in strategic locations in different countries. This way, the molecular signature of that specific “virus” could be actually “found” and “identified” using widely accepted methods
According to J.J., the main reason for releasing the clones was providing forensic proof of sort, “proving” that the pandemic was real. What was actually making people sick in 2020 is another matter, and it could be a number of things, possibly working in combination
During the interview, J.J. and I compared notes and theories about different factors that could have contributed to making people in select locations feel genuinely ill
Viral clones are better at replication than bit of genetic material floating naturally, and so they might have contributed to creating disease
When it comes to the intentional vs. unintentional nature of causing dramatic sickness, at the very least, we can be sure that whoever did it doesn’t care, or rather cares solely about money, power, and their ultimate goal of pulling through a large scale and very destructive scam
Virus vs. exosome
A personal anecdote: Early in the COVID saga, I developed a philosophical theory that in part seems to coincide with J.J.’s take. My theory was that “viruses” and “exosomes” were different names for the same thing, and that they functioned much like a somewhat mysterious energy exchange, in ways that we don’t quite understand.
Excited, I sent my theory to one of the big names thinking, “OMG OMG the world is about to change!!!” :)))))) … and I never heard back. All this time, I mostly kept my theory to myself because we have a bigger battle at hand. But I am always curious about the world, and I think that pursuit of knowledge is a beautiful thing (and so I applaud all sincere researchers regardless of what their current conclusion is).
I asked J.J. what he thought about my philosophical germ-terrain theory, and I liked his response. What I personally keep in mind is that science is always fluid, it’s always work in progress—and a lot of the heated arguments are about definitions and talking points. I think in a way, both the germ theory and the terrain theory are correct, and there are probably a million things about the dynamic that we don’t yet know.
“Long COVID” and my theory
A theory that I care about in a more urgent way is my big medical theory that I should probably write a separate article about. I think I am onto something important, with potentially big implications, and I wanted to know what J.J. thought of it. Please check it out. A little bit of suspense here since I do want to write about it in a detailed way.
Hello, Smartmask? Hello, New Normal? (some thoughts about creep tech)
Brain Science from Bench to Battlefield: The Realities and Risks of Neuroweapons (talk by James Giordano, 2017) (insights into the psychology of fearmongering and the creation of social collapse)
Note to readers: If you are in the position to do so, I encourage you to become a paid subscriber or donate. I love you in any case, but it helps A LOT. Thank you from my heart for your support!
Tessa Fights Robots is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.