On the absence of evidence

An open letter to Robert Verkherk, Ph.D., on the matter of whether SARS-CoV-2 exists. He objects to the fact that there's no evidence that it does.

Dear Dr. Verkerk:

I read with great interest your Aug. 31 article on the existence of SARS-CoV-2. Thank you for giving attention to this important issue.

My name is Eric Coppolino and I lead the Chiron Return investigative team. We are the people who publish the comprehensive chronology, Covid19 News, and the journalists who recently wrote the article about imposter double-doctorate Poornima Wagh.

Way at the bottom of your article, you say that you “cut to the chase.” Yet what you wrote is not an accurate assessment of the positions of the people in the discussion.

You could simply say this:

The “no virus” side of the discussion is generally stating that various genetic sequences have been falsely declared as belonging to "SARS-CoV-2” are found only in computer simulations. These are hypothetical “genomes,” called in silico sequences, that have never been shown to match an actual virus or cause disease.

That's about it. Why are these phony sequences even relevant?

Everyone I have interviewed (among the people you name, which is all of them) takes this position. I do not know of another. I am curious if you interviewed Drs. Bailey, Bailey, Cowan, Kaufman or Yeadon for your article. I do not see any of them quoted. You do not appear to have ever actually sought clarification of their point of view — from them. And this is why you misstate their position.

So-called “covid PCR tests” are analyzing for something that is irrelevant in all senses of the word — computer code. If they have samples of “real virus,” why not use those sequences in the PCR?

The PCR device, which — according to its own emergency use authorization — cannot diagnose anything (even with perfect primers and test design) — is in the case of "SARS-CoV-2” primed with computer code that could not possibly infect a human, except maybe in a science fiction movie.

I know it feels like we are living in one, but the usual rules of logic still apply to scientific assessment.

Additionally, you vastly understate the extent of Christine Massey’s work.

As of today there are so far 208 institutions and governments that admit to having no study or scientific paper which demonstrates having found an actual virus particle from a human host.

This is an important revelation that demands investigation. It’s not like half of them claim to have it, and half of them don’t. They ALL admit they have none. But then they all claim that it exists! And of course, this claim was the basis of the lockdowns and shutdown of the (small business) economy.

Additionally, you do not link to Ms. Massey's work. Here is the link to find all of the responses. I am sure she would be grateful for accurate description and attribution. You might even write to her or call her up.

Finally, the Carl Sagan quotation, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” sounds cute, but is logically flawed. He loved this kind of circular speech, which made him sound like Yoda.

Consider this.

If a person tests negative on a drug test, that is both absence of evidence, and proof of the absence of drug use. One cannot say, “This person tested negative for all narcotics, therefore, they still may be a junkie.”

Non-detect is non-detect.

Especially if you run the analysis and get the same result 208 times.

Very truly and sincerely yours,

Eric F. Coppolino

Chiron Return, Inc.