I’ve written earlier than about how germ principle denial is a fixed thread within the antivax motion. As scientifically unjustifiable as it’s to say that pathogenic microbes are usually not the reason for infectious illnesses, you possibly can in all probability see the way it makes a form of warped sense for antivaxxers to be interested in such denial, if just for the straightforward motive that if microbes don’t trigger illness then vaccines are clearly pointless and might thus solely trigger hurt. Germ principle denial, nonetheless, doesn’t simply undergird a big chunk of antivax beliefs; it’s a normal underlying part behind a lot of other drugs as effectively—and has been for a very long time. There may be, nonetheless, a relatively odd type of germ principle denial that doesn’t really deny that there are infectious illnesses. Somewhat, it denies the existence of viruses particularly.
“No virus”?
What “impressed” me—for those who can name it that—to jot down this put up was one more widespread antivax declare, particularly that vaccines kill hundreds of thousands of individuals. I got here throughout this declare after I got here throughout a January Substack put up by Denis Rancourt, who was peeved that Tracy Beth Høeg, of all folks, had, in an apparent use of a tactic favored by cranks starting from Joe Mercola to Vinay Prasad to attempt to declare the mantle of science and “reasonableness” by attacking much more bonkers cranks, taken him to activity for his estimate that COVID-19 vaccines had killed 17 million folks. That led me to find that Rancourt additionally denies that viruses exist in a Substack put up by Paul Alexander citing a Substack put up by somebody named Franklin O’Kanu praising Rancourt for an interview he gave with Steve Kirsch through which Rancourt stated:
Anthony Fauci will go down within the Roman Overlord’s Corridor of Fame. For the previous 30 years, he has satisfied the world in regards to the actuality of viruses, from HIV to the coronavirus pandemic. He has taken one thing invisible, one thing unproven, and satisfied the world to not solely consider in it however to put money into it, guaranteeing each citizen acquired this new petrochemical shot.
In the identical interview, Rancourt stated:
I’m not satisfied that viruses exist.
Rancourt is “not satisfied that viruses exist”? That’s good. I used to be significantly amused by O’Kanu’s descriptions of Rancourt and Kirsch:
Denis Rancourt a number one determine in the neighborhood identified for his data-driven analysis, made a startling announcement throughout an interview with
Steve Kirsch, one other distinguished member of the reality motion. Rancourt acknowledged that he might discover no proof to show the existence of viruses.
This daring assertion has sparked intense debate and dialogue as I’ve touched on myself in my article, Lies Not Mentioned Inside The Fact Group. Regardless that within the video you see Kirsch’s quick shift of focus, the implications of Rancourt’s declaration can’t be ignored.
For these of a very masochistic character bent, I present a hyperlink to the Rumble interview. Know, nonetheless, that it’s over two hours lengthy, and even I couldn’t stand to take heed to wherever close to the entire thing. Maybe a couple of of you’re made from sterner stuff than I.
It’s relatively amusing, although, how Rancourt’s assertion that “I’m not satisfied that viruses exist” led even Steve Kirsch to quickly change the topic, saying, “OK, OK, we’ve received to maneuver on then.”
You possibly can see the change favorably talked about by an actual die-hard virus denier right here, a one-minute clip on the finish of his Substack put up. The primary vital factor stated about Rancourt is that it took him too lengthy to succeed in this conclusion and that he hasn’t but gone “all-in” on “no virus”:
I have to additionally admit that for somebody who’s “new” to the subject he brings up some glorious factors, countering Steve’s loaded questions with pinpoint precision. I clipped essentially the most spectacular a part of his speak with Kirsch, which could be seen beneath (the total speak may also be seen right here).
It should however be identified that Denis stills makes reference to an immune system in addition to pathogens, and bacterial infections, however for somebody to utter the phrases that “I don’t consider that viruses exist” it’s a huge step in the fitting course.
Who’s Denis Rancourt, you would possibly ask? You might need heard of him elsewhere, however, oddly sufficient, I’ve solely talked about him as soon as earlier than on SBM, after which solely within the context of discussing why Steve Kirsch‘s ridiculously overblown declare a couple of months in the past that COVID-19 vaccines had killed “solely” 13 million folks worldwide was such a steaming, stinking, load of fetid dingos’ kidneys after which solely to say that it appears to be a legislation that antivaxxers should frequently one-up one another relating to their estimates on how many individuals vaccines have supposedly killed or injured. Coming throughout Høeg’s rebuttal to Rancourt’s declare that COVID-19 vaccines had killed 17 million folks led me down a deeper rabbit gap, nonetheless, and main me to surprise, on reflection, why I had by no means mentioned him as the primary matter of a full SBM put up right here earlier than and had by no means even talked about him over at my not-so-secret different weblog.
The place did that rabbit gap lead, although? Include me as I focus on a COVID-19 crank who, not glad with claiming that COVID-19 vaccines have killed 17 million folks, however who additionally now denies that viruses—specifically SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19—even exist. Rancourt is way from the one one that claims this. In reality, as I’ll relate, amusingly he confronted criticism from much more vociferous virus deniers that he was too sluggish to return to the proper “no virus” conclusion and that he nonetheless has reservations, not having completely embraced the thought.
Who’s Denis Rancourt embraces “no virus”
Earlier than I delve into Rancourt’s precise claims, I needed to know who he’s and what, if any, {qualifications} he has to preach on the science of viruses and the epidemiology of COVID-19 and vaccine harm. Unsurprisingly, I quickly found that, though he’s a scientist, he isn’t a scientist who could be anticipated to have important experience in virology, epidemiology, infectious illnesses, or different areas associated to COVID-19. It seems that Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics on the College of Ottawa. On his web site, Rancourt states:
I at the moment write about drugs, COVID-19, particular person well being, local weather change, geopolitics, civil rights, political principle, sociology … and I’ve additionally written over 100 peer-reviewed-journal articles in technical areas of science and know-how.
I obtained BSc, MSc and PhD levels in physics. I held post-doctoral analysis positions at prestigious establishments in France and The Netherlands, earlier than being a physics professor and lead scientist on the College of Ottawa for 23 years.
I’m an skilled self-represented litigant at a number of ranges of courtroom and in lots of administrative tribunals, in each Ontario and Quebec. I’ve been a volunteer Researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Affiliation (ocla.ca) since 2014.
A fast perusal of his web site offers ample proof that Rancourt is a crank about extra than simply COVID-19 (though there are ample causes simply on his web site to contemplate him a COVID-19 crank as effectively). For instance, he’s a local weather science denier who denies that human exercise producing CO2 and different greenhouse gases is warming the planet, calling local weather change a “gargantuan lie.”
Rancourt additionally conveniently neglects to say why he’s a “former professor of physics” and never nonetheless College of Ottawa college. It’s a relatively odd historical past through which, again in 2009, Rancourt was fired for, effectively, let’s simply have a look at this text:
The College of Ottawa has fired controversial physics professor Denis Rancourt.
He was suspended in December after he attracted nationwide consideration for his instructing strategies, together with giving a grade of A+ to each pupil in a sophisticated physics class.
Rancourt plans to grieve the dismissal together with his union, which in flip will take it to courtroom, he stated.
Talking from New York Metropolis the place he was giving a lecture at New York College’s Frederic Ewen Tutorial Freedom Heart, Rancourt stated he received the information Wednesday in a letter delivered to his residence by courier.
The college’s board of governors’ govt committee met Tuesday and issued the letter the following day.
The choice was in the end upheld, however took years of litigation.
I gained’t actually remark a lot on this incident. It strikes me as relatively odd, and I strongly suspect that there was extra to it, given what’s in his Wikipedia entry. For instance, there was an incident through which there have been unauthorized folks in his lab, but in addition Rancourt claims that the true motive for his firing was associated to his political beliefs with respect to the Israel-Palestine battle and accused College of Ottawa president of being “a point-man of the Israel foyer on the College of Ottawa.
Regardless of the battle with the College of Ottawa that value him his job, throughout the 15 years since his firing Rancourt has descended additional and additional right into a rabbit gap pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and crankery, with the rabbit gap having expanded vastly when the pandemic hit in 2020.
Which leads me to a 17-minute phase of Kirsch’s interview with Rancourt through which he lays down his motive for doubting viruses exist, refers to “so-called influenza,” and (form of) qualifies it by doubting which you could make somebody sick with a respiratory virus. (Possibly he’s simply denying that respiratory viruses exist?) You could find this phase inside this Substack put up. (Sorry, I couldn’t discover a solution to embed it.) There may be additionally one other video proper in the beginning Evaluating the 2 is an efficient solution to see Rancourt’s rising radicalization with respect to the existence of viruses.
Within the first clip (which is just 2:20), Rancourt says:
The factor in regards to the viruses is, our work on all-cause mortality reveals unambiguously that there was no new virulent pathogen. Nothing particular occurred that may have brought on loss of life. If they’d executed nothing and never declared a pandemic and simply executed enterprise as traditional there wouldn’t have been extra mortality, interval. We proved that. We proved it as a result of we confirmed that the information is inconsistent with all of the concepts of a diffusion of a viral respiratory illness, OK? It’s opposite to that. And we confirmed that the place there was extra mortality it was instantly associated to the character of the assault in opposition to the inhabitants.
Alright, when you’ve proven that, why are we debating whether or not or not viruses exist, you understand? In my opinion—and that is, folks get actually upset with me after I say this—it doesn’t matter. It’s not what they stated. That’s not how well being works, and that I think about that tutorial query if that invented nanoparticle exists and do the magical issues that they are saying it does, and so they have this virology and so specialists in lecturers go on and on about it. I don’t care. I don’t care as a result of it doesn’t produce ends in the true world.
I really feel that manner about immunology. Immunologists go on and on in regards to the immune system and all its many mechanisms, and the way it works, and the way you develop immunity, and all these type of issues. Loads of that’s excessive stage principle, and so they’re not at all times admitting that they’re solely seeing a small a part of the entire system, and even when they’re seeing a bigger half they’re not likely seeing how all of the components are built-in collectively into one thing that’s as complicated as a human physique residing in society. In order that they’re not wherever close to understanding on the molecular stage that they’re claiming how restoration from a illness works or why you’ll get a illness or what the illness is…
[Sound dropped out for me here.]
Cue the sound of hundreds of immunologists who know a lot extra about illness and immunology than Rancourt all facepalming in unison.
Right here you see a standard strategy of antivaxxers and COVID-19 minimizers, simply on steroids. Whereas COVID-19 minimizers like these behind, for instance, the Nice Barrington Declaration, principally claimed that the virus was not harmful to the overwhelming majority of individuals (and so we should always have “let ‘er rip” with poorly outlined “targeted safety” to maintain the supposedly tiny minority for whom the virus was harmful “protected”), right here Rancourt is claiming that there was “no new virulent pathogen.” The idea at that time final 12 months when he gave the article is, to me at the very least, that he believed that there was such a factor as a virulent pathogen. Or perhaps he didn’t. He simply “doesn’t care” whether or not viruses exist:
Arduous core virus deniers weren’t amused:
Don’t fear, although. As of final summer time, Rancourt was shifting in that course:
Going again to the 17 minute video on the finish of this Substack, which is a clip from the 2+ hour interview posted to Rumble six weeks in the past, I observe that Rancourt begins out by referring to the “so-called influenza.” He then strikes on to liken the signs of COVID-19 to that of the flu and makes use of that to conclude, “I’m not personally satisfied that there was one thing significantly new or particular.”
After Steve Kirsch says he’s “going to push again” just a little, Rancourt continues:
The opposite factor is, I’ve seemed on the scientific literature and proceed to analysis it for agency proof that it has been demonstrated which you could unfold a viral respiratory illness—in different phrases, which you could trigger an infection in an individual utilizing a virus—and I’ve not discovered any scientifically, OK?
It’s, in fact, very simple to fail to seek out proof for those who design your requirements for what proof you’ll settle for to exclude proof that scientists have accepted since viral respiratory illnesses had been found within the late 1800s, however, pray, do go on Mr. Rancourt:
For instance, for those who have a look at the work of Professor Sheldon Cohen, an American who spent his total profession attempting to contaminate school age college college students within the US if you had been allowed to do this with what he thought was influenza… He was culturing the stuff and would put the fluid, both vaporized into their noses, or deposit it, or drop it in, or into their eyes, each manner that he might… And what he discovered was—and that is actually vital—the individuals who received sick are those who had important psychological stress of their life, and—these had been the most important components that decided whether or not or not you had been going to get sick—is psychological stress and social isolation. So the school college students that didn’t have an enormous social community and had been socially remoted and had been burdened, they received sick, and the extra remoted and the extra burdened they had been, the sicker they received.
In fact, this doesn’t show that viruses don’t exist or which you could’t infect somebody with a respiratory virus. Fairly the opposite! Somewhat, what it demonstrated is that one’s psychological well being impacts one’s susceptibility to an infection with respiratory viruses. Certainly, right here’s a 2006 paper by Cohen (who died in 2013) that checked out susceptibility to an infection with influenza and rhinovirus as a perform of constructive emotional type (PES) through which he reported that prime scores for PES had been related to decrease susceptibility to changing into in poor health after a problem with purified virus. Furthermore, nothing in drugs is 100%, opposite to the best way that Rancourt described it. The paper, for example, demonstrated that 26.1% of low PES developed influenza signs, whereas 15.5% of excessive PES topics did. That’s fairly spectacular, a 40% decline within the probability of creating symptomatic influenza when uncovered to purified virus, and, sure, the excessive PES topics who did get sick had milder signs. This outcome means that emotional well being is related to a more practical immune system. It doesn’t, as Rancourt implies, show which you could’t unfold a respiratory virus and make somebody sick. Once more, fairly the alternative, in actual fact! (Comparable outcomes had been obtained with rhinovirus on this examine.)
Rancourt additionally references the Rosenau experiment of 1918-1919 through which volunteers from the Navy had been certainly remoted on an island, the place Harvard professor Milton L. Rosenau tried to provide them the flu by varied means or to power its unfold by requiring the volunteers to remain collectively in shut quarters. What Rancourt fails to notice is that virology was very primitive on the time and on the time it was believed {that a} micro organism, often known as the Pfeiffer bacillus, was used because the infectious agent in a tiny pattern measurement. (It wasn’t confirmed that influenza was a viral illness till 1934.) There’s really an excellent rationalization on, of all locations, Reddit why the Rosenau experiment didn’t yield any helpful info, concluding that “the experiments had been very poorly executed by right this moment’s requirements, and it’s not shocking such sloppy work didn’t give them any insights.” Additionally within the thread had been a variety of references on how the transmissibility of influenza was established and the way it must be executed proper. The purpose is that it isn’t practically as simple as Rancourt, in his ignorance, appears to assume it’s to determine transmissibility, even again when the moral requirements for approving a problem experiment had been far more lax. Suffice to say, it may be executed and has been executed.
Amusingly, Kirsch—once more, of all folks—challenges Rancourt by mentioning the instance of cruise ships through which one individual will get sick from COVID after which, quickly after, tons of of individuals catch it, a surprisingly cheap retort coming from somebody like Kirsch. Rancourt’s retort? He claimed that it wasn’t the virus, however relatively that the folks had been all “topic to the identical circumstances” and are “subjected to one another’s stress,” ending, “You’ve received a bunch of previous folks locked on a ship. What do you assume goes to occur?”
Alrighty then. Kirsch even goes on to “problem” Rancourt by mentioning that SARS-CoV-2 is definitely a virus that has been sequenced and is a novel respiratory pathogen, asking Rancourt, “Agree or disagree?” (You possibly can predict the reply, proper?) I’ve to confess that this subsequent a part of the interview led me to giggle out loud, as Rancourt airily dismisses the genetic sequencing strategies as “extremely unreliable,” “patchy,” and “fabricated.” Critically, say what you’ll about sequencing DNA and RNA, however “extremely unreliable” they’re most positively not. Certainly, with the appearance of subsequent era sequencing and strategies to sequence entire genomes, the science of genomics and sequencing DNA is sort of strong and, sure, dependable. As you may think, there’s nothing that I like greater than a physicist airily dismissing a complete science that he clearly doesn’t perceive. Critically, simply since you don’t perceive a scientific method doesn’t imply that it’s a bogus method. At this level, Rancourt is reminding me of Paul Davies and Charles Lineweaver, two physicists who determined that they knew extra about most cancers than most cancers biologists, leading to them resurrecting a principle of most cancers in style over a century in the past that most cancers biologists had in the end deserted due to its lack of explanatory energy relating to most cancers origins and improvement.
Somewhat than really displaying why he thinks SARS-CoV-2 sequencing is “unreliable,” Rancourt does a Gish gallop into speaking about “variants of concern,” claiming they “by no means used to do that earlier than COVID-19.” Oh, actually? They’ve been doing it yearly for influenza variants going again a long time. It’s how vaccinologists attempt to predict which strains of influenza might be circulating in any given 12 months and attempt to match that 12 months’s vaccine to these strains. He even claims that there are “virtually no” scientific papers demonstrating that that is even a factor. Once more, oh actually? Right here’s a evaluate article from 2021 about variants of concern discussing vaccine effectiveness in opposition to them. Right here’s a examine Delta and Omicron that concludes that Delta was essentially the most cytopathic and Omicron the quickest replicating. I might go on, however there are practically 6,000 articles listed in PubMed about or mentioning COVID-19 variants of concern. Good of Rancourt to dismiss all of them so simply by happening and on about how supposedly variants of concern are recognized by means of brief stretches of DNA and tons of of sequences which can be discovered apparently don’t depend. Critically the phrase is homology. You possibly can relate genetic sequences to one another that aren’t an identical and produce phylogenic timber of how evolutionarily associated they’re.
Rancourt claims to know loads about “molecular science” and “the way you measure issues in science,” having taught spectroscopy, diffraction, microscopy and bragging about having had an electron microscope in his lab. Goody for him. That doesn’t imply he understands genomics, genetics, and DNA sequencing, his dismissal of the science of variants and DNA sequencing as being “rubbish” with “no worth by any means” however, saying:
At this stage of my research, I’m not in any respect satisfied that viruses, as a pandemic-causing agent, exist. I’m not satisfied in any respect.
Kirsch really pushes him, asking whether or not there was a novel pathogenic virus that appeared in 2020, and Rancourt says he “doesn’t see any proof” for that or “any motive to postulate that.” Kirsch then tries to problem him with anecdotal proof, resembling a paramedic who says he by no means famous SpO2 values (oxygen saturation measured by a pulse oximeter) as little as he had seen, and Rancourt doesn’t even know what meaning, asking if it has one thing to do with “blood viscosity” after which later saying he doesn’t know what SpO2 measures. Principally, Rancourt is totally blind to some very primary human physiology, the form of factor taught within the first time period of the primary 12 months after I was in medical faculty, however he feels competent to dismiss a complete department of science? Critically, man, if Steve “debate me, bro!” Kirsch has to clarify to you what a pulse oximeter is and SpO2 is, and {that a} low, not a excessive, SpO2 is dangerous, you ought to be sufficiently ashamed to slink again into the rabbit gap you emerged from to unfold what you discovered after having gone down it. I used to be cringing exhausting throughout this a part of the 17 minute phase. By means of background, although, Kirsch was describing is a phenomenon known as “comfortable hypoxia,” through which COVID-19 victims might look apparently superb and surprisingly not in need of breath at alarmingly low oxygen saturations. Kirsch notes that this was a brand new phenomenon related to COVID-19, which it was.
I can’t resist repeating once more proper right here that Denis Rancourt doesn’t know what a pulse oximeter measures, why it’s vital, or what SpO2 is, and on this interview must be educated about such primary human physiology by Steve Kirsch! Dude, it is advisable put a paper bag over your head and simply shut up. I can’t recall having cringed so exhausting in a very long time.
So how does Rancourt reply? He pivots to saying that the components with the most important impact on human physiology are psychological stress and social isolation. That’s proper. These new medical phenomenon noticed by clinicians in these darkish early and lethal days of the pandemic 4 years in the past had been all attributable to stress and psychology! In fact, this sounds loads like a number of different different drugs beliefs that I’ve written about earlier than, resembling German New Medication and its bastard offspring Biologie Totale, which claims that most cancers is because of suppressed psychological stress, simply substituting societal stress, resembling “lockdowns” and concern of the virus, for the suppressed psychological stress.
Certainly, Rancourt goes on and on and on about this for minutes, claiming that the respiratory system could be the one most affected by all this societal stress, which makes you prone to the micro organism already residing on and in you. His proof? Individuals in poorer states died in larger numbers than in richer states. It by no means happens to him that public well being, entry to healthcare, and different components related to poverty, resembling residing at excessive density, had been seemingly contributors. He additionally claimed that the best way we “stopped giving antibiotics” to folks contributed as a result of, supposedly, these identical folks received extra antibiotic prescriptions and, with out antibiotics, had been extra prone to bacterial an infection. Apparently the idea of antibiotic resistance by no means occurred to him.
When that fails, Rancourt simply says that he doesn’t consider what clinicians had been telling folks, as they too had been apparently sheeple—in equity, he doesn’t use the phrase, however it’s clearly what he meant—and believed all the federal government propaganda too.
Denis Rancourt shouldn’t be alone
I had deliberate on writing extra about Rancourt’s declare that COVID-19 vaccines killed 17 million, however I made a decision that this put up had gotten lengthy sufficient. Additionally, I’ve addressed one model of this “vaccine depopulation” declare promoted by Steve Kirsch, though Kirsch claimed “solely” 13 million deaths from vaccines. Principally, all of those claims depend on unjustified extrapolation from a comparatively small quantity to the world’s inhabitants. Maybe I’ll return Rancourt’s model of this declare, both right here or at my not-so-secret different weblog within the close to future. Within the meantime, as I famous earlier than, Rancourt is downright “reluctant” to say that viruses don’t exist in comparison with some.
For example, let’s return to Franklin O’Kanu, who describes the “penalties of a world with out viruses”:
The implications of Rancourt’s assertion are profound and far-reaching. If, as he asserts, there isn’t any proof to assist the existence of viruses, then we should reevaluate a lot of what now we have been instructed and accepted as fact. This assertion, if true, has important penalties for our society.
Think about the occasions of the previous few years. Lives had been disrupted, livelihoods threatened, and jobs misplaced attributable to a menace that, in line with Rancourt, myself, and others, doesn’t exist. Experimental procedures had been administered within the title of well being for a non-existent menace. The actual-world implications of holding onto false concepts are extreme and have brought on untold struggling.
I personally know a doctor who misplaced their father as a result of he was placed on antiviral treatment. If Rancourt’s assertion holds, did we have to begin that antiviral treatment? Do we want antiviral medicines in any respect? The identical query applies to vaccines, particularly as Steve Kirsch has proven that vaccines may cause autism4.
These are the implications of an business constructed on pseudoscience. The time period “virus” interprets to “poison,” and what we’re witnessing is a poisoning of the thoughts. As I focus on in my article, it’s potential to manifest signs of an an infection, a so-called viral an infection, by means of psychological stress.
In equity, I’ll admit that, certainly, if there really is not any such factor as viruses (or at the very least respiratory viruses that may trigger a pandemic), then, sure, that may be a radical discovering that may completely change how we view drugs and well being. The issue with O’Kanu’s assertion is that it’s pure bullshit (for those who’ll excuse my language). Now we have mountains of proof for the existence of viruses courting again over a century, in addition to mountains of proof for what illnesses they trigger, how they are often prevented with vaccines, how they’re transmitted, and even how a few of them could be handled with antiviral medicines. Rancourt and O’Kanu can deny all that proof all they need and attempt to persuade you that illnesses that physicians and scientists attribute to viruses are actually attributable to stress and social isolation, however even the examples they cite don’t assist that concept. Keep in mind, for instance, that that influenza problem experiment confirmed that prime PES scores had been related to solely a 40% lower within the threat of changing into in poor health after an publicity to the virus. Rancourt talks as if it had been 100% and that every one it is advisable keep away from changing into sick is to be psychologically wholesome (or at the very least not burdened) and never socially remoted, in a lot the identical manner that quacks have lengthy claimed that you’ve full management over your well being.
I notice that it’s exhausting to consider that now, within the 2020s, there are individuals who actually consider that viruses don’t exist and that respiratory infectious illnesses like COVID-19 and the flu are a results of psychological stress and social isolation manifesting themselves as varied symptomology and elevated threat of bacterial an infection, however sadly these folks exist, and a few of them are pretty first rate propagandists. Additionally, if you consider that viruses don’t exist or can’t harm you, it turns into all too simple to falsely consider that vaccines are too dangerous to justify their use—and even that they’ve killed hundreds of thousands of individuals.
ADDENDUM 3/21/2024
Debunk the Funk reacts to the video, and it’s hilarious, albeit not as hilarious as a crank struggle between Denis Rancourt and Steve Kirsch.