Denis,

Re your new interview with the euphemistically-named “Canadians for Truth”:

You admitted that no-virus arguments are well founded.

But you said that you don't agree when we supposedly say "you haven't done this, therefore viruses don't exist" - misrepresenting our actual argument, which is that the onus is on the yes-virus people to prove their claims and they have never done so for any alleged "virus" in the 100+ years of virology...

"Just because.... blah blah... doesn't mean they don't exist!" Sure Denis, and Santa might actually exist too.

Virologists have had 100+ years and still never came up with a shred of valid evidence, and always rely on idiotic circular/backwards reasoning and leaps of illogic, and zillions of studies have been published on "SARS-COV-2" and every single one of is pseudoscience, and all “they” actually have are useless, fraudulent tests. And every attempt to demonstrate contagion has failed miserably, so there isn't even probable cause to look for a "virus".
<...>
"It's almost impossible to prove a negative"
Not really. I can prove right now that there isn’t a monkey sitting on my keyboard, and will send you a pic if you don't believe me. But why are you even discussing this? The onus isn't on no-virus people to prove no-virus, the onus is on yes-virus people to prove their yes-virus claims. Surely you realize where the burden of proof lies.
<...>
Respectfully, have you lost your mind? Why are you feeding this nonsense, instead of plainly stating that all tests for a purely hypothetical, never-shown-to-exist, replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that is contagious and causes disease via natural routes of exposure are fraudulent and useless and cannot possibly be validated?