London Times

London Times


Sam Bailey’s Very Disingenuous “Settling the Virus Debate” Challenge

Sam Bailey’s Very Disingenuous “Settling the Virus Debate” Challenge

By Steve Kirsch

It was designed to be impossible to meet. I’ll expose the tricks they used here since nobody else has. The people behind these challenges are untrustworthy.

Executive summary

Dr. Sam Bailey posted a “Settling the Virus Debate” document on her website. She claims this is the penultimate experiment to prove whether virology is a hoax or not.

This is a completely disingenuous challenge. It is designed to be impossible to complete so that the proposers can claim victory.

We have 100 years of scientific evidence that is all consistent with what virology teaches. It is ridiculous to say we need one more experiment and the results of that one experiment can prove that virology is a hoax.

In order to prove that virology is a hoax, they must propose an alternative hypothesis that explains the data that is ALREADY on the table better than virology.

They completely fail to do that.

They claim soda can cause COVID, smallpox, influenza, and other diseases. This is ridiculous. SARS-CoV-2 has a furin cleavage site that is human engineered. You can’t explain how it suddenly appears in millions of people by saying it is caused by 5G.

Anyone promoting this scam is spreading misinformation.


Here’s the challenge which is purported to settle the issue as to whether the virus exists:

The challenge has been ignored by the scientific community because it is considered to be a waste of time that proves nothing. That’s why nobody on our side has written a critique of how silly it is.

But since some of my followers think it is legit, I’m going to explain how ridiculous the challenge is.

But it’s important to point out some of the ways they set it up for failure in order to accomplish two things:

  1. Show people how untrustworthy the people behind the challenge are and
  2. Also to show how people have been duped about how science proves things.

Some of the flaws in their “Settling the virus debate” proposal

There are so many flaws, I’m just going to list the biggest ones:

  1. If this were a real “settle the debate” challenge, it would have been designed by a committee composed of people from both sides using a neutral facilitator. But these people never invited anyone from “our side” to collaboratively, using a neutral facilitator, and in full public view, to design the challenge. So promoting this challenge as “settling” the science is disingenuous. It would only settle things if parties on both sides agreed that it would. They don’t. So the challenge will settle nothing. And one flawed experiment doesn’t prove anything. It’s just another piece of data.
  2. They refused my offer to design the challenge collaboratively. I pointed out #1 to them and suggested they could do that now to fix the rookie mistake they made by not designing this collaboratively from the start. They were not interested in this approach. They said if I had any suggestions, I could make them and THEY would decide whether to accept them or not. This is ridiculous. They will spend a lot of money to do their “challenge” and because no respected group of virologists participated in the definition of the challenge, they will have proved nothing. It will be just another publicity stunt.
  3. I predict they will falsely argue that no mainstream virologists will participate in the definition of the challenge because they know it would lead to exposing the “fraud.” I know how they operate. They will claim that every mainstream virologists are either blue pilled or compromised except for Lanka. Therefore, none of them will participate. This is simply not true. None of them will participate because there is 100 years of virology evidence and the world does not need yet another experiment to prove or disprove virology. It can easily be done with all the scientific literature that exists to date. Lanka simply has to convince a panel that the existing evidence shows that there is a superior explanation for events we think are caused by viruses. He cannot do that and he knows it. If he believes the scientific journals are corrupt, he should focus all efforts on how to create a process to fairly evaluate the science. Then you could pick 100 papers at random from the last 100 years and if Lanka convinces a panel of scientists that HIS theory better explains the observations than the current theory, then he’ll have worldwide accolades. But they cannot do that. I’m not aware of a single thing that his theory is a better fit to observed data than the current explanations.
  4. The challenge fails to give a single concrete example of where virology cannot explain something that happened. Why are we having this discussion in the first place? For example, did someone run an experiment where using the same primers on a sample that different sequences were confirmed each time the sequencing was run? And were the possible causes investigated, e.g., defective hardware. Nope. The document is devoid of “mysteries” that cannot be explained with current science. They didn’t list a single “problem” with the current theory. This is why nobody in the virology community takes them seriously. They sole “problem” that they list is that nobody has isolated a virus to THEIR specifications. The reason for this is two-fold: (a) doing so is time consuming, technically difficult, and expensive and (b) with gene sequencing, this completely unnecessary. You’d likely need a BSL 4 lab to do it and there are a limited number of these labs and lab time is hard to book. That’s why it isn’t normally done for a virus: it’s a waste of time and money and precious BSL 4 resources. But if someone wants to pay for that being done, then why don’t they just request the isolation to be done and pay for it?
  5. The people who claim the virus “does not exist” mistakenly rely on Koch’s postulates as the accepted scientific standard that is necessary and sufficient to identify a virus. Virologists I’ve talked to all tell me that Koch’s postulates are outdated. Today, gene sequencing is the generally accepted technique for virus identification, not Koch’s postulates.
  6. They never mention costs in their challenge and who pays them. The work they require isn’t cheap. Nobody is going to spend their own money on their challenge.
  7. The challenge isn’t funded and they don’t admit that up front. When we asked about funding, we were told they have “some funding” but didn’t specify the amount. $100 ? We found out that hey want others to pay the costs of THEIR challenge. Christine told me I should fund it. Wow. I’m a bad person when I want to debate her, but she’s fine telling me to use my money to pay for her challenge. She claimed they had a PLEDGE for $500K, but a pledge is different from cash on hand. So they are expecting others to fund it. Why isn’t that mentioned in the challenge? Nobody is going to take their challenge if the money isn’t there. Everyone I know views their challenge as nonsense, but if they want to pay standard commercial rates for the work they want, my experts have no problem performing whatever they want to do. Nobody is hiding. But nobody I know will do this for free; it’s expensive. Check this out. They want us to pay for the work to do their silly experiments. Nope. We’ll do it, but all at fair commercial rates.
  8. Kevin McCairn accepted but they ignored him. He told them he would do the work. He would record everything on video and would charge them standard commercial rates for the work THEY requested. They used ad hominem attacks instead of accepting his offer to accept their challenge. So you simply cannot accept the challenge. They can then argue, “See? Nobody accepted our challenge.” This is silly. If they pay for the work in installments up front, Kevin will do their work. Let’s have a recorded video discussion to work this out. Will they do that? They know how to contact us. They have not reached out at all.
  9. There is no way to publicly accept the challenge so that the public can see the challenge was accepted. It must be accepted via private email. We tried that. It didn’t work. We have the emails. We’ll make them public if they challenge us on that.
  10. The challenge is very fragile and does NOT replicate nature; it is contrived. The challenge says that “the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls.” Seriously?!? This is not not how viruses are transmitted in nature. You need enough virions to create an infection in people. And you’d have a tough time getting IRB approval to infect healthy patients without having a 100% certainty you can prevent them from dying. Why not implant the purified virus in people’s nasal cavity and verify that the virus is replicating at the time of implant?
  11. They do not mention who is impartially judging whether the challenge conditions have been met. This is the most important part. They are silent on this.
  12. Bacteriophages have already met their challenge. See the section below. Basically, they claimed viruses haven’t been isolated, but one of their experts said that bacteriophages have been isolated. When I pointed out bacteriophages are viruses, he said they aren’t because they don’t replicate because nobody has seen them replicate. When I asked, “ok so WHO is making the replicas?” I was told to stop asking questions. Is that really how science works? When the questions get tough, no more answers are delivered. Really?
  13. They know full well that NGS sequencing isn’t guaranteed to return identical sequences on the same sample, but the challenge requires it. They state that “It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome.” That would ONLY be true if Sanger sequencing was specified. If it wasn’t, there would be small variations in the genome returned. They know that. So that’s why they specified the word IDENTICAL and deliberately omitted requiring Sanger sequencing. It’s set up for failure. For more on Sanger sequencing, see my article.
  14. One experiment doesn’t negate 100 years of evidence. They wrote, “If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded.” That is not how science works. If Paul Marik treats 1,000 patients using vitamin-C for sepsis and nobody dies, does that prove that it works? No, it simply proves it is more effective than a placebo. So then when someone tries to replicate his work on 1,000 patients and they all die at the same rate as placebo, does that mean that Paul’s work is “unfounded.” No, of course not. It simply means we have conflicting data. It turns out that Paul was right. The reason for the conflicting data is that when they replicated his protocol, they didn’t control for the time before treatment initiation. To this day, Paul Marik has suffered from this “scientific proof” (which was done with all the proper scientific controls) that was published in medical journals. So the experiment to disprove Marik was done by the book and it obtained a completely false result that has cost the lives of countless millions of patients. The bottom line is that scientific beliefs are based on multiple pieces of evidence. When there is disagreement in outcomes, we look for the cause. If we have the correct hypothesis, all the evidence should be explainable with that hypothesis. For example, we believe gravity exists, but gravity has never been isolated. Suppose I release an object and it does not fall to the ground. Can I declare: “Hah! This PROVES that gravity is a hoax!”? No, of course not. We’d look for the cause of the discrepancy rather than declaring “gravity doesn’t exist.” If the virus doesn’t exist, then how can one person in a family pass the virus on to a second person who then suddenly can express genomic sequences that are only found in SARS-CoV-2? They can’t explain that with the null hypothesis or any other of their alternate hypotheses. So their claims about the virus not existing is less likely to fit the observations than the claims about the virus does exist. It casts doubt that they are right. If we cannot isolate a Higgs Boson, does that mean it doesn’t exist? If two NGS sequences of the the same sample do not exactly match, does this mean NGS is fraudulent?
  15. My $1M bet is faster, simpler, well specified, it doesn’t require lab work, and it rewards the prevailing party. They have no interest in taking my money. The Isolate the Truth Fund has 1.5M euros available, so they can’t use the excuse that they can’t post the collateral. If they were truly interested in resolving the question, this would provide objective evidence QUICKLY and it would do so without costing them a dime; they would make $1M. My bet is scientists presenting to a neutral scientific panel who decides who wins. The bet offers 6 hours of testimony of scientific experts on both sides.
  16. They want the public to decide who is right based on the scientific evidence not bets. Alec Zeck wrote me saying bets won’t settle this and it should be done by scientific papers and evaluated by the public. But this is nonsense. The public is in absolutely no position to evaluate this: most people have no clue about what a virus is, how gene sequencing works, etc. My bet is better because scientists present to scientists. It resolves the issue quickly.
  17. The people behind the challenge spread misinformation. For example, in Alec Zack’s video at 1:30, they make the claim that you can use gene sequencing to extract any sequence you want. I guarantee you if I got to Sin Lee with samples, he will get the same results every time with his SARS-CoV-2 primers. The sample will either have it or it won’t. And it will be a perfect match each time. Does Alec want to bet $1M he’s right?

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

Do we need another experiment?

Someone asked, “Aren’t there experiments that can be designed to provide proof/evidence?”


I’m sorry, but that is a ridiculous question. We have PLENTY of evidence on the table: over 100 years of scientific observations. They are all consistent with the virology theory. We also have isolation of bacteriophages which are viruses. We don’t need any more evidence.

Are there mysteries that virology cannot explain? For example, my wife comes home and I’m not infected. She shakes my hand and my COVID antigen test goes positive with a strong T line within 5 minutes after the handshake. This is impossible based on virology. And guess what? Yup, it has NEVER happened in real life (or when it does it likely happened because I had gotten the same virus from someone else days earlier)

So we don’t have viral mysteries we cannot explain. Not a single one!

Furthermore, it is preposterous to assert that if you cannot perform ONE proposed experiment to THEIR satisfaction (which they totally control), that it will overturn all other observations.

If someone wants to challenge the status quo, they better damn well come in with an alternate hypothesis that can fit all the observations better than virology. Saying that a 29K nt sequence can be caused by “fast food” or “pollution” is ludicrous. But that’s what they assert! Watch this video at 1:32 to see how ridiculous the alternate hypothesis they propose here.

Folks, the SARS-CoV-2 genome was never seen until just recently. They have never shown a BLAST search showing the gene sequence existed until recently.

And there are hundreds of variants. All of them only seen after 2020. Soda has been around for a long time. Why is SARS-CoV-2 only observed in the NLM database now? They cannot explain it. So their alternative hypothesis doesn’t fit. None of their alternative hypotheses can explain this one simple example. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Here’s their list of what is causing COVID which is a NOVEL disease:

Can you find a single item on this list that explains why we started seeing this genome take off in 2020? All of these things listed have been around for decades. But that is their best counter hypothesis to explain the 29K long unique gene sequence of SARS-CoV-2.

And how do they explain the presence of the furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein? We’ve never seen that before. It can’t happen in nature as far as we know (nobody has explained a pathway)! It has to be genetically engineered by humans engaged in Gain of Function research. Which is what they did in Wuhan which is where it broke out.

This is why they won’t debate us. Because on that one point alone, they lose instantly.

In short, we have plenty of evidence on the table… 100 years worth. If Lanka wants to explain that the observations are better explained by an alternate hypothesis, I’m all ears. Let’s start with the furin cleavage site.

But this challenge is dumb and anyone who signed on to support it should be ashamed of themselves.

They have already lost. Patrick Gunnels admitted that bacteriophages have been isolated. They are viruses.

Someone from “their side” already admitted that viruses exist.

Patrick Gunnels, admitted on video (watch at 59:00) that bacteriophages have been isolated. Shortly after I pointed out in an email to him that bacteriophages are viruses. I asked him to respond, but he said only in a live stream. Wow. I said to send me a written document first explaining his argument. He refused. Then, all of a sudden, without warning, I became a bad person and he requested I stop communicating with him. So ad hominem attacks are used to provide an excuse for avoiding scientific debate. Isn’t it strange how I became a bad person at the moment I asked for written scientific proof of his ridiculous claim that bacteriophages don’t replicate because nobody has seen them do it. He just needed to explain how they replicate. Patrick’s argument is that if you can’t directly see it, it doesn’t exist (even when there is no other explanation).

Christin Massey employs the same technique, e.g., when the going gets tough, she resorts to using personal attacks and that I’m a bad person.

Her reasons for not accepting my $1M bet are disingenuous, just like the “virus debate” challenge. The $1M bet term sheet clearly says the parties are not required to talk to each other and all the negotiations will be between the lawyers and all discussions are in front of the judges. She doesn’t have to talk to me at all.

Other documents I’ve written about this topic

  1. Rumble video of Patrick Gunnels admitting bacteriophages have been isolated
  2. Sanger sequencing vs. NGS
  3. If you think the SARS-CoV-2 virus or virology is a hoax, READ THIS NOW
  4. Settling the virus debate challenge from Dr. Sam Bailey
  5. Does anyone want to debate “Does the virus exist?”
  6. Has the virus been isolated?
  7. Do you know why they NEVER want a live debate?

So you can see, I’ve not avoided the topic, but at this point, I’ve made my case and you are welcome to your opinion.

Bet-specific links

At this point, if you want to change my mind and show the world I’m wrong and become $1M richer, this is your chance. There are three bets currently active.

  1. My $1M bet offers (description of the why I’m offering the bets)
  2. Bet term sheet (the specific rules of the bet and a summary of the )
  3. Form to legally accept one of the offers and legally commit into good faith negotiations between our attorneys to finalize the offer.
  4. List of people who have accepted my offer

I guarantee you there are no tricks. If I wanted to bet that gravity doesn’t exist, I’d be drowning in acceptances. People don’t accept because they don’t believe they can convince a neutral panel of experts they select that they are right.


I’ve spent hours on this to give the virus deniers the benefit of the doubt. It took a long time for me to finally discover their alternate hypotheses (thank you Alec Zeck for exposing this) because they would never tell me their better explanation. As soon as I saw that slide, it was over for me.

There is over 100 years of evidence that is all consistent with the hypothesis that viruses exist. There is not a single piece of evidence that has been found that is inconsistent with the virus theory. Saying that viruses don’t exist because you can’t perform a certain difficult experiment is just plain silly.

I won’t be spending any more time on this nonsense including responding to any comments (I may make a few exceptions). I’ve already responded to hundreds of comments on this topic (when you combine this article with my other articles listed in the “Other documents” section above). See all the responses there. So I’m not running away from questions, it’s just silly to debate this any more. It’s beating a very dead horse. It’s a rat hole with no bottom.

My three $1M bet offers still stands. If anyone wants to accept any bet, I promise we will get to a definitive agreement very quickly on my side. I’m anxious for this to be settled ASAP by expert scientific judges and expert scientific testimony. So if you’re sure there is no virus, this is a quick million bucks.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *