The world of virology can be a confusing and chaotic mess, especially if one does not know where to look or what to be looking for. In the interest of helping people navigate the many interlocking areas related to virology as well as the information contained within this site, I am providing an introduction page outlining the most important components to be looking out for while partaking on this journey. Think of this page as the map to help guide you through the fantastical world of the pseudoscience known as virology. It is my hope that this will help to create a better understanding of the unscientific methods utlized in these studies so that anyone can read the papers and identify the tricks for themselves.
Is Virology A Science?
To start off with, let’s address the question of whether or not virology is even a science at all. To do so, we need to examine a few definitions first:
Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
Pseudoscience: Theories, ideas, or explanations that are represented as scientific but that are not derived from science or the scientific method.https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199594009.001.0001/acref-9780199594009-e-1007
In order to be considered science, the field in question must adhere to the scientific method. If it does not, it is considered pseudoscience, i.e. fake science. The scientific method is the process of observation, questioning, and experimentation that is supposed to be followed by all researchers. It consists of a series of steps designed to test a hypothesis in order to either validate or invalidate it. The steps are as follows:
- Observe a phenomenon
- Alternate hypothesis
- Independent variable (the presumed cause)
- Dependent variable (the observed effect)
- Control variables
- Null hypothesis
- Analyze the observation/data
- Validate/invalidate hypothesis
Virology is at a loss from the very start as they can not observe a “virus” in nature. They can not see a “virus” float into a host and witness this act causing disease. They can not watch “viruses” being transferred from person to person through tiny droplets or aerosols in the air. As virologists can not observe “viruses” at all, they had to assume something “virus-like” existed in the first place causing disease. In other words, “viruses” were nothing but an idea from the beginning. We are still waiting for the proof that these fictional entities actually exist.
The most important aspect of the scientific method to obtain the necessary proof for cause and effect is having a well-established independent variable. This is the variable that you can manipulate in order to see if it (the presumed cause) has the desired effect on the dependent variable; the result that changes based on the manipulation of the independent variable.
This is exactly where problems arise in virology. In order for any scientific experiment attempting to show cause and effect to be valid, it must have an independent variable that can be observed and manipulated in order to determine if it is the real cause of the desired effect. For virology, the independent variable would be only those particles that virologists dreamt up and assumed to be the “virus.” Nothing more, nothing less. As they can not observe “viruses” in nature nor aquire them there in order to obtain the necessary particles to be used for experimentation, virologists must get the desired particles directly from the fluids of a sick patient though the means of purification and isolation.
What is Purification and Isolation?
Purification is the necessary process required to get the assumed “virus” particles free from any contaminants, pollutants, or foreign materials that are found within the fluids from the sick patient. This means separating the assumed “virus” particles away from any host material, bacteria, microorganisms, multivesicular bodies, exosomes, etc. so that nothing but the particles believed to be “viruses” remain. Only then would virologists be able to use just the isolated (separated from everything else) particles believed to be “viruses” as an independent variable in order to attempt to prove cause and effect.
Purification be done various ways and is usually a combination of multiple methods including:
Yet here is where we hit another road bump. Even though the methods of purification exist, virologists rarely if ever use them. In fact, they regularly claim that purification can not be done in order to get the desired particles and they will provide many excuses for why this is the case. Often, you will see excuses such as:
- There are not enough “virus” particles in the sample
- The “virus” particles are damaged and lost during purification
- “Viruses” need a host cell and must be cell cultured in order to grow enough “virus” particles
Here are a few examples of the excuses being put into action. From Luc Montagnier, discoverer of HIV:
“There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus in the gradient.”
“One had not enough particles produced to purify and characterise the viral proteins. It couldn’t be done.”
“I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn’t take the “peak”…or it didn’t work…because if you purify, you damage.”
From University of Auckland associate professor and microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles in an AAP “Fact” check:
“Viruses are basically inanimate objects which need a culture to activate in. But the way they are phrasing the requests is that the sample must be completely unadulterated and not be grown in any culture – and you can’t do that,” she told AAP FactCheck in a phone interview.
“You can’t isolate a virus without using a cell culture, so by using their definition it hasn’t been isolated. But it has been isolated and cultivated using a cell culture multiple times all around the world.”
As can be seen, it is claimed that even though the methods of purification exist, these methods are unsuitable for separating the assumed “virus” particles away from everything else. In other words, “viruses” can not be purified (free of contaminants) nor isolated (separated from everything else) and therefore can not be used as a valid independent variable in order to prove cause and effect. Thus, virology can not follow the scientific method and is by definition unscientific. In other words:
Virology is a Pseudoscience!
Now that we have that out of the way, how does virology go about attempting to get around the fact that it is a pseudoscience in order to trick the masses? This comes about mainly through redefining criteria and definitions.
Cell Culture = “Virus Isolate?”
When virologists refer to isolating a “virus,” as seen in the examples above, they are not referring to particles that are separated and free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, etc. Their definition is something else entirely, as explained by virologist Vincent Racaniello:
“Many of the terms used in virology are ill-defined. They have no universally accepted definitions and there is no ‘bible’ with the correct meanings.”
“Let’s start with the term virus isolate, because it’s the easiest to define. An isolate is the name for a virus that we have isolated from an infected host and propagated in culture. The first isolates of SARS-CoV-2 were obtained from patients with pnemonia in Wuhan in late 2019. A small amount of fluid was inserted into their lungs, withdrawn, and placed on cells in culture. The virus in the fluid reproduced in the cells and voila, we had the first isolates of the virus.
Virus isolate is a very basic term that implies nothing except that the virus was isolated from an infected host.”
What virologists call an isolate is the fluid from the sick host with everything included. The unpurified fluids (containing host materials, bacteria, microorganisms, etc) are mixed with many other materials such as antibiotics/antifungals, blood from baby cows, chemicals and minimal “nutrients,” etc. and are added to a cell culture normally consisting of African green monkey kidneys or a cancerous cell line from humans. After culturing for days, virologists look for evidence of cell death known as the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) to claim a “virus” is present within the unpurified soup. There are, however, two problems with this:
- The CPE in the cell culture which virologists look for as evidence is not specific to “viruses” and can be caused by numerous other factors.
- The mixture of the unpurified fluids from the host with many contaminants and foreign elements is the exact opposite of purification and isolation.
Thus, it should be clear that one can not use cell cultured supernatant as an independent variable in order to adhere to the scientific method to determine cause and effect as there are numerous substances mixed together into a toxic soup. Any of these substances within the soup could potentially cause the effect being blamed on the invisible “virus.” It is also important to note that no “virus” is ever observed to be within the cell culture, only the non-specific CPE effect is observed. The cell culture method championed by virologists fails two very important components of the scientific method which can not be accomplished without them. For more information on this fraudulent cell culture practice, click here.
Satisfying Koch’s Postulates?
In 1884, German scientist Robert Koch devised a set of logic-based criteria that needed to be met in order to prove a specific pathogen caused a disease. By 1890, he had refined and published them. At the time, Koch’s criteria were developed for bacteria as “viruses” were unknown and were not officially “discovered” until 1892 with the Tobacco Mosaic “virus” for plants. The four original Postulates were:
- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all cases of those suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy subjects.
- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased subject and grown in pure culture.
- The cultured microorganism should cause the exact same disease when introduced into a healthy subject.
- The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
Since the time of Koch, it has been debated as to whether or not Koch’s Postulates could ever be fulfilled for “viruses.” In 1937, prominent virologist Thomas Rivers admitted that it was “obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.” He tried to revise the Postulates for virology by watering them down in order to make it easier for virologists to satisfy them. However, even with the revisions, virologists have been unable to fulfill these Postulates. The problem is that in order to fulfill these logic-based criteria, virologists must adhere to the scientific method by having purified and isolated “virus” particles in order to prove cause and effect. As we already discussed, they can not do this as virology is a pseudoscience that attempts to wiggle around the scientific method. Thus, many arguments have come about trying to paint the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates as irrelevant by claiming:
- The Postulates are outdated.
- They were created for bacteria only.
- “Viruses” can not be grown in pure culture.
- Koch himself could not satisfy his own criteria.
I’m sure there are many other excuses that I have left out but the picture should be crystal clear. Virologists can not satisfy the logical requirements that must be met in order to prove a microbe causes disease. Funny enough, even though attempts have been made to discredit the Postulates, the WHO still admits that they must be satisfied:
“Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called “Koch’s postulate.” The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.” -WHO 2003
There are even virologists who also admit to needing to fulfill these Postulates. From Ron Fouchier:
“For starters, we’ll find out whether animals get sick from this virus. You can isolate a virus from a patient, but that does not mean they died from it; to show that it causes disease you need to fulfill Koch’s postulates.”
From the Zaki MERS paper:
“It will be equally important to test whether HCoV-EMC fulfills Koch’s postulates as the causative agent of severe respiratory disease.”
From the Zhu “SARS-COV-2” paper:
“Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.”
From the Zhou “SARS-COV-2 ” paper:
“The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.”
Somehow, the WHO and these various virologists did not receive the memo to trash the Postulates. It is obvious, contrary to what the naysayers want you to believe, that these four criteria must be satisfied in order to prove a “virus” causes disease. In order to do so, the scientific method must be adhered to by having the independent variable of purified/isolated particles taken directly from sick humans in order to prove them pathogenic in a natural way. Taking unpurified fluids from sick patients and adding them to toxic cell culture concoctions does not cut it and the pseudoscientists know it.
Indirect Does Not Equal Direct
As virologists can not provide the purified and isolated particles they believe are “viruses,” they lack direct proof as to the existence of said “viruses.” Direct evidence is that which directly demonstrates and proves a fundamental fact. In order to get around this conundrum, virologists have attempted to provide an array of indirect evidence to stand in for the lack of the real deal. Indirect evidence is a combination of many facts that do not offer direct proof but, if they turn out to be true, allow for the inference of a key fact at issue. The different sources of indirect evidence that stands in as a substitute for the invisible “virus” include:
- Cell Culture and the cytopathogenic effect (CPE)
- Electron microscope images
- Antibody results
- Animal studies
We will look at each of these areas briefly starting with electron microscopy as we already previously touched upon cell culturing.
Electron Microscopy: Point and Declare
Many people think that because there are images of “viruses,” it means that the “viruses” have been proven to exist. However, this is one of the great deceptions that virology has enacted upon the world. As we previously discussed, virologists can not purify and isolate the particles that they believe are “viruses” directly from the fluids of sick patients. In order to obtain the EM images, they take the supernatant (top layer of liquid) of the unpurified cell culture and put it through a series of steps to prepare the sample for imaging. These steps include:
- Fixing (i.e. killing) the sample with either glutaraldehyde or paraformaldehyde
- Staining the sample with heavy metals
- Dehydrating the sample in increasing concentrations of alcohol
- Embedding the sample in an epoxy resin
Not only has the unpurified fluids fron the sick patient been heavily altered through all of the pollutants added during the cell culturing process, it is further altered during the sample preparation process for EM. The resulting images are of random particles from a sea of billions of similar and/or identical particles which were then plucked out as the representation of the “virus.” The EM technician points at the random particles and declares them as the “virus” without proof that the particles are in fact the culprit. As the EM images are not of purified/isolated particles, the evidence is indirect at best and entirely fraudulent at worst. In fact, microbiologist Harold Hillman claimed that these images were nothing but aretfacts created by the very process used to obtain them. The end result is that the images are as far away removed from reality as they could possibly get. For more on EM images, click here.
Antibodies: Does One Fictional Entity Prove Another?
Another indirect trick that virologists love to use is the so-called specificity of antibodies to bind to only the intended “virus” target. We have been sold the idea that antibodies exist inside of us which engage in all-out warfare against the invading pathogenic “virus” in order to restore us back to health. Antibodies are used to claim a specific “virus” is present in the lab and also to claim that one has some form of immunity either after vaccination or acquired from natural “infection.”
However, what most do not know is that, like “viruses,” antibodies have also never been purified and isolated directly from the fluids of humans. These entities are entirely theoretical and have never been observed. Also like “viruses,” antibodies were just the figment of the imagination of various researchers in the late 19th century who never witnessed them in action. In fact, there are no less than six theories attempting to explain the shape and function of these fictional creations. These include:
- Instructive Theories
- Direct Template Theory
- Indirect Template Theory
- Selective Theories
- Natural Selection Theory
- Side Chain Theory
- Clonal Selection Theory
- Immune Network Theory
Virologists regularly use antibody tests to claim that they have a specific “virus” present. In essense, they look at indirect chemical reactions in a lab to claim the presence of antibodies which are then used to claim the presence of a “virus.” The tests that are utilized regularly in the papers include:
- Neutralization assays
- Hemagglutination Inhibition test
- Complement Fixation test
- Lateral Flow tests
What virologists will not openly admit to is that antibodies are nonspecific and will regularly bind to proteins which are not the intended target. Antibodies sold to labs vary in quality and differ batch-to-batch which often leads to erroneous and false results. The work done with antibodies are unreproducible and irreplicable which has led to a reproducibility crisis in the sciences. The reason for all of this is that antibodies remain an unproven theoretical construct. It should be obvious that one can not use a fictional creation in order to assert the existence of another fictional creation, yet virologists continue to use this illusion to trick you.
Genomics: Random A,C,T,G’s In A Database
With the rise of molecular virology, genomics has played an ever-increasing role in the “viral” delusion. The advent of PCR in the 1980’s led to the use of the DNA Xerox machine becoming a makeshift test to detect “viruses” based off of fragments from their genomes. However, as has been shown during the “Covid-19 pandemic,” PCR is highly inaccurate and is not suitable for this purpose. What is also evident is that genomes themselves are entirely unreliable as virologists are unable to sequence the exact same genome every time. At the time of this writing, there are nearly 10.5 million variants of the same “virus” running around.
Why is this the case? As discussed before, as virologists are unable to purify and isolate the particles they claim are “viruses,” the resulting genome comes from unpurified mixtures of RNA/DNA including various sources such as human, animals, bacteria, and other microorganisms. There is absolutely no way to tell where the genetic material is coming from nor whether it belongs to a single source. However, this has not stopped virologists from creating and assembling theoretical models of random A,C,T,G,’s in a computer database in order to claim the existence of a “virus” never before seen. The fact that there are numerous steps that the samples go through during the creation of a genome that lead to alterations, artefacts, distortions, and errors makes it easy to see that the genome is nothing but a meaningless indirect and fraudulent representation of a non-existent entity. For a breakdown of the genome creation process, click here.
Proof of Pathogenicity?
The most horrific aspect of the indirect methods used to claim the existence of pathogenic “viruses” is the cruel and grotesque torture animals are regularly subjected to in the pursuit of evidence. Holes were drilled into the heads of monkeys in order for the emulsified spinal cord from a 9-year-old boy to be injected into their brains. This was the “proof” that polio caused paralysis. Rabbits were regularly scraped with sandpaper and had toxic emulsions of ground up wart tissues rubbed into their wounds to “prove” the existence of the “papillomavirus.” The rabbits also had this goo injected directly into their veins, into their stomachs, into the fat layers of their skin, into their testicles, and into their brains. Rabbits also had their eyes scarified by scalpels in order to inject the goo supposedly containing the variola-zoster (chickenpox/shingles) “virus” in order to “prove” pathogenicity. They were also injected in all of the usual places including the testicles. Horrifying tales such as these are ripe in the virology literature. Often times, the experiments ended in failure and the animals were needlessly tortured and killed for no reason whatsoever. In all cases, no purified/isolated “virus” particles are ever used and the injection mixture often contains the ground up remains of previously killed animals. The route of “infection” is anything but natural and in no way proves pathogenicity, contagiousness, and/or infectiousness. At best, these experiments show that animals can be poisoned by the injection of chemically-altered diseased tissues/fluids
Why do virologists go to such cruel lengths to attempt to prove the existence of pathogenic “viruses?” It is because the attempts to pass “viruses” on naturally from human-to-human failed miserably most of the time. During the 1918 Spanish flu, transmission experiments were conducted on numerous volunteers on separate occasions on different coasts. The results from the “deadliest virus” of all time were very revealing:
“The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918. His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”
The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results. It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.“
Because of the repeated failures of human-to-human transmission experiments, these types of natural routes of exposure were deemed unethical and were replaced by the much more “ethical” torture, dismemberment, and murder of animals. There are, however, still what are called human challenge trials such as that seen recently with “SARS-COV-2.” Yet these trials do not reflect reality whatsoever and use cell-cultured manufactured goo that is inoculated into the nose of volunteers who are then told to wear noseclips to become “infected.” There is nothing natural about these human trials and the inhumane animal experimentation. There are no purified/isolated “virus” particles used in these studies. There are no natural routes of infection. There is no proof of pathogenicity.
Piecing The Puzzle Together
Hopefully it is now clear that virology does not follow the scientific method. It has no valid independent variable (i.e. purified/isolated particles directly from human fluids) for which to establish cause and effect through experimentation. Without this, there is no direct evidence of any “virus” ever having been inside a human. Without this, there can be no satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates, the logic-based criteria needed to be fulfilled in order to prove a microbe causes disease. All virology has is flawed indirect evidence that does not hold up under scrutiny.
In order to put this information to use and to understand the papers presented on this site, I want to briefly walk you through how to use the links properly. Under any paper shared in the articles I post, there is usually a link to the paper. If the paper is behind a paywall, a DOI number will be listed at the end of the paper.
In my articles it will look like this:
In a study, it will normally appear something like this:
Once you have the DOI number, go to sci-hub.st and paste it into the search bar. This will give you the option to either read or download the paper:
The most important section of any virology paper is the “Methods” section. You can honestly skip over the entire study if you want to and just read the methods. If you see that the “virus” was cultured, you know full well now that they never purified nor isolated any particles directly from the human sample. The virologists did nothing more than create a toxic soup and assumed a “virus” was present indirectly through CPE:
Welcome to ViroLIEgy
This site is intended to be a guide through the pseudoscientific world of virology. My intention is to share information directly from their own studies and sources. I obviously have my own opinion of the information and I will always provide my own breakdown and commentary. However, I do not want anyone to just take my word as the gospel truth. I share the sources so that anyone can read and verify this information for themselves. You can determine if my analysis is correct or not or ignore it entirely and do an analysis of your own. In this day and age, we can not just assume what we are told and taught is correct. We all need to be our own experts and display critical thinking, logic, and discernment. It is my belief that anyone looking at virology utilizing these same skills will see what myself and others have seen for a long time now. Virology is an illusion. A deliberate deception. A trick. It is not science. It is pseudoscience at its worst.
Welcome to the world of viroLIEgy. I wish you luck on your own journey as you uncover the hard truths about the deceitful and horrific tales that have been indoctrinated into us since birth.