Update: An Open Challenge to Virologists

Growing colder every day.

The Rybicki Trail Goes Cold

It has now been over a month since I openly challenged virologist Ed Rybicki—and any other virologist willing to step up—to provide the absolutely necessary evidence, derived from the scientific method and satisfying Koch’s Postulates, that proves their positive claim about the existence of “pathogenic viruses.”

Despite my open challenge, and despite tagging both Rybicki and his colleague Dr. Angela Rasmussen on Twitter, the silence has been deafening.

Unsuprisingly, the trail with Mr. Rybicki has grown cold.

Non-Existent E-Mail From Virologist Glenn Ison

Even though Mr. Rybicki has not responded, there have been a few attempts by others that I believe are important to address. Shortly after issuing the challenge, I was alerted on Facebook to claims from a virologist named Glenn Ison. He allegedly works in a level 3 bio lab at the Perkins Institute in Sydney University and claimed to have isolated the “1.1.01 Alpha strain” in 2020. According to the story, he had even emailed me directly about the challenge.

But no such email ever reached me. And when I did “look it up” by searching PubMed for “Glenn Ison” and the Perkins Institute, I found nothing. There was no trace of his supposed isolation of the “Alpha strain” in 2020.

The individual in contact with Ison was blocked after their exchange, so unfortunately, that lead froze over completely. If Mr. Ison would like to contact me, he can either respond here, or he can reach me via the contact page at ViroLIEgy.com.

E-Mail Correspondence With a Retired Lab Tech

Around the same time, I received a very different kind of message: an email from a retired lab technician who had once worked in a pharmaceutical company’s virology department. His first note was short and cryptic—an EM image labeled “sampled, cultured, isolated, concentrated, purified, crystalised and infectious.”

I replied, laying out what true scientific evidence would require: purification directly from host samples, controlled introduction into healthy hosts, re-isolation, proper controls, demonstration of natural transmission routes, replication at scale, and independent verification. Only then could EM images be considered valid evidence of a “pathogenic virus:”

Hi ****,

An EM image is not proof of a “pathogenic virus.” Methods matter. A valid claim would require:

• Purification & isolation of particles directly from a host sample (not cell culture), with degree of purification confirmed.
• Natural introduction of the purified sample into healthy hosts, with proper controls, to reproduce the disease.
• Re-isolation, purification, and imaging of the same particles from the newly sickened host.
• Demonstration of transmission via claimed routes (coughing, handshakes, etc.) under controlled conditions.
• Large-scale replication with adequate sample sizes.
• Absence of the same particles in healthy individuals.
• Independent reproduction of the findings by multiple researchers.

Only then could EM images count as real evidence of a “pathogenic virus.”

-Mike

To my surprise, he responded with a thoughtful and polite email. He shared his background as an electron microscopist in the late ’70s and ’80s, admitted the limits of the methods available at the time, and expressed skepticism about claims around HIV and “Covid.” He nonetheless believed some “viruses” must exist, pointing to his own work with particle purification and crystallography studies:

Hi Mike,

First off, apologies for the original curt email, I was just seeing if on the off chance I had a valid address. To my surprise I got a response, thank you for that. I don’t do any of the social media but stumbled across your address when I chanced upon your spat with Jamie Andrews. Sad there’s been so much venom generated over the subject and it’s a pity Jamie starts with the premiss that viruses don’t exist, (which is hardly an unbiased position), and he’s going to prove it. Rather than asking the question do they or don’t they exist.

Anyway, to put me into context I am now retired but was for a 12 year period during the late 70s and most of the 80s I worked as a bog standard, run-of-the-mill lab. tech. in a virology department at a once reputable, sadly no longer in existence, pharmaceutical company. This included being the department’s electron microscopist. Needless to say most of this period covered a time when RNA sequencing etc. was not routinely available. I have no fancy qualifications and initially didn’t know one end of a virus from the other, perhaps I still don’t. I have no axe to grind as to whether viruses do or do not exist and therefore am not interested in getting into any kind of argument with anyone.

If the question posed is, does the virus exist, as in during the covid fiasco, then I would probably say no. There’s absolutely no evidence that covid or HIV have ever been isolated and identified and a few rubbish transmission EMs of ultra thin allegedly ‘infected’ tissue sections show nothing. The suspect virus particle has to be completely isolated from everything else around it so it and it alone is the only thing left standing in the sample. Where viruses are concerned this really involves ultra centrifugation through caesium chloride gradients, i.e. isopycnic centrifugation which also provides an ’s’ value (Svedberg unit) to the particle. I trust this methodology will be incorporated into Jamie Andrews’ work because if it doesn’t it will be a waste of time. The ‘virus’ has to be fully isolated and purified.

If the question posed was, do viruses exist, then I would have to say yes, they do. There are probably millions of different species(?) of which a minuscule few cause diseases. It’s not compulsory for them to be pathogenic and life as we know it now probably wouldn’t even exist without them.

The micrograph I sent you was not a proof image of virulent virus particles, that would be absurd, but a confirmation image produced by me during the course of my work to confirm/assess had I isolated the particle I was interested in and to what degree of purity I had achieved. The method was routinely used.

The particles were further concentrated, crystallised and placed in the cyclotron at Dewsbury, UK, for X-ray crystallography studies that ultimately led to the complete structure of the virus being determined. The crystals were also shown to be pathogenic and capable of showing external symptoms.

Of the seven conditions you stipulated at the start of your email, only the first point was never met or even considered. The reason for this being to get enough material to work with. Would you donate (say) your pair of lungs to prove a point. Culturing ‘viruses’ in cell culture is a completely valid technique and there doesn’t need to be any nefarious reason for culturing viruses this way. Obligate parasites have to have a host.

I know this is purely anecdotal as far as you are concerned and it makes no odds whether you believe it or not. There are two ways of knowing something, a) being told/taught it or b) learning from personal experience. I’ve learned empirically from personal experience with no preconceived ideas or expectations that at least one virus on this planet does exist.

regards,

****

Accompanying the response was this image:

I wrote back with detailed questions pressing on the logical flaws of cell culture, the assumptions baked into claims of “viral” existence, and the lack of genuine purification and isolation at the outset. I asked about controls, replication, and independent reproduction of his findings:

Hi ****,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your perspective, especially regarding the importance of “virus isolation” and the limitations of methods at the time.

However, I would argue that culturing “viruses” in cells is not valid for demonstrating the existence of “viruses,” precisely because it relies on a logically fallacious and unscientific setup. The process assumes the very thing it’s trying to prove—that the particles observed under electron microscopy (EM) are “viruses.” I wrote about the fallacious nature of these experiments here:

https://viroliegy.com/2024/09/05/viroliegy-101-logical-fallacies/

The key problem here is the circular reasoning: culturing particles in cells to observe the assumed “virus” doesn’t meet the necessary standard for proving the presence of a “virus.” Without starting with purified “viral” material, how can we be certain that what we are observing is truly a “virus” and not, for example, contaminants, cellular debris, or even host RNA that may have been carried over during the culturing process? This is especially problematic when, as you mentioned, there has never been pure isolation of the “virus” from the beginning prior to experimentation.

Additionally, I noticed your comment about not having enough “viral” material to purify and isolate directly from the host without culturing. This is also a form of circular reasoning — the claim that there’s not enough material assumes that the “virus” already exists, and that there would not be enough “viral” particles within a host sample to purify, isolate, and identify. This assumption also implies that a host cell is required to “grow” the “virus.” This makes it difficult to move beyond assumption and to definitively prove “viral” existence. Until we start with purified and isolated material, these assumptions remain speculative.

Regarding genomic sequencing, the issue of purity still applies. Sequencing mixed samples without isolating the supposed “viral” particles means the genetic material analyzed could easily come from a mix of sources, including host material, contaminants, or other genetic material. This leaves significant uncertainty about what is actually identified. If the starting material isn’t purified and isolated, then any conclusions drawn from the sequencing are fundamentally flawed, since they rely on the assumption that the material in question is “viral.”

You also mentioned that you were able to confirm the degree of purity of the particles you observed. I’d like to ask for some clarification on how this was determined. Given that complete isolation of a “virus” from its host and contaminants is said to be practically impossible in the literature, how were you able to verify that the “virus” particle was truly isolated and not contaminated or simply cellular debris or host material? What degree of purity was achieved in your work? This is an important point because, without full isolation, we’re left with a sample that could contain a range of materials, making it difficult to definitively attribute the observed particles to the “virus.”

Additionally, you mentioned that the crystals were shown to be “pathogenic” and capable of causing external symptoms. I have a few follow-up questions about this:

1. How was it determined that the crystallization process didn’t alter or degrade the supposed “viral” material? Crystallization often involves exposing the sample to specific conditions (e.g., chemicals or temperature), which could potentially alter the particles. How do we know the crystallized particles are identical to the original “virus?”
2. How were the crystals introduced to the host? Were they injected as-is, or was there an additional process involved? This detail is critical, as introducing crystallized material without understanding its interaction with the host could lead to misleading conclusions.
3. What was the sample size used when testing the crystallized particles? Were a sufficient number of subjects included to ensure statistical reliability?
4. What controls were in place to ensure that the observed effects were truly due to the crystallized particles and not other confounding factors? Was there a comparison between the effects of crystallized and uncrystallized material?

You mentioned that only the first condition (purification and isolation without culturing) wasn’t met. But how about the other points? You’ve indicated that the re-isolation and purification of the same particles from newly “infected” hosts was accomplished. Could you please provide documentation or detailed clarification of how this was done and what the results were? Similarly, you mentioned large-scale replication and independent reproduction of the findings—how were these addressed in your research? Were your results ever independently reproduced by other researchers? If so, could you provide details on the conditions under which this replication occurred?

I also have a few additional key questions:

• Was a natural introduction route used (aerosol, ingestion, etc.), and was the disease recreated exactly as seen in natural “infection?”
• How did you determine the absence of the same particles in healthy individuals?
• How did you demonstrate transmission via claimed routes (coughing, handshakes, etc.) under controlled conditions?
• Lastly, what “virus” and disease were you studying in your work?

I look forward to hearing more about how these issues were handled in your work, and I’d appreciate any documentation or studies you can provide to clarify the points mentioned above. Thank you for your time.

Best,
Mike

Unfortunately, that exchange went no further. Unlike most virology defenders, he was polite, and I would have welcomed more discussion. But after a promising start, this trail too eventually went cold.

Twitter Exchange With Virologist Zachary A. Klase

Elsewhere on Twitter, virologist Zachary A. Klase jumped into an unrelated thread to claim that subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is caused by a measles “virus.” His proof? A link to the National Library of Medicine’s SSPE page.

While citing a webpage may be presented as evidence, it is not the necessary scientific evidence. Therefore, simply citing a webpage does not qualify. To claim a measles “virus” causes SSPE, one must first provide scientific evidence that the measles “virus” itself exists. This requires the demonstration of purified and isolated particles obtained directly from human fluids, before any culturing or manipulation. That is the indispensable starting point for any experiment.

When pressed, Klase dodged. He reassured me that animals can be experimentally “infected” with the measles “virus” and that vaccination prevents disease in these models. But this is circular reasoning. Without purified and isolated particles as an independent variable, none of those claims hold up.

To his credit, Klase admitted he was deliberately avoiding my request, though he insisted I would just reject everything anyway.

However, that is an excuse. It is hand-waving to avoid the burden of proof. And once again, the trail went cold.

The Silence Grows Colder

So here we are, more than a month after my open challenge. Ed Rybicki has gone silent. Glenn Ison’s work seems not to exist. A retired lab tech conversation fizzled out. Zachary Klase dodged and deflected. And not one virologist has produced the absolutely necessary evidence derived from the scientific method that satisfies Koch’s Postulates proving “pathogenic viruses.” Nor has a single one presented a logical counterargument for why such evidence would be unnecessary or invalid. That should trouble anyone committed to intellectual honesty.

The longer the silence continues, the colder these trails become. And with every passing day, virologists show that they are unable to defend virology as a science, and the entire field looks more like a house of cards trembling in the frost.