AntiViral Ep. 3: The Flawed Foundations of Virology

Exposing the logical fallacies holding virology together.

In the third episode of the AntiViral series, I turn to the underlying flaws in logic that form the foundation of the entire field. Without sound reasoning to support it, virology is a house of cards waiting to collapse.

While the previous episodes addressed the false assumptions and missing empirical proof, this one exposes the reasoning errors that keep the illusion standing. These are not minor oversights—they are fatal fallacies built directly into the cell culture experiment itself:

Begging the Question — Virologists assume from the outset the existence of a “pathogenic virus,” then interpret certain phenomena (like the cytopathic effect, or CPE) as proof that this invisible entity exists.

Affirming the Consequent — Virologists claim that observing the consequent (CPE) confirms the truth of the antecedent (the presence of a “pathogenic virus”).

False Cause — Virologists assume, without proof, that a causal relationship exists between two events, overlooking other known factors that could explain the result.

These errors reveal that virology’s “proof” is nothing more than circular reasoning dressed up as science.

For a deeper exploration of how virologists—and their defenders—commit these fallacies, see ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies.

Sound reasoning is the backbone of real science. Without it, experimentation becomes theater and belief replaces knowledge. Exposing these fallacies is essential—not only to show virologists where they’ve gone wrong, but to help others see through the illusion as well.