A real-time record of the corona fraud as it unfolded. When I started my Substack back in September 2022, I didn’t intend for it to become the publishing ground for my ViroLIEgy.com articles. At first, I saw it as a way to offer something extra for those who were inquiring about how to support my work financially—a… Continue reading Uncovering the Corona Fraud: The Complete Series
Let’s be specific. According to the mainstream narrative, “antibodies” are proteins that react to antigens—substances identified as foreign, such as toxins, proteins, peptides, or polysaccharides. The prevailing pseudoscientific hypothesis claims that each “antibody” binds to a specific antigen, like a lock and key. In the case of “SARS-COV-2,” “antibodies” said to be specific to the spike protein… Continue reading Corona Cross-Reactivity
“There is a debate tactic known as ‘elephant hurling’. This occurs when the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments… Continue reading The Elephant and The Spike
I often get asked many questions regarding the so-called “coronavirus” spike protein, such as whether or not it actually exists and whether it is actually in the vaccine. Does this particle hold any biological relevance whatsoever or is it just another in a long line of illustrations used to generate fear? If anyone is unaware… Continue reading The Spike Protein
I think it’s simple logic. It doesn’t require that anyone have any specialized knowledge of the field. The fact is that if there were evidence that HIV causes AIDS-if anyone who was in fact a specialist in that area could write a review of the literature, in which a number of scientific studies were cited… Continue reading Creating the “Coronavirus”
In 1967, it was claimed a new “Coronavirus” labelled OC43 was discovered and “isolated.” This was supposedly done through tissue cultures using tracheas from 5-9 month old aborted fetuses which were collected and stored in Hanks Salt Solution along with 10% fetal bovine serum as well as penicillin and streptomycin. Frgaments were partially covered in… Continue reading Creating the “Coronavirus” OC43 Genome
In order to generate an accurate genome of anything, that thing must be shown to exist in reality first. Regarding “viruses,” this means that the particles assumed to be “viruses” must be purified and isolated from everything else within the sample taken directly from a sick host. What is meant by purification and isolation? PURIFICATION:… Continue reading Creating the “Coronavirus” 229E Genome
Remember the horrendous MERS “Coronavirus” outbreak of 2012? Don’t feel bad if it doesn’t ring a bell as most people outside of Saudi Arabia remain unaware of it. This epidemic-that-never-was resulted in only 882 deaths associated with it globally. Apparently, the MERS “virus” didn’t like to travel as 804 of those deaths were in Saudi… Continue reading Zaki MERS “Coronavirus” Paper (2012)
In 2005, Patrick Woo claimed the discovery of another new “coronavirus” which he named HKU1. This was the third new human “coronavirus” identified since 2003 after 30 years of apparent hibernation with the discovery of the first two strains in the 1960’s. On top of the human “coronaviruses” popping up at the turn of the… Continue reading Woo “Coronavirus” HKU1 Paper (2005)
“I have the hypothesis that some viruses may be beneficial. I have no proof. It is only a hypothesis, simply because some viruses fail to be associated with disease, so these viruses may be beneficial, but this has not been investigated yet. Work on this topic is ongoing in my group.” -Lia Van Der Hoek The… Continue reading Van Der Hoek’s “Coronavirus” NL63 Paper (2004)
In 1968, a group of eight virologists sent word to Nature that they had all discovered similar (i.e. the same) particles from tissue and organ cultures in humans which resembled those in chickens and mice. The researchers relied on negative staining in electron microscopes and used several indirect methods such as complement fixation, neutralization tests,… Continue reading Naming The “Coronaviruses” (1968)
After his preliminary paper on the discovery of “IBV-like” particles, McIntosh went on to adapt the growth of his “virus” in suckling mouse brains and then to tissue cultures. McIntosh did so because he could not “grow” his “virus” using the standard tissue culture techniques and had to rely on organ cultures from aborted fetuses… Continue reading McIntosh “Coronavirus” OC43 Discovery Paper (1967)
In 1967, Kenneth McIntosh discovered what became considered the second strain of “Coronavirus” (after the red-headed step-child B814 was discarded to the historical waste bin) which was later named OC43. It is difficult to find out much backstory on the discovery process of OC43, which coincidentally happened to be discovered at the same exact time… Continue reading McIntosh “Coronavirus” OC43 Preliminary Paper (1967)
In 1967, June Almeida presented a paper supposedly showing the first EM images of the “coronavirus” structure. These images were published two years after D.A. Tyrrell discovered the B814 strain in 1965 and a year after Dorothy Hamre discovered strain 229E in 1966. The samples that Almeida used to characterize the previously unseen “viruses” were… Continue reading June Almeida And The First “Coronavirus” EM Images (1967)
In 1966, Dorothy Hamre “isolated” what she termed specimen 229E from tissue cultures using specimens from college students. She noticed what she said was distinct cytopathic changes (CPE) from known “viruses” and the results she obtained from indirect antibody testing led her to conclude it was a new respiratory “virus.” The 229E “virus” is now… Continue reading Hamre’s “Coronavirus” 229E Paper (1966)
This is the second paper by D.A. Tyrrell that is considered as preliminary evidence for the existence of human “coronaviruses.” Notice, as in his first paper from 1965, that once again there are numerous assumptions which are made, the least of which is that there is a “virus” present in the samples to begin with.… Continue reading D.A. Tyrrell’s 2nd “Coronavirus” Discovery Paper (1966)
If you want to truly understand the insane leaps in logic, the numerous assumptions, and the lack of evidence regarding any “virus,” you must always trace things back to the original source for the discovery of said “virus.” If the paper claiming the isolation of a novel “virus” is unable to actually show purification/isolation of… Continue reading D.A. Tyrrell’s “Coronavirus” Discovery Paper (1965)
“It is obvious that Koch’s Postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.” -Thomas Rivers 1937 During the 2003 SARS “epidemic,” the WHO regularly announced updates about their search for the causative agent of what was claimed to be a new disease. On March 27th, 2003, they admitted that the criteria that needed to be… Continue reading Fouchier “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003): Koch’s Postulates Fulfilled?
This is the final of the four papers used to claim that Koch’s Postulates (four logic-based criteria needed to be met in order to claim a pathogen causes disease), were fulfilled for “SARS-COV-1.” However, as in the other papers used to make this claim, the researchers fail at even fulfilling the first two Postulates. The… Continue reading Ksiazek “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)
The Poutanen study/report summarized the initial epidemiologic findings, clinical description, and diagnostic findings for the first probable cases of “SARS” in Canada. This paper was used along with three others as evidence that “SARS-COV-1” fulfilled Koch’s Postulates, a series of four logical requirements developed by Robert Koch in 1890 that were agreed upon by the… Continue reading Poutanen “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)
Christian Drosten, a German virologist who helped to create the problematic “SARS-COV-2” PCR test without ever actually seeing a “virus,” was also heavily involved in the original “SARS-COV-1” discovery process. In fact, Drosten was instrumental in setting up the molecular virology methods used today to claim the discovery of novel “viruses” based on genome sequences… Continue reading Drosten “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)
On November 16, 2002, the first case of an atypical pneumonia was reported in Guangdong province in the southern part of China. It wasn’t until nearly 4 months later on March 12th, 2003 that the WHO announced a global alert about a severe pneumonia affecting parts of Asia. On March 24th, 2003, a CDC laboratory… Continue reading J.S.M. Peiris “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)
“In Silico: in or on a computer : done or produced by using computer software or simulation“ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20silico I won’t go into too much detail regarding the Drosten PCR test as it was covered beautifully by people much better suited than I (linked below), but I would be remiss if I did not mention it… Continue reading Drosten “SARS-COV-2” PCR Paper
On March 7, 2020, the CDC released their study on the “isolation” and characterization of “SARS-COV-2” from the first US patient identified by PCR testing on January 22nd, 2020. As with every single paper before it, the CDC relies on unpurified cell cultures to claim “isolation” of a new “Coronavirus.” They utilize the same unproven… Continue reading CDC “SARS-COV-2” Paper (2020)
“We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.” -Replying Author: Wan Beom Park https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/ This paper is often cited by many as proof that “SARS-COV-2” exists and has been “isolated” from a sick patient. The problem is, they only read the title of the study. Had they read the study itself,… Continue reading Park “SARS-COV-2” Paper (2020)
“[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.” -Replying Author: Wenjie Tan https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/ The Zhu study gets the infamous distinction for not only acknowledging that they did not fulfill Koch’s Postulates, the logic-based criteria needed to be met in order to prove a microorganism causes disease, but also for admitting that they… Continue reading Zhu “SARS-COV-2” Paper (2020)
It is clear after having gone through the history of “Coronaviruses” from 1965 up to today, not a single one of these so-called “viruses” has ever been properly purified/isolated directly from a sick patient nor proven pathogenic by fulfilling Koch’s Postulates. They always take the fluid from a sick patient and mix it with animal… Continue reading Zhou “SARS-COV-2” Paper (2020)
Exposing the lies of germ theory and virology using their own sources.
Copyright © 2026 All Right Reserved ViroLIEgy
Disclaimer: The information on this site is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice.
We are an awward winning multinational & company We believe in quality and standard worldwide company.
