Virology's Fatal Flaw

Is it a 'virus' at all?

‘Virus propagation’ presupposes you already know you have a virus, therefore virus propagation can not be used to prove the existence of a virus.

Valendar F. Turner in correspondence with Robin A. Weiss, July 21st, 1999.

The above quotation¹ from a 35-page email in 1999 between Perth Group² HIV-AIDS researcher, Val Turner (with the able assistance of the Perth Group’s late biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos), and professor of viral oncology at University College, London, Robin Weiss,³ highlights the central fundamental flaw in the scientific discipline of virology.

It is vitally important, crucial, in fact, to comprehend the essence of this debate because the entire world has been afflicted with very recent and continuing suffering: mental, physical, emotional, economic, over claims that a novel, contagious and deadly virus initially called nCoV-19, then SARS-CoV-2 and its multitude of ‘variants’, has allegedly devastated the world with its subsequent disease, COVID-19.

Furthermore, as the mainstream argument goes, we, collective humanity, must be vaccinated against this virus and its disease to protect ourselves and others. We must obey our governments’ health orders diligently for our and others own safety and well-being. Those who resist this supposedly scientifically unassailable and morally superior logic are stupid, selfish, and literal mass murderers of the holocaust type: their ‘misinformation’ risks persuading people to believe in dangerous, dissident views that ultimately advocate the witholding or non-administration of potentially lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines and other alleged safe and effective COVID antiviral treatments like remdesivir, paxlovid and molnupiravir. To suggest the stakes are high, let alone the dollar figures, both as profits for pharmaceutical giants and increasing national debts for taxpaying citizens footing the COVID-19 bill, is a gross understatement.

It may surprise some people that this manner of logic and the subsequent media-propagated barrage of ethically holier-than-thou insults against the opposers of a ‘novel viral illness’ is neither new nor original. It was this same torrent of vitriol which was gleefully hurled at anyone who dared to oppose Fauci and Gallo’s burgeoning HIV-causes-AIDS behemoth in the 1980s and 90s.⁴ Individuals like Peter Duesberg,⁵ Kary Mullis,⁶ Neville Hodgkinson,⁷ Celia Farber,⁸ Jon Rappoport,⁹ the Perth Group, already mentioned above, among many other dissenting voices,¹⁰ are names that were and are supposed to be forever tarnished by the vociferous HIV-AIDS apparatus of that era: “If you don’t believe HIV causes AIDS, you're literally murdering gays and unborn children by refusing to treat them properly. Now buy our pharmaceutical interventions!” In the 80s and 90s, mobs of angry, well-funded (by industry), pro-HIV-causes-AIDS activists mobilised, protested, boycotted, censored, cancelled and unceasingly mocked and insulted these individuals and groups for merely asking poignant questions that potentially undermined the entire logical rationale for the medico-industrial HIV-AIDS monolith that remains to this day.

That was the mainstream argument then, an important historical digression, and in regards to the SARS-CoV-2-causes-COVID-19 debate it is the same mainstream argument now. The same torrent of abuse, ridicule and mockery is heaped upon those dissident scientists and intellectuals who dare to ask fundamental questions which challenge the logical underpinnings of the growing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 medico-industrial-propaganda complex. Another placard of names could be appended here: doctors and scientists censored, just like during the HIV-AIDS era, just for questioning the logical underpinnings of the COVID-19 pandemic. The two pandemics, HIV-AIDS and SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, share eerie similarities in this regard.

But the shoe of severe consequences also fits the other foot. If there is no ‘contagious and deadly virus’ spreading from person to person; if COVID-19, like AIDS before it, is a disease with a myriad of complex contributing factors, and/or deliberate classification errors; if the entire field of virology is based on a single, fatal, logical flaw, then it must follow that the administration of unnecessary vaccines, ‘antiviral’ treatments and the throwing away of trillions of global taxpayer dollars chasing the winds of illusory SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 medicines, societal ‘New Normal’ interventions, and research grants, will inevitably cause more harm than good to the general public. Even Robin Weiss, back in 1999, understood the monumental impact of Val Turner’s ‘no virus’ objection:

If we are to doubt HIV as a cause of AIDS, we must cast even more doubt on variola as a cause of smallpox, and the existence of measles, mumps, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus. None of these would pass your definition of purification. None of these has been 'purified' even by culture propagation (my sense) to the extent that has been achieved for poliovirus and for HIV.¹¹

It is this forgotten, rather, suppressed, story that this article is intended to expose to the world once and for all.

Virology: Definitions

At the heart of Val Turner’s simple logical claim at the commencement of this article is a vigorous and decades-long debate over scientific definitions of ‘virus’, as well as debate over concepts, methods and proofs of viral isolation, viral purification and viral propagation. Understanding the repetitive obfuscation of language in the field of virology is central to comprehending what the so-called “No virus” camp, of which I am a very interested observer, is really harping on about, and what detractors of that position, and they are both many, loud, and well-funded,¹² so consistently fail to understand.

Before we can enter the world of scientific proofs and methods in order to explore the logical validity of virology’s central claim, we need to step back and clearly define some important terms.¹³ The first issue in this debate is that several critical terms are tossed about haphazardly and are not clearly defined, or else not consistently defined, by proponents or detractors of the pro- or anti-virus position. When someone says ‘virus,’ what do they mean? What are they talking about? When I use the term ‘virus’ in this article, I mean:

Virus: a nanoscale, replication-competent, obligate, intracellular parasite consisting of protein-lipid encapsulated RNA or DNA, that causes disease in its host organism by killing the host’s cells, known as cytopathy or cytopathic effects (CPE), and may be transferred between hosts or host cells via various fluid mechanisms.

Let us clarify the components of this definition.

Nanoscale: particles of approximately 1 to 250 nanometers in diameter and usually only visibly detected via electron microscopy. One nanometer (nm) is 1/1000 of a micrometer (μm), or 1/1,000,000 of a millimeter (mm).

Replication-competent: the particle, or coding it contains, is able to utilise host cellular components to make complete and/or genetically mutated copies of itself.

Obligate: the particle is utterly dependent (indebted) on other entities (e.g. the cells of the host) for its survival.

Intracellular: its preferred environment is inside a host cell's walls, and secondarily in the interstitial fluid or as it transits between neighbouring cells.

Parasite: the particle must live inside a host to supply it nutrients and cellular machinery in order to complete a part or its entire life cycle.

Protein-lipid encapsulated: a casing made mostly of various proteins and lipids (fatty acids) which gives the particle its ultimate shape and bioelectromagnetic properties; particles can be classified separately according to their specific protein-lipid capsule morphologies (shapes).

RNA: a single-stranded ribonucleic acid sequence.

DNA: a double-stranded ribonucleic acid sequence.

Host Organism: the whole organism in which the particle is alleged to live, e.g. a human, a bat, a chicken, a pig, a bacterium, etc.

Host Cell(s): the cell type(s) the parasite particle prefers to utilise for self-replication, e.g. brain, heart, lung, liver, kidneys, muscle, bacterial, fungal, etc.

Disease: the host has clinically defined and exhibited symptoms of unwellness or impairment due to the particle's functions and activity, e.g. localised inflammation, leucocyte (white blood cell) activity resulting in formation of pus or lymph, fever, lethargy, etc.; symptoms are specific, observable, repeatable and falsifiable.

Cytopathic Effects: the ultimate result of the particle's parasitic activity by which it kills its host cell and is released again into interstitial fluid or extracellular environment, whereby the whole cycle may repeat.

Transfer by Fluid Mechanisms: the movement of a particle or particles from one host organism or host cell to another host organism or host cell via circulatory (e.g. blood, lymph, interstitial fluid), excretory (e.g. mucus, blood, pus, urine, faecies, semen, menses, etc) or expulsive (e.g. breathing, coughing, sneezing, vomiting, urination, defecation, bleeding, etc) mechanisms according to various fluid laws of physics and biophysics.

Thus, I hope it is now crystal clear and unambiguous what the word ‘virus’ entails. Tiny, nanoscale particles with classifiable protein-lipid-nucleic acid morphologies (shapes) and discernible bioelectromagnetic characteristics that influence the way they behave in a host organism. Their alleged preferred life environment is inside a host’s cells where they are alleged to hijack cellular machinery to copy themselves in large numbers. This process ultimately results in the death of the affected cell known as cytopathy or cytopathic effects (CPE). The particles are then released via disruption of the host cell wall into the intercellular (interstitial) fluid matrix of the host organism where the process repeats. These virus particles and this CPE-causing process are alleged to result in the host organism exhibiting various symptoms of disease depending on the cell types affected. Some particles can be expelled from the organism via its various fluids and thus transfer to a new host where the process is alleged to repeat ad infinitum, from the days of the first virus until now and forevermore.¹⁴ Immune systems allegedly developed in virtually all multicellular organisms to combat these disruptive, tiny invaders, a topic not at all under discussion in this article.

Virology: The Fatal Flaw

Let us return to the central thesis of this article. What am I talking about when I quote an obscure and mostly-forgotten letter by Val Turner and his rebuttal to a London virology professor that “virus propagation does not prove viral existence”? The central logical flaw is simply this: modern virology, as both a scientific discipline and a scientific method, is based on the fallacy of begging the question. Modern virologists consistently assume what they are trying to prove: they assume a virus exists to prove a virus exists.¹⁵

How are virologists committing this fallacy? To answer this, we must acquaint ourselves somewhat with the history of virology and the scientific methods virologists have historically used to purportedly prove viruses exist.

Virology in its early days piggybacked Louis Pasteur’s germ theory of disease. This prevalent hypothesis of disease posits that miniscule microbes, especially bacterium, fungi/mould and amoebas, are responsible for much human illness and disease. However, even with Robert Koch’s development of Koch’s Postulates, a four-step experimental method for determining whether a specific microbe was indeed pathogenic (disease-causing),¹⁶ there were certain diseases like smallpox, measles, polio and influenza present in the population for which no clear microorganism could be identified as a direct cause. Scientists of the time thus surmised, “Something smaller than a bacterium must be causing the disease.”¹⁷ Thus, virology assumed from the beginning that particles smaller than bacterium were causing disease in living organisms; the role of science was merely to identify these particles. The significance of this cognitive bias cannot be understated.

Late 19th century virologists like Dmitry I. Ivanovsky and Martinus W. Beijerinck ran experiments whereby fluid from tobacco plants exhibiting leaf mosaic disease were filtered in such a way that no bacterium passed through. They injected these fluids into healthy tobacco plants, allegedly resulting in tobacco mosaic disease.¹⁸ Other scientists like Frederick W. Twort and Félix H. d’Hérelle demonstrated in the early 20th century that bacterium themselves came under alleged attack of entities smaller than themselves, the so-called bacteriophages (bacterium-eaters). The stage was set, as it were. The suspected pathogenic nanoparticles had been found and could be demonstrated to cause disease.

One of the major issues in the early days of virology was the assumption that these tiny particles were parasitic and required living cells to complete their life cycle. It took the research of John Enders, Frederick Robbins and Thomas Weller to devise, around the period of 1949-1954, that a cell culture medium could be used reliably to grow large numbers of these miniscule particles.¹⁹ Enders repeated his viral isolation (propagation) method to allegedly prove the existence of the measles virus.²⁰ The method as it exists today can be illustrated with the following graphic:²¹

This process, alongside genetic sequencing, is the bedrock of modern virology. Every ‘virus’ is ‘proven’ to exist utilising Enders ‘viral isolation’ method. But we can immediately notice the glaring flaw which Val Turner tried to highlight in 1999 in his objections to Robin Weiss regarding the HIV virus. Do the particles ‘isolated’ in steps 4 and 5 above originate from step 2 - the viral sample? Why not simply use density-gradient ultracentrifugation or ultrafiltration to extract the particles from Step 2 directly and study them that way, then try to grow them in the culture and see whether the particles that emerge at steps 4 and 5 are the same?

In all of the history of virology, few have stopped to ask that more fundamental question. Are the nanoscale particles being produced by Enders observable and repeatable viral propagation method even ‘viruses’ at all? How can one prove they replicate in cell culture when an original has never been identified? This was the fundamental objection of Val Turner and the Perth Group in their not-so-ancient correspondence with Robin Weiss, the logic of which is still brutally valid. How do you know that these dying cells in culture are producing ‘virus’ of the kind specified in our extensive definition above, let alone specific types or kinds of virus (e.g. a rotavirus as opposed to a rhinovirus)? No-one in the history of virology has ever taken the first step to isolate the particles by themselves directly from a patient sample, purify the isolate (that is, remove as much non-virus material as possible) so only those particles are in it, then biochemically characterise and genetically sequence those particles directly, prior to undertaking Enders mass propagation technique, to determine if the particles are indeed replication-competent and can thus multiply in cells, cause CPE (cytopathic cell death effects) and thus being a potential vector causing disease in a human being. That is the fallacy of begging the question.

This additional and necessary first step offers the requisite undeniable proof that viruses, in our defined sense above, contagious, transmissable, CPE-causing, parasitic pathogens, truly exist. I reiterate for the nay-sayers: the existence of the nanoscale particles themselves is not under debate. Their biological function is what is under scrutiny. If virology can resolutely prove that the nanoscale particles they ought to purify directly from a patient sample are genetically and biochemically identical to the particles they allege to propagate using Enders’ method, it becomes irrefutable empirical evidence of their assertions. The virus came from a living host, proved itself replication competent, able to be the sole cause of CPE in cell culture, and was the same particle at the beginning as at the end. This entire sequence of empirical evidence has never, not once, been demonstrated for any viral particle.

Virology as a scientific discipline always assumes, but never proves, that ‘virus’ is in the patient sample prior to undertaking the cellular propagation process. That is the fallacy of begging the question. That is the fatal flaw of virology’s entire scientific edifice. That is the primary logical contention of the so-called “No Virus” camp and the central emphasis of this much needed exposé.

As much as I would personally counsel the “No Virus” team to choose a better name, although I am sure it was imposed upon them without their prior consent in the same way ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘antivaxxer’ are hurled around these days to stifle otherwise meaningful debate, the question is not “Do these nanoscale particles exist?”; they most surely do, and anyone with a suitably equipped laboratory can repeat Enders propagation technique ad infinitum and churn out electron micrographs by the millions if they were so inclined. I agree with Peter McCullough when he publicly posits, “See the virus up close and personal.”²² See, there's the proof that ‘viruses’ exist, right before our eyes. Undeniable.

To rebut McCullough, however, the question to be answered is, or should be: “Are those propagated, electron-micrographed particles even ‘virus’?” The contention, from the days of the Perth Group correspondence till now, that no-one in the history of virology has attempted the necessary first step, is wholly justified. This is a far cry from there being ‘no virus’ in the absolute sense, that is, that there are absolutely no “nanoscale, replication-competent, obligate, intracellular parasite consisting of protein-lipid encapsulated RNA or DNA, that causes disease in its host organism by killing the host’s cells, known as cytopathy or cytopathic effects (CPE), and may be transferred between hosts or host cells via various fluid mechanisms,” an impossible logical position. One only requires the existence of one such particle, empirically demonstrated, to falsify the ‘no-virus’ poisition. There still could be a ‘virus’ in the classical, contagious, disease- and death-causing sense. At the moment, however, those facts, which must include isolation, purification, biocharacterisation and genetic sequencing of these nanoscale entities prior to employing Enders' 1954 propagation method, are entirely absent from the discussion.

In fact, mainsteam virologists like Robin Weiss wave their hands at any requests for such evidence:

Do you expect today's physicists to spend time in prolonged e-mail 'discussion' with members of the flat earth society? Or do you think modern astronomers are merely speculating to hold, as Copernicus, Keppler and Galileo bravely did, that the planets orbit around the sun rather than the earth? Would you think it irresponsible for an astronomer in 1999 to bow out of such a discussion if a believer in a flat, planar universe was ignored and then claimed his view was deliberately suppressed by the scientific orthodoxy of the day? So who do you think is the Galileo on HIV - Turner or Montagnier?²³

Weiss remarked elsewhere in that same exchange that denying the HIV virus exists is tantamount to denying there was ever a mass genocide of the Jews in Europe between 1933-1945. Virologists feel as if they do not need to prove themselves; that Enders 1954 viral propagation technique is sufficient proof in and of itself. It is not.

Virology’s Lost Control

Robin A. Weiss scoffed, as other virologists do, that Enders’ viral propagation method is all that is necessary to prove all of virology’s fundamental tenets and definitions. Unfortunately for Weiss, one intrepid German virologist, Stefan Lanka, destroyed that edifice forever as well. In 2015, Lanka found himself embroiled in a legal dispute regarding the existence of the measles virus and State-mandated child vaccinations schedules for that illness. Lanka took it upon himself to verify Enders 1954 viral propagation technique with a suitable control experiment. The heart of Lanka’s endeavour was to determine whether the observed cytopathic effects (plaque formation, cell ballooning, cell rounding, cell floating, cell lifting and syncytia or cell fusion) produced by Enders’ propagation method are truly the result of a replication-competent viral particle introduced from a patient sample. If those effects can be replicated in the standard virology isolation cell culture without any virus having been introduced to the sample at all, then it stands to reason that cytopathic effects alone cannot be used to determine the presence and activity of a virus in a virology isolation cell culture.

In the experiment, Lanka tasked an independent German laboratory with the job of demonstrating whether the cytopathic effects, the alleged result of deadly viral activity in an Enders cell culture, can occur from the isolation method alone (with no “virus” present or added). The results were astounding.²⁴

Illustration of Stefan Lanka's control experiment. Top: 'Virus' added to the cell culture, cells die. Bottom: No 'virus' added to the cell culture, cells die. The idea that 'viruses' cause cytopathic effects was refuted forever by this experiment.

Lanka's control experiment proved irrefutably that cytopathic effects (especially plaque formation) cannot be used alone as a signifier that a “virus” is at work and active in the cell culture.

Lanka repeated his viral control experiment a second time after the COVID-19 debacle began.²⁵ This time, he included four control arms to which none had any virus or infected human sample added:

Source: Mike Stone, “Unfalsifiable.” ViroLIEgy Newsletter, 15 Apr. 2023 [LINK]

Lanka’s falsification of virology’s isolation methodology is, in fact, an excellent example of virology adhering to the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent:

If p, therefore q.

Affirming the Consequent Fallacy: q, therefore p. (q can occur for other reasons than p alone)

If a virus is active in the cell culture, cytopathic effects must occur.

Fallacy: Cytopathic effects occurred, therefore a virus was active in the cell culture.

In scientific terms, what the above images demonstrate are called artifacts. The experimental method itself is responsible for the cytopathic effects in control arms 3 and 4, not some invisible nanoscale particle. These findings have been replicated no less than an additional two times since, including the monumental recent effort of Jamie Andrews who subjected virology’s isolation cell culture to more control experiments than anyone else to date.²⁶ His conclusion after more than 90 privately funded, industry-standard control experiments wherein concentrations of fetal bovine serum (FBS) and streptomycin/penicillin was carefully altered in a DMEM-supplemented HEK cell culture medium was as follows:

The strong evidence shown in this paper heavily suggests that the reduced FBS environments are actually the cause of the observed effects of CPE and Morphological features and hence the claimed infected sample cannot be determined to be a contributing factor whilst using this method.

This would further suggest that claimed isolated and replicated viruses assumed to be harvested from the cell culture isolation method should not be considered legitimate as the claimed observable effects that indicate the presence of a virus are present in uninfected cultures. [emphasis added —J.P.M.]

Enders 1954 ‘viral propagation’ method thus stands falsified as a method of isolating ‘viruses’ for scientific study. The same cytopathic effects occur in control experiments when no virus has ever been added to the sample; q (cytopathy) can occur without p (virus), leaving us with our most important question.

“Is it a ‘virus’ at all?”

It has been known since the earliest days of virology that “virus” or “virus-like” particles can be produced by both cell culture and electron microscopy methods alone:²⁷

“Particles resembling those of influenza, poliomyelitis, and pox group viruses are seen in several fields. Evidence is presented that many of these appearances are artifacts originating from erythrocyte stromatolysis, whereas others are either crystals with rounded corners or what may be protein particles.” —Angulo, Watson and Olarte (1950), p. 138.

Another paper made a similar claim with an accompanying electron micrograph:²⁸

Examples of these (arti)facts can be multiplied.²⁹ It turns out that starving a cell culture and poisoning it with antibacterial and anti-fungal agents is enough to kill the cells with resulting cytopathic effects (CPE), and simultaneously causing the release of ‘virus-like’ particles. It also turns out that coating a frozen cell culture with chromium, silver or platinum, and then bombarding it with a beam of electrons to make an electron micrograph can also destroy the cells and cause them to release hundreds of nanoscale, virus-like particles. But if no virus was ever in the cell culture or electron micrograph to begin with, where did those nanoscale particles come from? The answer is that they are artifacts of the methods, naturally-occuring consequences of cell death during most unnatural experimentation procedures. These tiny nanoparticles are not contagious killers; they do not “infect” other cells; they do not, in and of themselves, cause cell death, disease or injury to a host organism. Those ideas are the projections of illogical and ill-guided researchers looking for boogeymen to blame and then sell a myriad of products like vaccines to “combat” entities which are, it would seem, entirely inert and harmless cellular detritus.

Obviously, observing these particles appear as the result of cell death in a petri dish or electron micrograph slide is radically different to observing them in biopsy of living human (or other animal) tissue, where they might not exist at all or infrequently. Yet virology asserts they must exist there, and in great numbers,³⁰ because it is in human organs (like heart, skin, nerve, kidney, liver, stomach) that these intrepid, replication-competent nanoparticles are accused of causing all manner of disease.

In this regard I find myself partially agreeing with the work of J.J. Couey³¹ and others³² who assert that ‘virus’, that is, those nanoscale particles that result from cytopathic effects in propagation experiments, are produced by dying cells as some kind of benign RNA or DNA communication mechanism. The argument is that these tiny particles are able to enter living cells to deliver genetic messages but do not themselves cause CPE (“infection”). I wrote about this communications aspect of ‘viruses’ in a private letter to some friends several years ago:³³

"Viruses" are just one aspect of a complex two-way cellular intercommunications network. I posted about this elsewhere:

Viruses and exosomes undergo basically identical formations:

Exosome [Link - see Main Text subheading]
1. Initiation
2. Endocytosis
3. Multivescular body formation
4. Secretion
[5. Attachment and Penetration of new cells (Internalisation)]

Virus [Link]
1. Attachment and Penetration of cells
2. Endocytosis
3. Initiation (uncoating and replication)
4. Multivescular body formation (assembly)
5. Secretion (egress)

The difference is essentially that of sending vs. reception. "Exosomes" seem to be cellular RNA instructions being sent out of a cell. "Viruses" seem to be cellular RNA instructions being received by a cell [NOTE: I would now no longer recognise this distinction between virus and exosome functions - JP, 2025]. All of this is normal, healthy function of the incredibly complex intracellular communications network extant in all lifeforms. There are no "viruses" in a pathological or contagious sense (e.g. HIV, Ebola, SARS-CoV-2; these are all fictions of misinformed science), and especially not in healthy individuals. Some defective exosomal RNA expression can result in strictly genetic diseases, e.g. [LINK] [LINK], but these are not contagious and cannot be spread to others.

J.J. Couey's contributions to the debate also included discussing the role of Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric et al.’s gain-of-function research. What Couey suggests Daszak et al. were modifying was the inherent inert harmlessness of the nanoscale particles generated by Enders relieable and repeatable ‘viral’ propagation technique. Couey suggests that weaponised ‘gain-of-function’ of these otherwise harmless nanoscale particles represents intercellular communications noise, scrambling if you will, by bombarding the human body with meaningless RNA or DNA code (in the mRNA- and DNA-based COVID-19 vaccines particularly). This results in intercellular communications chaos within the human body, the consequences of which I think are ably demonstrated by the horrendous mRNA- and DNA-based COVID-19 vaccine harms across the globe. The psychopaths responsible for this mandated vaccination campaign and its accompanying corollary of propaganda and gaslighting have attempted to use gain-of-function research to turn these normally harmless, benign nanoparticles into a biological weapon that interferes with the body’s own mysterious, internal RNA- and DNA-based communications mechanisms. I am not as confident as J.J. Couey that they have been successful.³⁴

Now, before I conclude, I must preempt the inevitable question: “If viruses don’t cause disease, then why do we get sick at the same time as our family members, etc.? It sure seems like they spread their illness to me.” Firstly, the question utilises the same affirming the consequent fallacy as the virologists:

If p, therefore q.

Fallacy: If q, therefore p.

If viruses spread illness person-to-person, then my family can make me sick.

Fallacy: My family made me sick, therefore a virus spread person-to-person.

Your illness could have been caused by literally anything else, including, but not limited to, your environmental stressors, diet, lifestyle, pollution, and beliefs (yes, psychology is that strong).

Secondly,

Denis Rancourt

and his team at

CORRELATION

have hypothesised a new epidemic/pandemic theory to explain how, if there are no “spreading viruses,” do large numbers of people get sick at the same time. To summarise in Rancourt’s own words, (and I do recommend reading through his entire paper):³⁵

[T]he Covid-period pandemic of mortality was a pandemic of transmissionless self-infection bacterial pneumonias induced by biological stress (in the sense of medical researcher Hans Selye, which includes psychological stress) arising from the coordinated and largescale mandates, measures, so-called responses, and medical assaults including testing, diagnostic bias, isolation, denial of treatment (especially antibiotics for pneumonia), mechanical ventilation, sedation, experimental and improper treatments, and vaccination.

That is to say individuals, groups and societies can be mentally induced into mass hyperchondriac illness events by the imposition of extreme levels of fear, stress, horrendously flawed response measures (which may include deliberate mass poisoning events to emulate the pandemic germ’s “disease”) and murderous treatments whose fatal effects are blamed on an invisible, unverifiable, allegedly contagious cause (which does not actually exist at all except as a most effective hallucination in the minds of the deceived). No spreading virus is required in any of this to effect illness in ourselves or others; personal belief in the propaganda narratives is enough to cause people to get sick by and of themselves. During the COVID psyop, this was primarily transmissionless bacterial pneumonia occuring in the elderly and infirm as a direct consequence of a relentless propaganda barrage via the mainstream media, governments and their vocal organs and institutions.

Conclusion

I have attempted to show above, clearly and concisely, that virology is based on a central fundamental flaw. From the beginning of virology in the early 20th century until now, virologists have always assumed that the existence of ‘virus’ particles in the patient samples they utilise to allegedly propagate further in cell culture experiments. This is a fatal logical fallacy. At the end of the day, not one virologist on the face of the earth has attempted to isolate, purify, biochemically characterise and genetically sequence a ‘gold standard’ of viral particles directly from a living hosts tissues or fluids, by which to compare the particles that are propagated with Enders’ 1954 method. Without this necessary first step, virology’s fatal flaw, a begging the question fallacy, shall remain indefinitely. If this first step were completed to a scientifically empirical standard, and determined to be identical to the ‘viruses’ extracted from Enders’ cell culture propagation technique, I will be first to congratulate that research and return my belief system to a pro-virus position. However, be warned, because I know that a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical-industrial-propaganda complex rests firmly on demonstrating that foundation. They have every reason to lie, cheat and steal their way to fake results purporting to prove what I have stated above as that necessary first step. Without it, Valendar F. Turner’s brutal logical criticism of virology’s most fundamental, fatal flaw remains valid.

Secondly, when experiments were performed by virologist Stefan Lanka to determine whether the particles exhibited in ‘viral' propagation’ experiments originated from a patient sample, the result forever falsified the alleged proof that Enders’ viral propagation method represented de facto replication, transmission and infection of some particle added to the cell culture from a human (or other) sample. Lanka and Andrew’s much needed control experiments clearly show virologists’ dependence on the affirming the consequent fallacy; cytopathic effects in cell cultures can occur from the methods alone without needing to appeal to the presence of any “infective, contagious or deadly” viral agent, which, in Lanka's and Andrews’s control arms, was entirely absent from their cell cultures.

Thirdly, ‘virus’ can be produced in a cell culture or electron micrograph with no deliberate addition of any virus whatsoever. The ‘virus’ appears to have come from within the cells themselves, a byproduct of the process of cytopathy. Robin Weiss’ hand-waving that “Whoever denies a virus denies the holocaust” can thankfully be set aside as holier-than-thou propagandistic paramorality. The Perth Group were right all along, the true Galileos of virology. When people like Steve Kirsch and Peter McCullough point at electron micrographs of propagated viral particles, we can rightfully protest, “But is it a ‘virus’ at all?” We can powerfully retort, “How did you ensure that those particles were not mere artifacts of your cell culture or electron microscopy procedures?” Enders 1954 methodology for viral isolation was and remains falsified. Summoning it to virology’s defense is futile.

We may further understand the role of ‘gain-of-function’ research to be a real attempt to biologically weaponise these otherwise harmless particles to cause genetic damage to the human body under the guise of a ‘new pandemic illness’, especially when administered in the form of mRNA- or DNA-based vaccines. That almost every government in the world deployed these novel vaccine technologies at the same time with the same level of desperation and coercion only displays the well-prepared and co-ordinated conspiracy that had to have taken place in the shadows for many decades prior to its global deployment in March 2020. Their censorship of dissenting voices followed the HIV-AIDS propaganda campaign which preceded it almost to the letter. But weaponised nanoscale particles, DNA-clones, or whatever you want to call them can only cause genetic chaos if they get into the human body. It seems to me the primary mechanism for that is vaccination. Cut the head off that snake and the powers of darkness must find another mechanism to get these particles into our bodies. I am not pursuaded by J.J. Couey that even weaponised, gain-of-function ‘DNA-clones’ or whatever he wants to call them can bypass our mucous membranes to cause serious illness in humans. I will change my mind if the particles he alludes to are proven to exist directly in human fluid samples, and they can be propagated identically in a suitable cell culture experiment, and then demonstrated to cause cytopathy with reference to control arms that demonstrate no methodologically-caused cytopathy.

I guarantee that the powers-that-be in the medico-pharma-industrial-propaganda complex will do everything possible to ensure we are arguing about anything else other than the fatal virological flaws in modern science and clinical medicine presented here. Whether it is clamourings for war with China over a ‘lab leak’, reams of Ralph Baric and CDC ‘virus’ patents, Russian raids on Ukrainian biotech ‘gain of function’ research, or simply calling us ‘cranks,’ ‘woo’, ‘conspiracy throrists’ or other fallacious ad hominem perjoratives, none of these things come close to addressing virology's fatal flaw: “Is it a virus at all?” The implications of that question for the monolithic HIV and COVID empires are enormous.

1. Valendar F. Turner in private correspondence with Robin A. Weiss. Jul. 21, 1999. [LINK]

2. The Perth Group. [LINK]

3. Robin A. Weiss, National Academy of Sciences Member Directory [LINK].

4. As ably chronicled by both Robert F. Kennedy Jr (2021), The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (New York: Skyhorse), pp. 126-242, and Celia Farber (2023), Serious Adverse Events: The Uncensored History of AIDS (Chelsea: Chelsea Green Publishing), throughout.

5. Peter Duesberg (1996), Inventing the AIDS Virus (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing) [LINK].

6. Gary Null (1996), Full interview with Kary Mullis (117 mins) [LINK]; see also Mullis’ foreword in Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, pp. xi-xiv.

7. Neville Hodgkinson (1996), AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science: How a Virus that Never Was Deceived the World (London: Fourth Estate). See also

8. Farber (2023), Serious Adverse Events; Farber’s original 2006 edition is [HERE].

9. Jon Rappoport (1988), AIDS, Inc.: Scandal of the Century (San Bruno: Human Energy Press). [LINK]. Rappoport has railed against the HIV- and COVID-industrial complexes on his blog NoMoreFakeNews ever since.

10. See the book list over at Virus Myth for more opponents of the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis [LINK].

11. Robin A. Weiss, private correspondence to Valendar F. Turner, 15 Apr., 1999. [LINK]

12. Consider, for example, the boisterous boasting of pro-virus advocate

Steve Kirsch

, “I bet $1M the virus exists. Why is everyone afraid to bet me?” Steve Kirsch’s newsletter, 26 Jul. 2022.

I bet $1M the virus exists. Why is everyone afraid to bet me?

13. Portions of this section were adapted from one of my own comments on Igor Chudov’s “DEBATE: Viruses do not exist? Or do they?” Igor’s Newsletter, Sep. 5, 2022. [LINK].

14. The onus now rests on anyone wishing to dispute this definition of ‘virus’ to disambiguate in the comments. I have attempted to be thorough, but I may have missed some minutiae of the biology of ‘viruses’, such as receptor-binding mechanisms for cell wall entry, etc, which could otherwise improve the definition even further.

15. There are, of course, at least five more fatal flaws inherent in virology. An excellent (and condensed, quick read) is the anonymously authored “A Breakdown of the Problems in Virology.” The Truth Seeker, Oct. 29, 2021 [LINK].

16. Koch’s Postulates (1884):

1. Microorganism is found abundantly in the diseased, but not found in the healthy.

2. Microorganism can be isolated from diseased and grown in a pure culture.

3. Microorganism produces the disease when introduced to a healthy subject.

4. Microorganisms can be re-isolated from infected healthy subject.

This method was modified by Thomas Rivers for viruses.

Rivers’ Postulates (1937):

1. Virus can be isolated from a diseased host.

2. Virus can be cultivated in host cells.

3. Proof of filterability.

4. Virus produces same disease in healthy host.

5. Reisolation of virus from infected healthy host.

6. Specific immune response (e.g. antibody) to virus detected.

17. For an excellent collection of early virologist quotations on this point, see

Aldhissla

(2025), “Particles Indistinguishable from Viruses.” Aldhissla’s Substack.

Particles Indistinguishable from Viruses

18. For a critique of Ivanovsky’s tobacco mosaic virus methodology, see Samantha Bailey, “Tobacco Mosaic ‘Virus’ - The Beginning and End of Virology.” (18 mins) [LINK].

19. See John F. Enders, Frederick C. Robbins and Thomas H. Weller (1954), “The Cultivation of the Poliomyelitis Viruses in Tissue Culture.” Nobel Prize Lecture [PDF Download LINK].

20. John F. Enders and Thomas C. Peebles (1954), “Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles.” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 86 No.2, pp. 277-286. DOI:10.3181/00379727-86-21073 [Archive LINK]. For a critical appraisal of Enders’ methodology and conclusions, see Mike Stone, “Enders Measles Paper (1954).” ViroLIEgy, Sept. 27, 2021. [LINK]

21. Graphic sourced from

Mike Stone

, “Where’s the ‘Virus’?” ViroLIEgy Newsletter, Apr. 1, 2023. [LINK]

22.

Peter McCullough

, “Electron Cryotomography of SARS-CoV-2 Virions.” Courageous Discourse, Nov. 17, 2022.

Electron Cryotomography of SARS-CoV-2 Virions

For a thorough rebuttal of McCullough’s logical fallacies, see Sam Bailey, “Electron Microscopy & UVOs.” Dr. Sam Bailey, Nov. 20, 2022.

Dr. Peter McCullough Says He Has Seen A Picture Of A Virus Up Close

23. Robin A. Weiss, private correspondence to then Channel 9 journalist Rex Ranieri, 19 Jul., 1999. [LINK] See also Mike Stone, “Unfalsifiable.” ViroLIEgy Newsletter, 15 Apr., 2023 [LINK], where he goes through, in elaborate details, all the various ways in which virology and their viral ‘proofs’ are entirely unfalsifiable and thus qualify as pseudoscience.

24. Anonymous German Laboratory, “ON THE TRACK OF ENDERS EXPERIMENTS - cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is not specific for measles virus.” WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS Magazin Ausgabe 4/2017, pp. 13-17. [English LINK]. I was unable to locate the original German version from which the English version was translated, but it used to be purchaseable on the WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS store [German LINK].

25. Stefan Lanka, “Kontrollexperiment Phase 1 – Mehrere Labore bestätigen die Widerlegung der Virologie durch den cytopathischen Effekt” [“Control experiment phase 1 – Several laboratories confirm the refutation of virology by the cytopathic effect”]. Coldwellian News, 25 Mar. 2022 [German LINK]; Stefan Lanka, “Machtwerk - Einstieg in die Widerlegung der Virusbehauptung” [“It’s Magic - Introduction to Refuting Virus Claims”]. Corona-Fakten, 9 Feb, 2021 [German LINK]. For an English video version, see [HERE] (8 mins).

26. See

Jamie Andrews

(2025), “Cell Culture Isolation Control Experiment.” The Virology Control Studies Project.

CELL CULTURE ISOLATION CONTROL EXPERIMENT

27. Juan J. Angulo, John H. L. Watson and Jorge Olarte (1950), “ARTIFACTS, WITH OTHER NONSPECIFIC APPEARANCES RESEMBLING VIRUS PARTICLES, AND THE SO-CALLED FILAMENTOUS FORMS OF INFLUENZA AND FOWL PEST VIRUSES IN HUMAN SKIN TISSUE FLUID EXAMINED WITH THE ELECTRON MICROSCOPE.” Journal of Bacteriology 60(2): 129-138. [LINK]

28. George O. Gey, Frederick B. Bang and Margaret K. Gey (1954), “Responses of a variety of normal and malignant cells to continuous cultivation, and some practical applications of these responses to problems in the biology of disease.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science. Nov 17; 58(7): 976-99. [LINK] Image courteousy of Aldhissla, see footnote 17 above.

29. Refer all the papers cited in footnote 17 above.

30. See

Mike Stone

, “Just One Particle.” ViroLIEgy Newsletter, 8 Apr. 2023 [LINK], especially the graphic he took from Debunk the Funk.

31. See J.J. Couey’s Twitch Stream with Paul Elias Alexander [HERE] (139 minutes) - the most interesting portion I thought was from approximately the 50 minute mark when he begins to discuss the RNA-DNA intercellular communication aspect of these nanoscale particles. See also J.J. Couey, Twitch Stream [HERE] (87 mins); see also Tessa Lena, “Stop the Presses! J.J. Couey Ends the "Virus or No Virus" Debate by Bringing in Nuance.” Tessa Fights Robots, 10 Apr. 2023 [LINK].

32. See also Sasha Latypova’s discussion with gastroenterologist Sabine Hazan [HERE].

33. J.P. Michael, private correspondence with anonymised recipients, 8 Mar., 2021.

34. Couey repeatedly mentions the ‘release’ of ‘DNA viral clones,’ which PCR tests were able to pick up and thus ‘detect’ COVID-19 illness. I disagree with Couey’s assertion of DNA clones being released as bioweapons because these must be isolated, purified, biochemically characterised and genetically sequenced from a human sample prior to performing propagation just the same as any other ‘virus’. This, of course, has never been done: Val Turner’s brutal logical objection detailed at the beginning of this article still applies to Couey’s claims of ‘released’ DNA viral clones, too.

35.

Denis Rancourt

(2024), “Medical Hypothesis: Respiratory epidemics and pandemics without viral transmission.” CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest. [LINK]

Medical Hypothesis: Respiratory epidemics and pandemics without viral transmission