It has been two months since I responded to virologist Ed Rybicki with the challenge to produce the absolutely necessary scientific evidence supporting his belief in “pathogenic viruses,” and I'm happy to report that we finally have a response from the seemingly elusive science fiction author. However, before I noticed he had left me with a response on my ViroLIEgy.com site, I had two other challengers step up to the plate. Not to produce the essential evidence, mind you, but rather to argue against having to do so. I contemplated whether or not to share these rather lengthy exchanges, but as I always think that there is something to learn from them about the mindset of those who want to believe, I decided to include them in this update.
The first challenger is someone that those who have followed my work over the years may already be familiar with: plant virologist Thomas Baldwin. I have previously had two “debates” with Thomas in the past; the first was detailed in the May 2023 article Debunking the Funk, and the second in the April 2024 article A Senseless Strand.
ViroLIEgy Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
My previous Twitter exchanges with Thomas were anything but civil, so I hadn’t planned on engaging with him again. However, he found me on Substack this time and seemed eager for another round in what has now become an almost yearly tradition. Still, I was curious to see how he would respond to my open challenge to virologists, so I decided to hear him out. By the end, I was genuinely surprised. What follows is our full exchange, along with key highlights and commentary.
Thomas began by replying to my Substack note about the open challenge, suggesting that receiving a response from Ed would benefit me more than it would him. It seemed he hadn’t realized that Ed had already engaged first—and then withdrawn once challenged. Thomas took it upon himself to step in where Ed had left off. I therefore asked him to present the scientific evidence that Ed himself had acknowledged was necessary but failed to produce:
Engaging with you looks great on your CV, not so much on his.
Rybicki engaged and then disengaged immediately when challenged. It definitely does not look great for him.
This is what looking great looks like. Dont worry, I will gladly pick up where he left off.
Credentials and citations do not equal greatness. If you want to pick up where Rybicki left off, please present the necessary scientific evidence requested. You have failed to do so repeatedly in the past.
In my most recent article, I examined the foundational evidence behind the supposed discovery of the tobacco mosaic “virus” (TMV). I highlighted Wendell Meredith Stanley’s 1935 crystallization of what he claimed was “pure” TMV, and I noted the division among researchers before his work over whether a “virus” was a biological entity or simply a toxic che…
Thomas interpreted Ed’s silence after reading the challenge as a sign that he stopped engaging because the requirements were “set to fail.” However, I reminded Thomas that the requested evidence was supported by citations from the NIH, CDC, WHO, and other institutions—including virologists themselves. If those standards were designed to fail, then they have only their own authorities to blame.
I provided Thomas with my articles directly addressing his criticism and challenged him once again to either produce the required evidence or offer a logical counterargument explaining why it would not be necessary:
Oh I see. Ed stop interacting with you because your requirements are all set to fail, not describe reality.
It’s a strawman victory. Like requiring a set of lengthy experiments, but only accepting it if its in “eine” publication.
I see you are doubting TMV now Mike. Have you inoculated a leaf yet or is this all by arm chair?
I laid out exactly why the evidence listed is necessary. I even provided relevant passages from the NIH, CDC, WHO, and others in agreement:
Either present the necessary scientific evidence outlined or offer a scientifically valid, logical counterargument.
Instead, Thomas resorted to a series of logical fallacies—most notably begging the question (assuming “virus” from the start), affirming the consequent (using the effect to claim the cause), and false cause (ignoring other possible factors and explanations). He asserted that a single picture of a glowing green plant was irrefutable proof of “viruses:”
Yet, the leaves only show mosaic symptoms when they are actually infected. Here, with GFP-labeled TMV, you can see it directly. One picture is irrefutable proof, Mike. If TMV doesn’t exist—along with DNA and genetics, as your friend Jamie insists—then how else could this be possible?
Am I a sorcerer? Or is it just virology doing what it always does: producing clear, reproducible evidence.
Are you going to visit my lab to see yourself or just arm chair this?
Naturally, I explained the flaws in his reasoning and why a single image cannot serve as proof.
What your image shows is not a direct observation of TMV particles in situ but rather the signal from GFP—a marker deliberately introduced by the experimenter. All it demonstrates is where GFP is expressed, not what caused the plant’s condition. Your argument is logically flawed for three main reasons.
First, it begs the question: it assumes what it tries to prove. If you begin by presuming TMV exists and that the vector delivered is TMV, then glowing leaves are interpreted as “virus spread.” But that is circular reasoning unless the inoculum’s contents are independently verified beforehand to contain purified and isolated particles identified as TMV, alternative causes are ruled out, and the result is reproduced with proper controls.
Second, it is affirming the consequent. The reasoning goes: if TMV is present, then GFP will be expressed; GFP is expressed, therefore TMV is present. But the consequent (glowing leaves) does not uniquely confirm the assumed cause (TMV). Other mechanisms could produce the same outcome.
Third, it is also a false cause fallacy, as it attributes GFP expression specifically to TMV without excluding other possible causes such as the design of the construct, the delivery method, or unrelated cellular processes triggered by the inoculation.
Please see the linked article if you are unfamiliar with how you are committing these fallacies:
A photo is not an evidence chain; it’s an illustration of an outcome. The real science is the full materials and methods, the controls, the raw data, and independent replication; none of which have been provided here.
You have also ignored the larger issue: you did not provide a logical counterargument to the chain of evidence I requested, nor did you address the arguments in my TMV article. Presenting a glowing image as if it settles the matter is a deflection. The burden of proof remains with the claimant. Please either provide the requested evidence or offer a scientifically valid, logical counterargument.
In my previous exchanges with Thomas, I noticed a consistent pattern: he would reply with long, detailed responses within five to ten minutes of my posts—far too quickly to have read, processed, and composed a thoughtful reply. His usual messages were filled with typos and grammatical errors, while his AI-generated responses were polished and neatly structured.
Having caught him using ChatGPT in the past, I immediately recognized the same pattern again. Ironically, the AI argued that I had misrepresented the “logic” of the demonstration—while simultaneously conceding that a single image is insufficient without supporting evidence:
Mike,
Your comment misrepresents both the methodology and the logic of the demonstration. GFP was not arbitrarily expressed, it was fused to a viral protein and carried specifically by a TMV-based vector. The fact that mosaic symptoms only develop in infected leaves, and never in mock-inoculated controls, shows the phenotype is tied to the virus, not to GFP itself or to “unrelated cellular processes.” That is the entire point of marker-assisted infection experiments.
Your invocation of “circular reasoning,” “affirming the consequent,” and “false cause” collapses once controls are considered. Proper plant pathology experiments do run side-by-side controls (buffer-only inoculations, empty vector constructs, mock infiltrations). These consistently fail to produce symptoms or GFP expression, which rules out your alternative explanations. In fact, the reproducibility of these experiments across decades of labs worldwide is why TMV is a textbook model system, not a speculative assumption.
You’re also dismissing visual data out of hand. Of course a single image is not the entire evidence chain. But when an image is part of a replicated experiment with well-defined inocula, symptoms, controls, and sequencing confirmation, it is a piece of that evidence chain.
Finally, you had an open invitation to come visit my lab, examine the materials and methods firsthand, and even review the raw data with me. You did not take that opportunity. Why? Declining to engage with the direct evidence while insisting that the burden of proof is unmet undermines your own position more than it does mine.
If you genuinely want to engage with the science, I’m happy to walk through the full experimental chain from purified TMV inoculum, to infection assays, to molecular analysis and replication. If instead your strategy is to dismiss every demonstration as “circular,” then I’ll be here to point that out too.
I called out Thomas on his use of AI to compose his responses and explained why its reasoning was still flawed:
Thomas, I know you are fond of using ChatGPT to do your thinking for you. If you cannot answer for yourself, please don’t bother responding.
You are asserting the very point in dispute when you say “GFP was fused to a viral protein and carried by a TMV-based vector.” That statement presupposes the existence of TMV rather than demonstrating it. This is exactly what I mean by begging the question. The construct itself was built on the assumption that TMV exists and functions as claimed. But that assumption is precisely what requires independent proof.
Controls like “mock inoculations” or “empty vectors” don’t resolve the core issue either. They are not proper controls because such tests cannot be run without first establishing a valid independent variable in purified and isolated “viral” particles prior to experimentation. At best, they only show that a particular preparation caused an effect relative to those conditions. They do not establish that the preparation contained purified TMV particles as the causative agent. Until you demonstrate that the inoculum actually consists of purified and isolated particles with the specific properties attributed to TMV prior to experimentation, the causal attribution is still assumed, not proven. That’s where affirming the consequent and false cause enter—symptoms or GFP expression could have multiple possible explanations, yet the interpretation jumps straight to “virus.”
Your appeal to reproducibility is also meaningless. Repeating the same assumption-based experiment across multiple labs does not resolve the logical flaw. If the methodology presupposes the conclusion, then all you reproduce is the assumption itself, not independent proof. At best, it confirms a repeating pattern of fallacious reasoning.
As for your invitation to visit your lab, science is validated by transparent, falsifiable evidence, not private observation. The burden of proof does not shift to me to personally inspect your work; it remains on you, the one making the claim, to present the complete chain of evidence in publicly verifiable form. I have provided a clear outline, backed by the very organizations you appeal to. Like Ed Rybicki, you have not even attempted to meet that standard or provide a logical counterargument. Instead, you continue to deflect. Either present it, or admit that you are unable to do so, and move on.
Thomas then defended his use of AI by claiming that its responses reflected his own thoughts, before launching into another strawman argument—that I reject all evidence under flawed reasoning. This is patently false. I have repeatedly outlined what constitutes valid evidence and why those requirements are logically necessary, citing the very institutions Thomas himself appeals to.
What’s most telling, however, is that while defending his GFP image, ChatGPThomas inadvertently conceded that for the experiment to be valid, TMV must have been purified, imaged, and biochemically characterized beforehand. It then claimed this had already been done “long ago” and therefore no longer needed to be demonstrated. But that claim itself illustrates the core issue: it assumes the very point under dispute.
My standard of proof is not about ignoring history; it is about demanding verifiable evidence from history that substantiates the claim:
Hi Mike,
No worries. I know virus deniers have a real hard time with AI because these systems are trained on a foundation of established knowledge, including virology. No matter how many times you spam it, AI still recognizes that viruses exist because of the mountains of accumulated evidence. My thoughts here are my own.
The problem is that you reject any and all evidence under the same recycled, flawed reasoning. It gets old. In the year or so since we last interacted, I’ve sequenced and assembled countless genomes, labeled and tracked cellular and organismal interactions, and uncovered new insights into soil dynamics. Meanwhile, here you are, still repeating the same logical fallacies and producing nothing of substance. Bravo.
You keep insisting that any experiment that uses a TMV based vector “presupposes” the virus exists. But this ignores the fact that TMV was purified, imaged, and biochemically characterized long before GFP was even discovered. Holmes and Stanley were isolating TMV particles in the 1930s, visualizing their rods in the electron microscope, and even crystallizing them, producing physical matter that could be weighed, diffracted, and reconstituted into infectious preparations. That is not “an assumption.” That is empirical demonstration.
The GFP-tagged constructs I showed are not circular reasoning, they are modern molecular tools built on top of nearly a century of prior work. The controls I described (mock inoculations, buffer-only, empty vector) are exactly how science rules out alternative explanations. They don’t need to “establish” TMV exists, that was settled long ago, they show that the observed infection and mosaic symptoms only occur when TMV-derived particles are present.
Your claim that reproducibility is “meaningless” is also telling. In science, reproducibility is precisely what separates fact from assumption. If independent labs across the world isolate the same virus, visualize the same particles, reproduce the same infections, and sequence the same genome, the conclusion isn’t “shared delusion”, it’s reality.
Finally, you sidestep the fact that you were offered the chance to come and observe the work firsthand, and you declined. That undercuts your argument more than anything I could write here. Real science is done in the lab, not in comment sections where you live.
At this point the evidence for TMV is overwhelming, public, and reproducible. If your standard of proof requires pretending none of that history exists, then your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the entire field of virology, stretching back nearly a century.
To be fair, I have no issue with using AI as an editorial tool to clean up grammar or spelling before responding. I began doing the same with my own articles after receiving repeated complaints about minor errors. When used properly, AI can be a helpful assistant. However, I take issue when people use it to write their responses for them. That demonstrates no intellectual engagement whatsoever. It’s simply outsourcing the thinking process to AI. If I wanted to debate ChatGPT, I would. I don’t need Thomas acting as a middleman between me and the AI.
It became obvious that Thomas hadn’t written his reply himself when the AI referenced Stanley and Holmes’s TMV work—something I had already addressed in detail in the very article I had shared with him. This made it equally clear that neither Thomas nor the AI had actually read what I wrote. My arguments were ignored, and instead, I was accused of flawed reasoning without a single demonstration to support the claim:
It has absolutely nothing to do with AI being “challenging.” I’ve had plenty of conversations with AI where it agreed with me. You can find them here:
If I wanted to debate ChatGPT, I would. The issue is that you aren’t engaging with my arguments. Instead, you’re outsourcing your “understanding” to AI. That only tells me this discussion is more than you can handle.
I don’t reject evidence arbitrarily. I reject indirect evidence when it relies on the very direct evidence I’m asking for to have been established first. You must demonstrate fully characterized, purified, and isolated particles directly from the host prior to any culturing. Only then can they serve as a valid independent variable. From there, you must show that those same particles cause the claimed disease using the scientific method in a way that satisfies Koch’s Postulates. Any downstream evidence without that foundation is scientifically invalid. Can you demonstrate this? It appears that you are unable to do so.
You say I repeat “flawed reasoning” and “logical fallacies,” yet you haven’t demonstrated a single actual fallacy. Simply asserting it does not make it true.
You brought up Holmes and Stanley as if I’m unaware. Thank you for confirming you didn’t read my TMV article, where I directly addressed their work and showed why it fails both logically and scientifically. Please read it and respond with a counterargument, not AI hand-waving.
Your statement that GFP constructs “don’t need to establish TMV exists, because that was settled long ago” is exactly the problem. That is the very point under dispute. You don’t get to dodge the foundational evidence. You must present it, if it exists, and defend it logically. So far, you’ve done neither.
On reproducibility, as I already stated, repeating an assumption-based method doesn’t fix the flaw. If the methodology presupposes its conclusion, then reproducibility only demonstrates the repetition of an assumption, not proof. Before reproducibility has value, the original work must be logically and scientifically valid.
Finally, your lab invitation is just another deflection. As I already said, science is not validated by private observation but by transparent, falsifiable evidence. The burden of proof remains on you to provide the complete chain of evidence. If you had it, you would show it. Instead, you keep dodging.
After admitting to his use of AI, Thomas tried to put the genie back in the bottle by claiming he was not ChatGPT. He then engaged in a strawman argument, insisting that his fluorescent green plant photo was not doctored or CGI—arguments I never made. His response also contradicted his earlier assertion that my requirements were “set to fail” by claiming that the evidence I requested had already been produced. If the experiments have already been performed, then how could the challenge possibly be “set to fail?”
The AI cited Stanley’s “purification” of TMV, which I had already addressed in my article, showing that it was not a purified or isolated “viral” preparation. It also claimed that TMV had been visualized by electron microscopy in the 1930s–40s, which I had likewise refuted in the same article. Ironically, in listing six supposed steps completing the chain of evidence I requested, it provided citations for only five. The missing one—Step 3, “infectivity from purified prep” and re-isolation of identical particles from newly diseased hosts—was conspicuously unsupported:
If I was "ChatGPT" you could just keep spamming me as you did in your piece until you made it agree with you, because it’s programmed to eventually mirror what you push on it. However, without spamming it, it still returns that viruses exist when you ask it.
We have to deal with reality. The photo I shared is not doctored, not CGI—it is a real image, and it is only possible because GFP, which you only acknowledge exists because you can see it, cannot replicate or move on its own. It needs a carrier. When I insert the GFP gene sequence into the genome of TMV, the result is systemic fluorescence that perfectly aligns with mosaic symptoms. How is that possible if TMV doesn’t exist and its genome is just “nonsense”?
The experiments you demand have already been done, and they were done before molecular cloning even existed. TMV is one of the most extensively characterized biological entities in history:
1. Isolation and purification: TMV was purified directly from infected leaves by Wendell Stanley in 1935, yielding crystalline rods. These preparations could be weighed, analyzed chemically, and diffracted by X-rays (Stanley, 1935, Science 81:644).
2. Visualization: Electron microscopy in the 1930s–40s revealed uniform rod-shaped particles, ~300 nm in length, corresponding exactly to purified TMV (Kausche et al., 1939, Naturwissenschaften 27:292).
3. Infectivity from purified prep: Purified TMV rods rubbed onto healthy plants reproduce the mosaic disease, and identical rods can be re-isolated from those plants.
4. Infectious RNA: Fraenkel-Conrat & Singer (1957, PNAS 43:163) showed that RNA extracted from purified TMV alone is infectious.
5. Reconstitution of virions: Fraenkel-Conrat & Williams (1955, PNAS 41:690) famously disassembled TMV into protein and RNA, then reconstituted infectious virus in vitro.
6. Genome sequencing: The complete TMV genome was sequenced (Goelet et al., 1982, PNAS 79:5818) and has since been cloned, mutated, and reintroduced into plants, consistently producing or abolishing disease depending on the integrity of TMV genes.
That is a transparent, falsifiable, and replicated evidence chain—from isolation, to biochemical characterization, to reproduction of disease, to molecular dissection. No “assumption” is required; it is direct demonstration.
If you truly disagree with this, you are welcome to step into my lab and attempt to disprove it. But you won’t. Because at the end of the day, you don’t want to go down in history as the Jeranism of virus denial, do you?
As both Thomas and the AI seemed confused as to what evidence I was asking for, I laid it out for them once again. I made sure that Thomas understood that I wanted the exact studies from the same researchers using the same materials and methods, along with his explanation, not the AI, as to how they fulfill the logical chain of causation.
Thanks for the history lesson, Thomas. None of that answers the specific evidence I requested.
If you claim TMV (or any “virus”) has been proven to exist and cause disease, then produce the experiments that satisfy the standard I outlined to you already. I’ll restate the request precisely so there’s no confusion:
Please provide verifiable, published evidence showing all of the following steps were done as stated:
Direct purification and isolation of particles claimed to be the “virus” from the fluids of an “infected” hostwithout prior cell culture, with electron micrographs demonstrating the purified particles taken before any downstream manipulation.
Characterization of those purified particles (size, density, biochemistry) tied explicitly to the particles visualized by EM.
Natural-pathogenicity proof: introduction of that same, purified and isolated material into healthy hosts by the hypothesized natural route (aerosol, ingestion, contact, etc.), reproduction of the same disease, and re-isolation of the same particles from the newly sickened hosts.
Replication and independent confirmation by other groups, with raw methods, data, and controls published so the chain is publicly verifiable.
You invoked classic work (Stanley, Fraenkel-Conrat, sequencing, reconstitution). I covered Stanley and the early EM images in my TMV piece that you did not read or address, and I explained why they do not satisfy the specific chain-of-causation I’m requesting. If you disagree with that analysis, quote the exact experiments and sections you believe do meet steps 1–4 above and explain precisely how they meet them. Provide the paper(s), figures, and the parts of the methods that demonstrate purification from host fluids prior to any culturing or manipulation. Do not rely on AI answers to do your work for you.
A few clarifications so we don’t talk past each other:
Demonstrating “infectivity” of RNA, reconstitution, or successful use of “TMV-based vectors” assumes a starting material and methodology, and engages in the fallacious reasoning I previously outlined for you. That doesn’t replace the specific evidence I’m asking for: particles isolated directly from a host before any culture/manipulation.
Mock inoculations and empty-vector controls do not address the foundational requirement that the independent variable (the putative particle) be shown to exist in the host prior to experimentation. Controls don’t create that independent variable; they only compare effects once a preparation has already been made.
Again, reproducibility is meaningful only if the original work is logically and methodologically sound. Repeating an experiment that presupposes its conclusion does not convert assumption into proof.
If you can point to a single published study, or a series of studies by the same team using the same materials and methods, that meets all of the above—with methods and EM images showing purified particles taken directly from the host prior to any culturing, plus re-isolation after natural transmission—then cite it. I will read it, engage with it, and revise my position if it meets the standard.
If you cannot produce that evidence, then the honest conclusion is that the specific chain of causation I requested does not exist in the literature as you claim. At that point, please either admit that you cannot meet the standard or present a rigorous, logical counterargument explaining why those requirements are unnecessary and why alternative evidence should suffice.
As has been stated repeatedly now, science demands transparent, falsifiable chains of evidence. The burden of proof is yours. Show it, or concede that you cannot.
After I resubmitted my request for the complete chain of evidence, Thomas appeared to back down, stating that he had “science” to do and that this would be his last reply. Yet, in the same message, he contradicted himself once again. He claimed that the chain of evidence I demanded already exists in the literature, while simultaneously accusing me of redefining the criteria so that it could never be satisfied. The contradiction is self-evident: how can the chain of evidence I request both exist and be impossible to satisfy at the same time?:
Thanks Mike,
This is probably my last reply in this thread and for today. I actually have science to do this morning including transformations to tag microorganisms and track their behavior in real systems. It’s amazing what can be accomplished when you focus on actual data rather than debating “nirvana experiments” that exist only in theory.
You keep demanding an evidence chain that has already been documented in TMV for nearly a century. Purified particles directly from infected plants, electron micrographs of those same rods, physical/chemical characterization, reinoculation producing mosaic disease, re-isolation of the same particles, and later the demonstration that RNA alone is infectious, all of this is in the literature, repeatedly replicated and expanded by independent groups. That is how TMV became the model virus in plant pathology.
The fact that you dismiss every single one of those steps by redefining the criteria in a way that can never be satisfied says more about your framework than about the evidence itself. You want a standard that sounds logical on paper but collapses when confronted with how science actually works in practice. It’s not that the experiments don’t exist; it’s that your criteria don’t map to reality.
As always, the invitation stands: let’s have a direct scientific debate where we can walk through the evidence together, or better yet, come into the lab and inoculate plants with TMV yourself. You’ll see how simple and repeatable it is to take TMV, inoculate a plant, and watch mosaic symptoms develop, and how impossible it is to reproduce those symptoms without TMV. You could even attempt a kitchen-scale version yourself. When the results don’t fit your framework, you’ll see it isn’t the virus at fault, it’s the logic of your denial.
I had to step in and point out his contradiction, and I agreed that he should walk away as his argument was lost:
Thomas, you can’t have it both ways. You claim that the full chain of evidence I have requested has already been demonstrated for TMV, yet also insist my criteria make it impossible. If the evidence exists, then it isn’t impossible. If it’s impossible, then the evidence doesn’t exist. That contradiction shows you’re asserting proof while excusing why you don’t have to provide it. At this point, it would be wise to walk away—you’re outright contradicting yourself.
Shockingly, Thomas doubled down on his contradiction and argued that he could have it both ways, as when he requests TMV from another lab, they give him TMV. He asserted that, because he could create effects in a lab using this product, it was proof TMV was in the sample. I thanked Thomas for owning his contradiction while once again pointing out the fallacious nature of his reasoning—begging the question and shifting the burden of proof:
I can actually have it both ways, that the standards of chain of evidence is met just by the fact that I requested TMV from another lab and when I inoculated it on tobacco leaves got mosaic symptoms and harvested TMV. Also, I can tell you that your requirements don’t map to reality. The only proof I’m asserting is your unwillingness to run the experiments yourself, when you can run them in your own kitchen.
Thank you, Thomas, for owning your contradiction and for proving my point. You claim the “chain of evidence” is satisfied simply because you received a preparation labeled TMV from another lab, rubbed it on a plant, saw symptoms, and re-harvested more of the same. That’s not an independent chain of causation—that’s assuming what was sent to you already was TMV. You’ve presupposed the very thing in dispute.
And once again, you’ve shifted the burden of proof. The responsibility is not on me to “recreate the kitchen experiment,” it’s on you to demonstrate with verifiable, foundational evidence that the particles in question actually exist and cause disease as you claim. Thank you for confirming that your position rests on circular reasoning and contradiction, not on sound, logical scientific rigor.
Thomas then introduced an irrelevant analogy involving ducks—a false equivalence—and mocked the burden of proof. I again pointed out how his reasoning fell apart, noting that his example only underscored his misunderstanding:
Just picking apart your non scientific mindset is so much fun to me, Mike. This is hilarious. I received a sample from a lab report that it’s a “duck” and when I find the sample it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and I find it has a genome that maps to the family of Anatidae, but that’s not evidence? Also, if I take a protein in duck genome for feather pigmentation with the DNA code for GFP, it glows. But we are still only “assuming” it’s a duck? You won’t acknowledge it’s a duck, because you don’t want ducks to exist. Just admit it. You won’t go duck hunting because, burden of proof or something. Heck you won’t even let me send you a duck in a cage because.. burden of proof??
As you are still here commenting Thomas? I guess you really did not have “science to do this morning.” Regardless, your analogy collapses under its own weight. You are not proving anything. Instead, you are just smuggling the conclusion into the premise.
You say you “received a duck from a lab,” but that’s the very point of dispute: whether the thing sent to you is in fact a duck. Saying “it quacks, it walks like a duck, it has duck DNA” doesn’t resolve the issue, because those judgments already assume it’s a duck, and that a duck with those attributes had been independently demonstrated beforehand. That’s begging the question.
And your “duck in a cage” example only highlights how false the analogy really is. A duck can be directly observed, handled, and manipulated as a complete, identifiable organism. A so-called “virus,” on the other hand, is never actually observed as such—it’s presumed to be present in a mixture, and then all the downstream effects are interpreted as if that presumption were true. There is no independent demonstration. It is merely assumption dressed up as evidence.
So thank you again for illustrating that your reasoning depends on circularity and metaphor rather than on sound scientific demonstration.
I’m just replying to you in between steps. You wouldn’t know.
ok right here: “it quacks, it walks like a duck, it has duck DNA” doesn’t resolve the issue, because those judgments already assume it’s a duck, and that a duck with those attributes had been independently demonstrated beforehand. That’s begging the question.”
How do you determine it’s a duck?
How do you determine it’s a duck? By independent demonstration of a duck as a whole, directly observable organism that is seen, handled, and identified in reality. Only then can you say, “this quacking, walking animal with feathers and DNA is a duck.”
But that’s exactly the problem with your analogy. A duck can be established as a real, complete organism apart from assumptions. A so-called “virus” never is. You start by presuming it exists in a mixture, then interpret everything else as if that presumption were true. That’s the very definition of circular reasoning.
He insisted that my criteria made it impossible to identify anything, which once again misrepresented my position while showcasing his lack of understanding:
By Mike Stone’s logic, no one can determine what is or is not a duck. Any attempt to describe a suspected duck, is just begging the question. This is why I say there isn’t a problem with the duck, there’s a problem with your criteria.
A duck can be observed and handled as a whole. A “virus,” by contrast, is never independently purified, isolated, imaged, and characterized before experimentation. It's existence is assumed from the start. That’s the circular logic, not a problem with criteria.
Thomas then deflected to a Substack article that he had recently “written” critiquing the work of Jamie Andrews, asking if I had read it. I hadn’t, but I assumed, as with everything else Thomas has ChatGPT whip up, it would be amusing:
Also, did you read my criticism of the Virus Denier “Experiments” ?
I agree. Jamie, immediately blocked me. I am not expecting a rebuttal from him.
Jamie does not handle constructive criticism well.
With that diversion out of the way, it was back to the duck—with Thomas further solidifying his misunderstanding and demonstrating why his metaphor was a false equivalence. He had to shrink his duck down in size just to make it “work:”
“By independent demonstration of a duck as a whole, directly observable organism that is seen, handled, and identified in reality”
You mean observing it quacking and walking? Identifying it’s characteristics? What if the duck was smaller than a single cells? Does that criteria hold up through microscopy and chemical analysis? or are only things that you can see with the naked eye real? As you are suggesting.
It’s not about naked-eye visibility. A duck can be independently verified as a whole organism. A “virus” has never been shown to exist as a complete, independent entity. It’s assumed from the start.
He then tried to claim that experiments are how one characterizes an object that one does not yet have on hand to study, thus cementing the fatal flaw in his reasoning. One cannot run an experiment to characterize something that does not exist prior to running it. The object must exist independently in order to serve as a valid independent variable. It cannot be a creation of the experiment itself:
Experimentation is how you characterize a virus. By your criteria nothing smaller than what the naked eye sees can be determined because you needed an extra step between the glass slide, the microscope, and your eye.
Experiments can tell you about something only after you’ve established it exists. Characterization doesn’t create the entity—it defines one that already exists. That’s why claiming “experimentation proves a virus exists” is circular.
Sadly, this was lost on Thomas. He brought the discussion back to the size of the object—something that was never in dispute—and then claimed I reject indirect evidence such as “viral” coats or genomes. Both of those, however, depend entirely on first establishing the existence of the entity they supposedly belong to. It’s like claiming that a few hairs and piles of feces found in the forest belong to Bigfoot. One cannot make such a claim unless Bigfoot has first been directly demonstrated and his biological materials verified. Size isn’t the issue. The issue is establishing existence prior to experiments and before accepting indirect evidence as valid.
Thomas was under the false impression that experiments can prove existence, completely misunderstanding that experimentation is designed to determine cause-and-effect relationships for phenomena that are already known to exist. An experiment cannot prove that something exists in the first place:
It is about size because you dont accept the whole organism description of isolated virus from their viral coats to their unique individual genomes.
The size of the particle isn’t the issue. The problem is that no “virus” has ever been independently demonstrated as a fully intact, isolated organism before experiments. What’s called an “isolated virus” is inferred from fragments, genetic sequences, or particles in mixtures. It is not shown as a complete, verified entity prior to its use in experiments.
“Viral” coats and genomes can only have meaning if you first have fully purified, isolated “virus” particles. Without that, these markers are indirect and presuppose the entity exists, which is circular reasoning.
Any attempt to establish its existence requires what you call an experiment, because they are microscopic.
Microscopy isn’t the same as an experiment. It’s an observation tool. Existence must be established by direct demonstration first. Experiments are used to determine the cause of an effect. They only make sense once you already have the entity to test. Otherwise, you’re assuming what you set out to prove.
Thomas then surprised me by thanking me for the discussion while acknowledging our differences. Although he continued to misunderstand the purpose of experimentation, characterization, and circular reasoning, it was nice to end the exchange on a more civil note than before.
I made one more attempt to help Thomas understand that an experiment is not a method for determining existence. Ironically, he actually made my argument for me by acknowledging that an organism must be on hand to manipulate during an experiment—but then stumbled at the finish line by claiming that placing an organism under a microscope constitutes an experiment. It does not. There is no hypothesis about a cause-and-effect relationship being tested by simply observing something under magnification. That is merely an observational step, and it is something that must happen before experimentation.
Thanks Mike,
I do appreciate this back and forth. It makes me thing about how to teach this stuff. It’s fine we have this fundamental disagreement, but I argue that my approach produces results and if it were circular reasoning, no experiment would advance our knowledge.
Under your current framework, you have no way of describing anything that is subcellular, because characterizing anything at a subcellular levels requires an experiment. In this sense, you are perpetrating the circular argument by requiring the virus to be already characterized before you can use it in an experiment to characterize the virus.
I appreciate the more civil discussion this time, Thomas. You’re misusing the word “experiment.” An experiment tests a hypothesis about cause and effect—it doesn’t establish the existence of the thing being tested. Existence must be demonstrated first; only then can experiments help characterize it further. Skipping that step and inferring from mixtures is exactly what makes the reasoning circular.
The fact that youneed to manipulate the organism by placing them on a glass slide, makes it an experiment.
I would propose you and I have a one on one conversation and we actually devise a final experiment which can settle the issue for you, with your own hands.
If placing something on a slide counts as an “experiment,” then what hypothesis about cause and effect is being tested? Observation shows whether something is there. Experiments come afterward to test hypotheses about what it does. Blurring that distinction is exactly how virology hides its circular reasoning.
As for devising an experiment, the logical criteria for proof already exist. The real question is whether the evidence meets them. There’s no need to invent a new experiment—the only need is to present a valid, scientific chain of causation that should already be established within the literature. Where is it?
My third conversation with Thomas ended there. At the very least, it was a far more pleasant exchange this time around—with both Thomas and his ChatBot counterpart. I genuinely believe that Thomas is fully invested in the narrative he has been taught. I don’t say that as an insult, but to highlight the power of indoctrination and how the modern educational system has replaced critical thinking with repetition.
Throughout our exchanges, Thomas repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how the scientific method is properly applied. His replies—when they appeared to come from him rather than his AI assistant—revealed an inability to escape the circular, fallacious reasoning that has been programmed into him.
I truly think Thomas believes what he says, and in that sense, he stands as a perfect example of how deeply the system’s narrative shapes those within it. He is not malicious; rather, he is misled. I sincerely hope that one day he’ll be able to recognize the logical errors underpinning his thought process. But as Upton Sinclair aptly observed, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The next challenger is Jeff Green, a self-proclaimed science researcher who dabbles in computer graphics and animation. For those unfamiliar, Jeff occupies an unusual space: he accepts the existence of “viruses,” yet rejects the mainstream narrative about what they are. Drawing inspiration from nutritionist Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Jeff claims that “viruses” are not “pathogenic” but are instead produced by the body to dissolve toxins. Essentially, “viruses” are viewed as soap. Lately, however, he seems to have softened that position—allowing that “viruses” might be “pathogenic” under certain conditions.
Over the years, I’ve had several encounters with Jeff across my main site, Substack, and Twitter, covering topics such as purification and isolation, exosomes, and the scientific method. These exchanges are always exhausting in their circularity. Through them, I’ve found Jeff to be an intellectually dishonest person who thrives on attention. He has targeted others as well, including Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Mark Bailey, Christine Massey, and Alec Zeck. As I have little interest in engaging with those who argue in bad faith, I generally avoid Jeff. Nevertheless, he occasionally inserts himself into discussions, as he recently did in my exchange with Thomas.
While I would prefer not to give Jeff the attention he craves, this latest exchange neatly exposes both his intellectual dishonesty and the logical traps that inevitably ensnare those who defend “viruses.” Since attention is what he wants, let’s shine a light on Jeff so he can serve as a clear example of the illogical mindset required to defend virology.
When Jeff interjected himself into my conversation with Thomas, he accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method—an accusation I’ve repeatedly shown to be false. He relied heavily on appeals to authority and consensus, claiming that “all scientists know” the scientific method is inherently variable and adaptable. However, Jeff knows full well that the scientific method is systematic and includes core components that cannot simply be omitted or rearranged at will.
He began with a strawman, asserting that I reject observation—even though I explicitly identify “Observation of a natural phenomenon” as the first step of the method. He then accused me of misrepresenting the method as it’s taught, despite the fact that I present it exactly as it appears in educational and scientific sources. According to Jeff, learning about the scientific method is somehow different from implementing it.
As is his habit, Jeff quickly descended into ad hominem and ridicule, equating my position with “flat-Earth thinking” before proceeding to attack the strawmen he had constructed. His bad faith and logically fallacious reasoning were on full display from the start.
This is coming from someone who has misrepresented the scientific method as a rigid sequence of steps, yet cannot produce a single credible source to support that claim. Every scientist knows that the scientific method is inherently variable and adaptable. That is the root of your bad-faith dispute with Thomas: you are building your argument on a false premise. If you insist that inquiry must begin with some fixed starting point, everything that follows will be distorted. By that logic, why believe in anything at all? Nothing could ever be proven to exist.
It is you who are engaging in circular reasoning. If you demand that “A” must be proven by some standard other than observation, then it can never be proven—because all human knowledge of existence begins with observation. That is why observation is universally recognized as one of the primary foundations of any scientific methodology. Your insistence that your rigid “observe a natural phenomenon” model is the only valid one is without merit.
There is no singular scientific method. What you’ve done is misrepresent oversimplified diagrams from high school textbooks—teaching tools, not strict rules—for the way actual scientists conduct research. If you grasped that, you would realize how misguided this entire debate has become.
Your inability to “see” viruses fits precisely within the point I’m making above. The fact that something cannot be directly observed with the naked eye does not mean it does not exist or cannot be inferred with near-complete accuracy. This is no different from the logic of flat-Earth thinking—a perfect illustration of your reasoning.
If we can infer the Earth’s sphericity by observing other planets, replicating predictable systems, and confirming those observations year after year, then the assertion becomes virtually indisputable. To reject that process is to reject the fundamental way we apprehend reality. It is denialism, plain and simple.
If you claim you cannot see viruses, fine—that’s why you use instruments. But your argument collapses when you insist those instruments are not valid tools for observation. On what basis? Simply because you declare it so? That has no merit—and I suspect you know it, because it is the only point you have left to argue.
You’ve already stated that you cannot know a virus exists without first proving it exists. But within your framework, such proof is impossible, because the very tools required to establish that proof are dismissed as invalid. That is circular reasoning in its purest form: 𝘈 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵; 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴; 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 “𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘦𝘥”; 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘈 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯. Yet, those flaws have never been proven to be unable to be worked around; quite the opposite, in fact.
You even admitted in the past (paraphrasing), “That’s not my problem. Virology must come up with a way to prove A exists.” But that statement exposes the flaw in your entire model. Science doesn’t work by demanding impossible conditions of proof, nor do rational people operate that way. Knowledge proceeds from observation, inference, replication, and refinement—not from setting up logical traps to make evidence perpetually unreachable. That's what you're doing here in this conversation, once again, for the umpteenth time.
The body of evidence for the existence of viruses is so vast and consistent that to deny it requires denying virtually every established biological system on Earth and in the human body. That is precisely why movements like “No Virus” have had to invent a so-called “New Biology” in an attempt to rewrite fundamental biology. The problem is that none of it makes logical sense and it answers nothing of substance about health, disease, or the functioning of biological systems in nature.
Needless to say, I was not willing to get into yet another exchange with Jeff, repeating the same conversations endlessly. It is a waste of my time. Unsurprisingly, Jeff responded with a classic “nuh-uh,” demanding that I repeat our prior debates ad nauseum—or else I am supposedly avoiding discussion.
It is true that I avoid debating those I find intellectually dishonest or acting in bad faith. That said, I will engage if it seems worthwhile. Just ask Jeremy Hammond (here and here).
Regardless, I told Jeff that if he wanted to see my rebuttals, he was free to revisit our previous exchanges. I refused to rehash the same arguments in an endless loop:
We’ve been through this repeatedly, Jeff. I have demonstrated your misunderstanding about natural science and the scientific method already for you. I won’t waste my time doing so again.
I don’t misunderstand natural science—you do. Either engage with the points I’ve presented, or I’ll take your refusal as proof that you have no legitimate rebuttal.
You say you’ve “demonstrated” my misunderstanding, but if you had actually refuted my points, you would be able to restate them clearly here and show why they fail. The fact that you won’t, and instead resort to dismissal, shows you’re avoiding the debate, not winning it.
So your answer is “nuh-uh.” Brilliant. 👏
Go seek out our previous conversations, Jeff. Plenty of relevant sources supporting my argument were provided. I have no desire to go around in long-winded circles with you again.
Jeff displayed his intellectual dishonesty once again, claiming that I never provided a single source to support my claims—something that is demonstrably false. For those interested, our previous discussion, complete with ample sources provided by myself, can be found here.
Jeff also argued that no scientific source supports the necessity of fully characterized, purified, and isolated particles directly from the host prior to culturing. This, too, is false: the scientific method requires an independent variable (the presumed cause) free of confounding factors before any experimentation. This is basic science—something both Jeff and mainstream virologists fail to grasp. In response, Jeff accused me of inventing an “ideal” independent variable that is unrealistic and claimed I was engaging in circular reasoning:
You didn’t ask me a question. You haven’t provided a single source to support your claims, nor have you done so in past debates. When you told Thomas, “You must demonstrate fully characterized, purified, and isolated particles directly from the host prior to any culturing,” not one scientific source supports that requirement. You are the only source. When you claim, “Viruses are not a natural phenomenon,” again, there is no scientific source to back it up. Instead, you rely on basic high school textbooks, which are broad teaching tools that cannot capture the complexities of real scientific practice. Where are your so-called “relevant sources” for any of these claims?
The scientific method demands a valid independent variable free of confounding factors, Jeff. That requires purified and isolated particles free from all other contaminants. This is basic stuff.
Again, feel free to reread our previous conversations. I’m not going to waste my time digging them up all over for someone who has repeatedly demonstrated intellectual dishonesty. The need for a valid independent variable is a foundational principle. If you can’t grasp that, you’re not engaging in science.
Reading your comments to Thomas makes it clear that you are the one being dishonest, framing the debate around a fabricated “scientific method” of impossibility. It cannot be achieved because it rests on circular reasoning masquerading as science. Your so-called “valid independent variable” is nothing more than a theoretical construct, an ideal that cannot be realized with actual biological samples. In other words, you’ve built an unfalsifiable standard that immunizes your position from evidence. Bravo! 👏
Biological samples can never be “free from all contaminants.” Even in biochemistry, you work with degrees of purity, not absolutes. Claiming that only total purification counts as a valid independent variable is a Nirvana fallacy (dismissing all real-world evidence because it doesn’t meet a perfect ideal). Further, human viruses often exist in low concentrations and require culturing to amplify them to a detectable and characterizable level.
Again, textbook circular reasoning.
Jeff’s last comment exposed a fundamental flaw in his understanding of science. One cannot claim to have identified an independent variable if it only appears after artificial manipulation—this is precisely what it means to introduce confounding and extraneous variables. The independent variable must exist in a state not confounded by unknowns prior to any experimentation. By assuming that “viruses” exist in low concentrations and must be amplified through culturing, Jeff was engaging in circular reasoning himself.
I also highlighted the inaccuracy of his claim that biological samples can never be free of contaminants. In bacteriology, independent variables free of confounding factors are routinely obtained. Thus, his argument that such a requirement represents an “unfalsifiable standard” is invalid. Yet in his response, Jeff contradicted himself. He now asserted that this standard has been achieved with “viruses” of lower organisms and human “viruses.” By doing so, he tacitly conceded that his “unfalsifiable standard” accusation was false.
Jeff, thank you for laying out your position so plainly—it exposes exactly the problem.
You just admitted the central flaw. By conceding that “viruses often exist in low concentrations and require culturing to amplify them,” you acknowledge that what is ultimately studied and labeled “virus” is not the original material from the sick host. That severs the causal chain. You can’t claim to have identified an independent variable if it only appears after artificial manipulation. That’s the very definition of introducing confounding factors.
Your “degrees of purity” argument collapses. No one is demanding perfection in some metaphysical sense, only that the independent variable be shown to exist in a state not confounded by other unknowns prior to any experimentation. You yourself rely on the presumption that the mixture contains the “virus” you’re looking for, then interpret all downstream results through that assumption. That is textbook begging the question.
Your Nirvana fallacy accusation boomerangs. I’m not demanding some unattainable ideal. I’m asking for the same standard required of any valid experiment: time order (cause before effect) and a demonstrable, identifiable independent variable free of confounders. If virology cannot satisfy this, then it’s not that I’ve set the bar too high—it’s that virology never had the evidence it claimed in the first place.
Your statement that “biological samples can never be free from all contaminants” is simply incorrect. Pure colonies of a single bacterial species are routinely obtained without confounding variables—that’s basic microbiology. No one dismisses those as “nirvana experiments.” The only reason virology doesn’t meet the same standard is because it can’t, not because the standard is impossible.
So no, Jeff, this is not me hiding behind an “unfalsifiable” position. Quite the opposite: it’s me pointing out that virology has never met the basic falsifiability criteria of science in the first place.
You are conflating amplification with creation. This is your fundamental error. Your requirement that artificial cultures cannot be used does not diminish the fact that viruses are being produced by cells. The culture proves that; it doesn’t produce the virus itself. It is a natural phenomenon of the cellular process.
You repeat the claim that virologists “presume” the virus is in the mixture. This is false. The process is one of deduction and falsification. You dismiss any method (like culture and EM) that allows for the evidence of viruses to be gathered, and then declare their non-existence due to a lack of valid evidence.
“Pure colonies of a single bacterial species are routinely obtained without confounding variables—that’s basic microbiology.”
So are viruses, but only certain viruses of lower organisms are routinely obtained this way, such as those infecting plants and insects. Human viruses are more complex due to their level of replication within a given sample size, but they too have been obtained and analyzed the same way throughout history, using the host (or organ thereof) as the natural culture.
Jeff once again attacked a strawman, claiming I said electron microscopy could not be used to identify “viruses.” This is easily disproven: I regularly cite EM as a method to demonstrate purity, while also acknowledging its limitations (see step 1 in the accompanying images).
I pointed out that Jeff was engaging in begging the question and affirming the consequent, relying on post-culture observations to infer the original cause without excluding alternative explanations. I also highlighted his claim that “viruses” have been obtained in pure culture—precisely the reason virologists abandoned Koch’s Postulates, since that condition could not be satisfied.
Yet Jeff persisted with circular reasoning. He insisted that “viruses” are inferred in the original sample, contradicted himself by claiming that “viruses” have been isolated directly from natural hosts, and then claimed that I demand virology meet a biologically impossible standard. But if what Jeff claims has been done, how can my request for such evidence be an “unfalsifiable standard?”
You’ve just repeated the very logical errors you accuse me of.
You conflate amplification with independent identification. Claiming that culturing “produces” a “virus” presumes the “virus” was already present in the original sample; that severs the required time-order and independent variable conditions. In other words, you’re begging the question and committing an affirming the consequent: you observe an effect after culture and infer the original cause without excluding alternative explanations (contaminants, host artifacts, culture-induced phenomena). I’ve outlined the fallacious reasoning you employ here:
Electron microscopy is only decisive when applied to purified, pre-culture material. If you can point to published work that shows particles purified and imaged directly from host fluids before any culturing, plus natural-route exposure, disease causation, and re-isolation, cite it now. Otherwise your position rests on circular reasoning, not science.
You are mistaken: no “virus” has ever been obtained in pure culture. That is why virologists long ago abandoned Koch’s Postulates, even as institutions like the NIH, CDC, and WHO still admit that Koch’s framework is the gold standard for proving causation. Virology fails not because the bar is too high, but because it cannot clear the bar that other microbes have.
The culture itself doesn’t produce a virus. The cell does. The virus is inferred from evidence in the original sample and then proven experimentally. When you culture a virus in replication-competent cells, you can directly observe it expanding from cells in viral colonies, even without a microscope.
The claim that no virus has ever been obtained in pure culture is false. Viruses have been isolated directly from natural hosts, such as pill-box bugs or various plants, by infecting the host, letting it propagate, and then purifying the virus from the host. This is direct extraction from the natural culture of the host, not artificial creation.
As for your demand that a study must show particles purified directly from host fluids, natural-route exposure, disease causation, and re-isolation—all in one study—no single study does that, and you know it. That standard is unrealistic. But proving the existence of viruses does not require the latter, only the first; i.e., particles purified directly from host fluids (see below reference).
Your claim that viruses must exist in diseased hosts but not healthy ones is misleading. Many viruses exist naturally in the human virome without ‘causing’ illness, so your premise is unfounded and unsupported by evidence.
Koch’s Postulates, in their original form, do not apply to viruses.
You demand the impossible, then claim victory. By demanding that virology meet a standard that is biologically impossible for its subject matter, you have created an unfalsifiable position. It’s like demanding a zoologist prove the existence of a fish by having it climb a tree. When it cannot, you declare the fish a myth.
You are asking the virus to perform an action that violates its very biological definition. Cell culture isn’t an “artificial cheat”; it is the necessary environment (the “water”) that allows the virus to reveal its properties, just as water is for a fish. You are not testing reality; you are imposing a fictional reality with rules that pre-determine your desired outcome. When virologists cannot meet this impossible standard, you conclude viruses are a “myth.”
In response, I once again highlighted Jeff's unsound reasoning, pointing out his use of begging the question, affirming the consequent, and false cause fallacies. I also noted that he had yet to cite a single study in which a “virus” has been purified, isolated, imaged, and characterized directly from a healthy host prior to any culturing or manipulation—and then experimentally demonstrated to possess the defining properties of a “virus.” When he challenged the necessity of Koch’s Postulates for virology, I supplied numerous examples from leading institutions affirming their essential role.
Jeff dismissed these as “irrelevant,” yet he unwittingly reiterated the very same chain of evidence I request: a purified particle observed before experimentation, introduced into a clean system, and then demonstrated to produce effects. He even agreed that the independent variable is the “purified particle solution,” physically demonstrated via direct methods like electron microscopy and biochemical analysis. In other words, the so-called “unfalsifiable standard” he criticized was exactly what he himself said was necessary.
True to form, Jeff attacked strawmen, claiming that I require every “viral” study to start over with a fresh human sample each time. That is incorrect. My demand is for this evidence to exist at least once per “novel virus discovery.” Where is this logical chain of evidence?
Jeff, you’re simply recycling the same logical fallacies.
Begging the Question – You assume a “virus” is present in the original sample and then claim culture “proves” it. But the independent variable must be demonstrated before experimentation. If you only infer its existence after culturing, then the IV is a creation of the experiment, not the starting cause. That severs the causal chain.
False Cause / Affirming the Consequent – Saying “I cultured cells, saw an effect, therefore a virus must have been there” ignores alternative explanations (toxicity, contaminants, cell-stress artifacts). That’s not proof, it’s circular reasoning.
Purification Claim Collapses – You say “viruses” have been “purified directly from hosts,” but your own wording betrays you: “infecting the host, letting it propagate, then purifying.” That presupposes the very entity you claim to prove. Purification must occur before propagation, not after it.
Healthy Hosts – You assert that “viruses” exist in “the human virome,” yet you cannot cite a single study where a “virus” has been purified, isolated, imaged, and characterized directly from a healthy host prior to any culturing or manipulation, and then experimentally demonstrated to possess the defining properties of a “virus.” Simply pointing to particles in feces, blood, or swabs and labeling them “viruses” is not evidence—it is assumption. Science demands demonstration, not presupposition.
Koch’s Postulates – These are not outdated “impossible” standards; they are logical criteria for causation. The main institutions affirm this:
NIH: Koch’s Postulates are the “rules for experimental proof of pathogenicity.”
CDC: “Koch’s postulates form the basis of proof that an emerging agent is the etiological cause of a disease” and “the interpretation should consider the successful fulfillment of each of Koch’s postulates.”
WHO: “Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s postulate.’”
The College of Physicians of Philadelphia: “Scientists today follow these basic principles, which we now call Koch’s postulates, when trying to identify the cause of an infectious disease.”
The American Association of Immunologists (AAI): Koch’s Postulates are “still used by scientists today when looking for causes of new diseases,” and are a “scientifically sound way of determining whether a disease was caused by an organism (such as a bacterium, virus, or other)”
Microbiology with Diseases by Taxonomy: “Koch’s postulates are the cornerstone of infectious disease etiology. To prove that a given infectious agent causes a given disease, a scientist must satisfy all four postulates.”
Countless microbiology textbooks and researchers repeat the same. If virology cannot meet the same standards applied in bacteriology, that’s a failure of virology, not of logic.
Unfalsifiability – You accuse me of setting an “impossible” bar. In reality, I’m asking for falsifiable evidence: purified, isolated particles from host fluids, tested with proper controls. That is not impossible; bacteria achieve it routinely. What’s impossible is your position, which excuses virology’s failures by redefining the rules.
The bottom line is this: cell culture is not proof of causation or existence. It starts with an assumption rather than a purified independent variable, introduces artificial conditions, and lacks proper controls. That’s pseudoscience, not a chain of evidence.
Your reasoning compounds this with logical fallacies: begging the question (assuming the “virus” exists in the sample), affirming the consequent (treating cytopathic effects or particles post-culture as confirmation), burden shifting (dismissing the need for purification and direct evidence), and appeal to authority (leaning on institutions that themselves acknowledge Koch’s Postulates as the gold standard). In short, your argument is circular and propped up by rescue devices, not independent, controlled demonstration.
I don’t think “elephant hurling” advances your case, it only clouds the core issue with irrelevant material. The reality is simple: a cell culture does not generate viruses; the cell itself does. Cultures cannot magically conjure viruses—cells either possess that capacity or they do not. Your invocation of “artificial conditions” underscores my point: viruses manifest in states of disease. Even if toxins are introduced into a culture (as you claim) and viral activity accelerates, that merely demonstrates that viruses exploit unstable cells, infecting and destroying them more readily under stress. The use of substances like trypsin shows this.
You do not “assume” a virus. You observe a novel particle, physically isolate it, and then introduce that purified particle into a clean system. When that specific particle is introduced and the system then produces copies of it, you then have direct evidence of a replicating entity. This is not circular reasoning; it is a causal demonstration. The replication of the purified particle is part of the overall proof.
Your Circular Reasoning:
You believe the independent variable must be a fully characterized, purified virus that is already proven to be pathogenic before the experiment even begins. This is the core of your circular reasoning. You demand the answer as a prerequisite for asking the question. But in reality, the independent variable is the purified particle solution. It is physically demonstrated before the key experiment through direct methods like electron microscopy and biochemical analysis.
In reality, you see that the host sample provides direct visual evidence of a population of identical, non-cellular particles, confirmed via EM. When this material is introduced into a clean system, those same particles replicate, yielding a greater number than were present initially. That observable increase constitutes evidence.
Your response on “chain of evidence” seems to be that every time a researcher investigates viral function, they must always obtain a fresh human sample, purify and isolate it, and repeat the entire process from scratch each time. But this is neither practical nor standard procedure. Scientists don’t start over unless it’s necessary. The more efficient approach is to use previously collected samples stored in culture collections, precisely to conserve time and resources. Thomas himself acknowledged following this same practice in his own comments.
Koch’s Postulates: Koch’s Postulates are a framework for establishing causation, not for proving existence, but I will address it anyway.
Koch’s Postulates form the conceptual basis for establishing causation. However, you are misinterpreting what that means in practice. Every modern source you cite implicitly acknowledges that the literal, 19th-century methodology must be adapted for different types of pathogens. The flaw in your argument is that you insist on the literal, original technique (especially pure culture on inert media) while ignoring the underlying logical principle.
Let’s take the most explicit source you provided, the CDC Field Epidemiology Manual:
It states: “The interpretation should consider the successful fulfillment of each of Koch’s postulates.”
Notice it says “interpretation” and “consider.” This is the language of applying a principle, not slavishly following an impossible technique. For a virus, “pure culture” is interpreted as culture in a suitable host system (like organs, cells or eggs), because that is the only way an obligate intracellular parasite can be cultured. The principle of isolation is maintained, but the method is updated to reflect biological reality.
Quote: “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.”
^You cherry-picked a single phrase from a preliminary outbreak report to argue that science rigidly adheres to the literal, 19th-century technique of Koch’s Postulates.
Proving Existence: Demonstrating that a unique physical entity exists.
Proving Causation: Demonstrating that this specific entity causes a specific disease.
None of the sources you point to have anything to do with proving viral existence.
Koch’s Postulates are used in a modified form in virology, yet you falsely apply them equally to both bacteria and viruses.
Your entire argument is built on a historical fallacy. The scientific community has not used Koch’s original postulates as a rigid checklist for viruses since Thomas Rivers explicitly modified them in 1937 (Rivers, T. M. (1937). Viruses and Koch’s Postulates. Journal of Bacteriology, 33(1), 1–12).
Rivers established that the core logic of causation must be maintained, but that the methods must adapt to the nature of viruses as obligate intracellular parasites. This is why the SARS paper states it fulfilled ‘Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers.’ The cell culture you dismiss as invalid is, in fact, the modern, accepted fulfillment of the ‘pure culture’ requirement.
Of course, you have a way around this. You state: “All Rivers did was deliberately weaken Koch’s Postulates in order to make life easier for virologists to skirt around established rules of logic. Anyone claiming that they fulfilled Koch’s Postulates by using the criteria laid forth by Rivers are outright lying and being intentionally fraudulent…which in all honesty, sums up virology to a T.” - https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/18/thomas-rivers-revision-of-kochs-postulates-1937
^This is your unhinged conspiratorial diatribe with no supporting evidence. It is a masterclass in cherry-picking, where you highlight every instance where Rivers discusses scientific uncertainty or alternative hypotheses and refinements to the postulates, and present them as if they are secret confessions that the whole field is a fraud.
Viruses cannot be “grown in pure culture” on a lifeless Petri dish because they are obligate intracellular parasites. Your point is invalid.
Let’s me be clear: Your entire position is not a scientific argument, but a circular trap designed to be unescapable. You demand a fully proven virus as the prerequisite to proving a virus exists, thereby making any empirical evidence impossible by definition. This is not some intellectual search for truth on your part; rather, it is a commitment to permanent denial.
I congratulated Jeff on his breakthrough, as he had agreed with me that a “virus” must be purified and isolated directly from the sick host and characterized through EM and biochemical analysis prior to any experimentation. This nullifies the cell culture experiment, since such steps are never actually demonstrated. I then challenged Jeff to produce a single study that carried out this process, while also correcting his misconceptions about Koch’s Postulates.
However, after agreeing that a unique particle must be purified and isolated directly from host fluids prior to culturing to be used as the IV, Jeff immediately contradicted himself by claiming that no virology study does this because “it is a scientifically illiterate demand.” He again accused me of holding an unfalsifiable position—even though he had just agreed with it moments earlier. This blatant contradiction is the hallmark of bad-faith argumentation and intellectual dishonesty.
Jeff then attempted to justify why the WHO explicitly referenced Koch’s four postulates (while listing each one) rather than Rivers’ six, claiming that the organization was merely “speaking to the public.” He cited the SARS study that purported to fulfill Koch’s Postulates but actually invoked Rivers’ modified version instead. However, Rivers’ postulates are not Koch’s. They are not interchangeable, and the WHO was clearly not speaking in shorthand—especially since it explicitly laid out Koch’s original four steps. As the conversation continued, it became clear why Jeff felt compelled to rewrite what the WHO stated: to suit his own narrative:
You said:
“You observe a novel particle, physically isolate it, and then introduce that purified particle into a clean system. When that specific particle is introduced and the system then produces copies of it, you then have direct evidence of a replicating entity.”
Congratulations, Jeff! You’ve just described what should be done if the cell culture was a valid scientific experiment — but what is never actually done in virology.
Researchers do not:
Observe a novel particle in an unpurified host sample,
Physically isolate and purify that specific particle, and then
Introduce only that purified particle into a clean system to show replication.
You also conceded that the IV should be purified “virus” particles identified before experimentation:
“But in reality, the independent variable is the purified particle solution. It is physically demonstrated before the key experiment through direct methods like electron microscopy and biochemical analysis.”
The reality is: no virology study purifies and isolates a unique particle directly from host fluids prior to culturing and then uses only that purified material as the IV.
Without step 2, there is no valid independent variable. You cannot claim that “the virus” is what is being tested if it was never purified and established beforehand. The supposed replication observed after culture is automatically circular, because it presumes the very entity whose existence was never independently verified.
Instead, they take an unpurified host sample, introduce it into a stressed cell culture with toxic additives, and then retroactively claim that any particles observed afterward must have been “the virus.” That’s not purification, it’s assumption.
If your position is that “viruses” are proven because this idealized process exists, then provide one study that actually demonstrates it. Show me a paper where a novel particle is purified and isolated directly from a host prior to culture, and then experimentally shown to replicate into more of itself. If you can’t, then you’ve only described what virology pretends to do, not what it does in practice.
Regarding Koch’s Postulates, you are mistaken. They are logical principles aligned with the scientific method and are considered essential by major organizations, textbooks, and even virologists. If you had reviewed the articles I repeatedly provided, you would see this clearly. Instead, you make the error of claiming that Koch’s Postulates do not apply to “viruses” and that Rivers’ adaptation supersedes them—when in fact, the WHO explicitly referenced the original four postulates, not Rivers’ six-step modification.
On April 16th, 2003, the WHO outlined the four essential criteria required to prove a microorganism causes disease:
“The 13 laboratories have been working on meeting Koch’s postulates, necessary to prove disease causation. These postulates stipulate that to be the causal agent, a pathogen must meet four conditions: it must be found in all cases of the disease, it must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture, it must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host, and it must be found in the experimental host so infected.”
These references from leading organizations, textbooks, and virologists make clear the standard. Please review them carefully to avoid further misrepresentation.
Your missteps reveal a pattern of circular reasoning, unfalsifiable logic, and misinterpretation of scientific principles that undermines the credibility of your claims.
You state:
“The reality is: no virology study purifies and isolates a unique particle directly from host fluids prior to culturing and then uses only that purified material as the IV.”
No virology study does that because it is a scientifically illiterate demand. Your requirement is the equivalent of demanding: “Before you can prove a fish exists, you must catch a single fish from the ocean, demonstrate it can swim, but you are forbidden from ever putting it in water.” You demand a fully isolated, characterized, and functional viral particle before you are allowed to use the only tool that can demonstrate its function (a cell culture).
Further, I’ve already given you studies where artificial cell cultures were not used, and you ignored them.
Your position remains unfalsifiable because you reject the necessary methods to study viruses while demanding proof that requires those same methods. You’re moving goalposts to metaphysical standards. You are also misstating what the WHO said, while also ignoring all other evidence that disagrees with you.
You state:
“…you make the error of claiming that Koch’s Postulates do not apply to “viruses” and that Rivers’ adaptation supersedes them—when in fact, the WHO explicitly referenced the original four postulates, not Rivers’ six-step modification.”
False. The unmodified version of Koch’s Postulates cannot be applied to viruses. Unlike bacteria, which can multiply independently in pure culture, viruses require living cells for replication and therefore cannot be grown in isolation. This is precisely why Thomas Rivers (1937) proposed a modification of Koch’s framework, adapting it to accommodate viruses by replacing the “pure culture” requirement of bacteria with criteria suitable for obligate intracellular agents.
Viruses cannot meet the original “pure culture” requirement:
Koch’s 3rd postulate requires an organism to be grown in pure culture. That works for bacteria, but not for viruses, which require host cells.
Fredricks & Relman (1996):
“Organisms such as Plasmodium falciparum and herpes simplex virus or other viruses cannot be grown alone, i.e., in cell-free culture, and hence cannot fulfill Koch’s postulates, yet they are unequivocally pathogenic.” - Fredricks DN, Relman DA. “Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a reconsideration of Koch’s postulates.” Clin Microbiol Rev. 1996, p. 20
Déjà Vu All Over Again: Koch’s Postulates and Virology in the 21st Century (2010):
“Koch espoused his core principles regarding the proof of an etiologic role for a potential pathogen in 1884. These postulates were revised by the eminent virologist Thomas Rivers in 1937 to reflect the biology of viruses, which, as obligate intracellular parasites, cannot be isolated in pure culture [37]. Huebner [38] further modified these principles in 1957, during the heyday of virus discovery that followed the development of tissue and cell culture. Fredricks and Relman [39] eloquently applied these guidelines to sequence-based microbe discovery.”
John V. Williams The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 201, Issue 11, 1 June 2010, p. 1611–1614, https://doi.org/10.1086/652406
Addressing the 2003 WHO article:
1. The WHO used simplified language for public communication, not a literal bacteriological framework
The WHO press release (April 16, 2003) does indeed list the four “classic” postulates in plain terms. But this was a communication for the general public and press, not a virology textbook. WHO was signaling that causation had been demonstrated “in principle,” not that the unmodified 1880s rules had literally been satisfied for a virus.
2. In the scientific literature, the very same SARS work cites Rivers’ modification
Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus (Nature Medicine, 2003):
“According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7095368/
This is the peer-reviewed article that documents the SARS causation work the WHO was talking about—and it explicitly references Rivers’ modified criteria, not the 1880s originals.
Lastly, your own articles don’t qualify as sources. If you have to rely on funneling people to your website rather than citing independent evidence here, it shows you don’t have much to stand on to back up your claims.
Obviously, I needed to show Jeff his blatant contradiction, as it collapsed his entire argument. He also seemed to struggle with recognizing his own logically fallacious reasoning, so I walked him through his errors once again. I clarified that Koch’s and Rivers’ postulates are not the same, and explained how he held an unfalsifiable position by agreeing that purification, isolation, and characterization are necessary prior to experimentation—then admitting that purification and isolation “cannot be done” and that Koch’s Postulates “cannot apply.”
In response, Jeff again took it upon himself to claim what the WHO meant to say rather than what it actually said. He also attempted to walk back his contradictions, saying he was referring to my use of the term “unique particle,” and that one cannot isolate a “unique particle” if one cannot prove it exists. He somehow missed that identifying a unique particle is the proof of its existence—and that isolation logically comes afterward.
Jeff continued to misunderstand circular reasoning, asserting, “that’s the reality of viruses, proven through abundant evidence,” while failing to provide a single piece of evidence that would show his reasoning was not circular. He again attacked a strawman, claiming that I “forbid” the use of electron microscopy, when in reality I explicitly require it—before culturing—to confirm that purified and isolated particles were obtained directly from the host.
Jeff had already agreed that this step must be done, yet continued to fight it:
You’ve actually conceded the main point without realizing it. You admit that the independent variable in virology should be a purified and isolated particle, verified before the experiment. Yet you then argue that such purification is “impossible” and “scientifically illiterate.” That contradiction alone collapses your position.
However, just for fun, let’s go point by point:
1. The fish analogy is false.
A fish can be observed, caught, and demonstrated to swim directly and independently of any “culture system.” Your analogy assumes the very thing in question: that “viruses” exist and require host cells to be seen in action. That’s circular reasoning (begging the question).
What I am asking for is not metaphysical. It is the exact same logic applied in bacteriology: purify the entity, characterize it, then test causation. Demanding purification before claiming causation is standard science, not “scientific illiteracy.”
2. The “virology has other methods” claim.
You claim I reject “the necessary methods to study viruses.” What I actually reject are methods that presuppose the very thing they claim to prove. When you put an unpurified soup of host material, antibiotics, fetal bovine serum, and other additives into cell culture, you are not testing one independent variable. You’re testing a complex mixture.
The scientific method requires isolation of the independent variable. That is not optional. Calling this requirement “moving the goalposts” is just a way of excusing sloppy methodology.
3. The Koch’s Postulates retreat.
You say Koch’s Postulates don’t apply to “viruses,” but the WHO in 2003 explicitly invoked Koch’s Postulates—the original four, not Rivers’ later modification—when claiming “SARS” causation had been proven. Your excuse that this was “shorthand” or “for public consumption” is just hand-waving. If the framework is outdated and inapplicable, then invoking it for public legitimacy was misleading.
Moreover, if “viruses” cannot fulfill Koch’s Postulates, then by definition their causation of disease cannot be established under the very standard that exists for disease causation. Rivers’ modification did not fix this; it simply lowered the bar and made the hypothesis unfalsifiable.
4. Appeal to authority without addressing the logic.
Citing Fredricks & Relman (1996) saying “viruses cannot fulfill Koch’s Postulates, yet they are unequivocally pathogenic” is pure assertion. That line assumes what needs to be proven. Declaring something “unequivocal” while admitting the methodology cannot establish causation is not science, it’s dogma.
Similarly, pointing to later reviews (Huebner, Williams, etc.) doesn’t resolve the fundamental logical flaw: they all rely on presupposing that “viruses exist” and then justifying methodological shortcuts on that basis.
5. The unfalsifiability problem.
You accuse me of being “unfalsifiable,” but it is actually your position that is unfalsifiable. By admitting that purification/isolation cannot be done and that Koch’s Postulates cannot apply, you’ve insulated virology from ever being disproven. That is the definition of pseudoscience.
If a field cannot propose a test that could show its hypothesis false, then it is not operating under the scientific method.
Bottom line:
You concede that purification and isolation are necessary but then claim they are impossible.
You excuse the use of Koch’s Postulates by saying they don’t apply, even though your own authorities admit they were publicly invoked.
You rely on circular reasoning (“viruses are unequivocally pathogenic, even though the rules for proving pathogenicity can’t apply to them”).
And you accuse me of “moving goalposts” when I am simply holding virology to the same logical and experimental standards that apply everywhere else in science.
That’s not my problem. That’s virology’s problem, and it’s yours, too.
This is an incredibly weak reply from you.
The WHO used the principles of Koch’s Postulates in the 2003 article. When they said “grown in pure culture” for SARS, they meant in cell culture—the standard virological method. You insist on a literal, bacteriological interpretation that the scientific community has rationally updated. I already proved the context of what they meant by “pure culture” in my last comment. This is you moving the goalposts, not virology.
Further, when I said Koch’s Postulates are not used for viruses, I was correct—they use a modified form. This is echoed and supported by the sources I provided.
Yet you then argue that such purification is “impossible” and “scientifically illiterate.”
Your original comment: “The reality is: no virology study purifies and isolates a unique particle directly from host fluids prior to culturing and then uses only that purified material as the IV.”
No, actually, I did not say purification was impossible. I was stating that your demand to prove a particle’s function while forbidding the only process that can demonstrate that function is scientifically illiterate. I was also referring to your claim of “unique particle.”—you can’t isolate a “unique particle” if you can’t prove it exists. Your requirements are circular reasoning.
“Your excuse that this was “shorthand” or “for public consumption” is just hand-waving.”
I already proved it. I gave you the 2003 SARS study that explicitly used the word “modified.” That study addressed causation and applied the modified Koch’s Postulates (Rivers’ postulates). Refute it with actual evidence.
Citing Fredricks & Relman (1996) saying “viruses cannot fulfill Koch’s Postulates, yet they are unequivocally pathogenic” is pure assertion.
By that logic, your citing of the WHO is also “pure assertion” and an “appeal to authority.” I provided legitimate sources that all echo the same point to give context to the term “pure culture,” and you are now denying reality. Refute it with actual evidence.
A fish can be observed, caught, and demonstrated to swim directly and independently of any “culture system.” Your analogy assumes the very thing in question: that “viruses” exist and require host cells to be seen in action.
That’s circular reasoning (begging the question).
That’s not circular reasoning—that’s the reality of viruses, proven through abundant evidence. Your rebuttal to the fish analogy, however, is a perfect example of your circular reasoning. You state that a fish can be observed directly, but then you forbid the use of the very tools (microscopy, cell culture) required to observe and isolate a virus. You demand researchers discover the virus in a pure state, but outlaw the methods necessary to achieve that purity. That is the very definition of a circular trap.
Finally, here is the perfect example of your circular reasoning:
You state:
“Similarly, pointing to later reviews (Huebner, Williams, etc.) doesn’t resolve the fundamental logical flaw: they all rely on presupposing that “viruses exist” and then justifying methodological shortcuts on that basis.”
This is the final, perfect illustration of your unfalsifiable position. You dismiss all evidence—past, present, and future—by simply declaring that any method used to obtain it “presupposes the conclusion.”
Jeff had already lost the debate the moment he agreed to the same standards—yet he was too intellectually dishonest to admit it. In defending the WHO, he repeatedly tried to redefine terms like “pure culture.” That’s an equivocation fallacy: “pure culture” has a precise microbiological meaning, and Jeff was rewriting it after the fact. Koch’s and Rivers’ postulates are distinct and not interchangeable. It doesn’t matter what a paper published a month after the WHO announcement said—the WHO explicitly cited Koch’s four postulates in its statement.
Because Jeff kept using the WHO as a deflection, I demanded he produce the evidence he had just agreed was necessary. True to form, he hand-waved away the challenge, calling my appeal to Koch “dishonest” and recycling his talking points—that WHO actually meant Rivers, that “pure culture” equals cell culture, etc. Again, Jeff relied on equivocation and ad-hoc rationalizations to dodge his concessions and his inability to produce the evidence he claimed existed:
You’ve done a lot of hand-waving here, but you’ve actually conceded my main point, lost the debate, and you either somehow do not realize it, or you are too intellectually dishonest to admit it. You said the independent variable must be a “purified particle solution” demonstrated via EM and biochemistry prior to the cell culture experiment. This evidence is exactly what I request from anyone supporting the existence of “viruses.” Yet no study in virology begins with that purified IV. They begin with messy host samples and artificial cultures. That is the logical flaw.
Redefining “pure culture” as “cell culture” after the fact is an equivocation fallacy. “Pure culture” has a precise meaning in microbiology: a single species of organism, uncontaminated by anything else. Cell culture with antibiotics, fetal bovine serum, trypsin, and mixed genetic material is not a pure culture.
Claiming I “outlaw methods” is a strawman. I am not outlawing tools. I’m asking for proper controls and independent variables. Disregarding its inherent pseudoscientific nature, the cell culture introduces confounding variables, so it cannot prove causation or existence. It does not start with a valid independent variable in a purified and isolated particle solution confirmed via EM and biochemical analysis, as you conceded that it should. You are misrepresenting my position as “forbidding methods” when I am insisting on methodological rigor and adherence to the scientific method.
Asserting that “viruses” must be obligate intracellular parasites is begging the question. This is the very claim under dispute. By assuming their existence to justify why they can’t be purified directly, you are engaging in circular reasoning.
And dismissing the WHO’s plain-language admission as “shorthand” is ad hoc rationalization. The WHO used Koch’s original framework in their communications precisely because it is the recognized gold standard. If it were truly outdated or irrelevant, they wouldn’t invoke it at all. The researchers, in their paper published later, stated that Koch’s Postulates, as modified by Rivers, had been satisfied. This contradicts the WHO, as these are two different criteria. If the WHO meant Rivers Postulates, it would have said Rivers Postulates and outlined all six. Instead, they explicitly cited Koch’s Postulates and outlined his four.
Regarding falsifiability, the fact that you cannot produce such a study—and have to rely on redefinitions, analogies, and appeals to authority—shows that the unfalsifiability is on your side, not mine.
This entire exchange has revealed your intellectual dishonesty. You conceded the necessity of a purified, biochemically verified particle solution yet failed to provide it, instead resorting to shifting definitions, misrepresenting my position, and rationalizing contradictions. By your own standards, you lost this debate, and your refusal to admit it only further exposes the bad faith behind your arguments.
So let’s end the charade. Either produce a study where a unique particle is purified directly from host fluids, independently verified via EM and biochemical analysis, and then experimentally shown to replicate—or admit you can’t. Everything else is circular reasoning and wordplay. Put up or shut up, Jeff.
All your other ‘points’ are irrelevant if you can’t even be honest about Koch’s Postulates. The intellectual dishonesty rests squarely on you, and you alone.
You state:
“And dismissing the WHO’s plain-language admission as “shorthand” is ad hoc rationalization.”
It’s easy to prove what the WHO meant by ‘Koch’s Postulates’ because the WHO led the studies that applied the modified postulates.
The aetiology of SARS: Koch’s postulates fulfilled. (Osterhaus et al., The Lancet, 2003; Nature, 2003; NCBI/PMC, 2004).
Direct citation: “This completed the fulfilment of Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, for SARS-CoV as the aetiological agent of SARS.”
Proof:
This study shows that Osterhaus and colleagues (including Klaus Stöhr and the other WHO-network scientists) were working as part of the WHO-coordinated laboratory network that identified the causative agent of SARS. The original 2003 WHO press release and related Nature news explicitly credit Osterhaus’s team and laboratory as WHO collaborators.
Both Dr. Klaus Stöhr (WHO virologist, coordinator of the collaborative network) and Dr. David Heymann (Executive Director, WHO Communicable Diseases programmes) are quoted in the 2003 WHO article, confirming these efforts and the central role of the WHO in the process.
The 2003 WHO article states: “Credit for the coronavirus findings, which definitively pinpoints the cause of SARS, is attributed to the 13 laboratories, working in conjunction with WHO.
“The people in this network have put aside profit and prestige to work together to find the cause of this new disease and to find way new ways of fighting it,” said Dr Klaus Stöhr, WHO virologist and the coordinator of the collaborative research network. “In this globalized world, such collaboration is the only way forward in tackling emerging diseases.”
Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus. (Nature, 2003;423:240. PMCID: PMC7095368) is a study directly linked to the World Health Organization (WHO) and its global SARS Aetiology Study Group.
Direct citation: “According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease.”
The study’s footnotes state: “Klaus Stöhr: On behalf of members of the SARS Aetiology Study Group, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, CH-1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.”
Multiple co-authors are members of the WHO SARS Laboratory Network, and the work was carried out in coordination with WHO’s international effort to investigate the cause of SARS.
These peer-reviewed papers show what the WHO was referring to, and that Rivers’ modified postulates were applied. The press release by the WHO is a shorthand description, not a technical claim. You are wrong, per usual. And it’s amusing because you provide zero evidence to support your claim, other than pure assumption. I can point to multiple evidentiary facts that prove what I am stating—you cannot.
The phrase “grown in pure culture” in the WHO SARS press release does not mean a classical host-free bacterial culture. It refers to virus growth in controlled host-cell systems, such as cultured cells, embryonated eggs, or organ cultures, free of other contaminating substances.
Provide evidence for your claim that the WHO meant what you claim they meant, since the actual studies referenced in the article explains the technical term properly in multiple linked studies in coordination with the WHO.
Put up, or shut up.
As Jeff seemed to have difficulty with names and counting, I once again explained the differences between Koch’s four and Rivers’ six postulates. Even Dr. Klaus Stöhr—the very WHO scientist Jeff appealed to, and somehow overlooked—stated, “The Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled.” He did not say Rivers’ postulates, nor Koch’s postulates as modified by Rivers. Stöhr specifically invoked Koch’s. It doesn’t matter what he meant; what matters is that the WHO’s public message was that Koch’s four postulates had been fulfilled. That was the claim.
At this point, I recognized Jeff’s appeals to the WHO and Koch’s postulates as an attempt to deflect from his own contradiction and burden of proof. So I locked him down again: if he continued to engage in bad-faith distractions instead of producing the evidence he agreed upon, he would be blocked for wasting my time.
Naturally, Jeff kept deflecting. He insisted that it was “absurd” to think the WHO would invoke a more rigid standard (Koch’s) for the public while relying on a weaker one (Rivers’) behind the scenes. It’s not absurd—that’s exactly what they did. The WHO invoked Koch’s postulates as necessary and listed them explicitly. Jeff decided to reinterpret what the WHO meant to say, rather than what they actually said. But the distinction is clear: the WHO cited Koch’s framework, not Rivers’. Claiming that this was “shorthand” for the public makes no sense, since the general public doesn’t know Koch from Rivers:
Thanks. You just made my point for me.
The “SARS” papers you cite explicitly used Rivers’ modified criteria, not Koch’s original four postulates. That’s exactly what I’ve been arguing: virology moved the goalposts. The WHO press release, however, didn’t say “Rivers.” It invoked Koch and listed his four postulates. These are not interchangeable. Koch’s and Rivers’ frameworks have different requirements. If the WHO had meant Rivers, they would have said Rivers and listed his six steps. Instead, they invoked Koch’s gold standard for public consumption while the technical work quietly leaned on a weaker substitute. This does not negate that the WHO explicitly stated that Koch’s, and not Rivers, Postulates must be satisfied, or the fact that they listed Koch’s Postulates over Rivers. You are reaching.
The WHO’s own lead virologist makes it clear that you are wrong. Dr. Klaus Stöhr, who coordinated the “SARS” investigation for the WHO, stated plainly: “The Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled, so we can now say for certain that the new coronavirus is the cause of SARS.” He did not invoke Rivers’ criteria; he invoked Koch. If Rivers were the intended standard, Stöhr would have said so. Your claim that “WHO meant Rivers” is flatly contradicted by the WHO’s own lead scientist. Either the WHO misrepresented the facts to the public, or virology failed to meet the standard it publicly promised—neither supports your position. https://www.theintelligencer.com/news/article/Scientists-Confirm-Virus-As-Cause-of-SARS-10517870.php
You previously admitted that a purified particle preparation, imaged and biochemically characterized prior to culturing, would be the proper independent variable. That acknowledgment was correct—and it exposes the flaw in your defense. Because when pressed for evidence, you backpedaled, claiming purification is “impossible,” and then tried to shift the focus onto what the WHO “must have meant.” But the WHO’s own words are unambiguous: they named Koch and his four postulates. You are overriding their plain statement with your personal reinterpretation—not to clarify it, but to escape your own contradiction.
And the contradiction is glaring: you affirm Koch’s standard in principle, you concede purified particles are the proper IV, but then you both deny the feasibility of that standard and fall back on Rivers’ weaker criteria in practice. That is not consistency; it’s equivocation. The appeal to WHO authority only makes it worse, because their statement doesn’t even say what you’re claiming it does.
My request remains simple: cite one transparent, published study that meets the very standard you yourself acknowledged—purified, imaged particles from host fluids prior to culture, used as the independent variable, then re-isolated in the same form from a newly sickened host. The appeal to the WHO is nothing but a deflection and a distraction from your contradiction and the absence of evidence.
Until you provide the necessary evidence, your position rests on intellectual dishonesty: conceding the correct standard, declaring it “impossible,” contradicting yourself by pointing to weaker substitutes, and then misrepresenting the WHO’s plain words to cover the gap.
Final chance: produce a study where a unique particle is purified directly from host fluids, independently verified via EM and biochemical analysis, and then experimentally shown to replicate—or admit you can’t. If you try to dodge and deflect again, you will be blocked for continuing to engage in intellectual dishonesty and distractions to waste my time.
You certainly made a masterful summary of your entire worldview. Unfortunately for you, it crumbles under scrutiny, which is why you are threatening to block me for legitimately proving you wrong.
Your entire argument now rests on the absurd premise that a public press release overrides the actual related scientific paper in describing the technical methods.
The actual scientific paper published in Nature—the definitive source for the methodology—explicitly states: “According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases...”
You state:
Dr. Klaus Stöhr, who coordinated the “SARS” investigation for the WHO, stated plainly: “The Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled, so we can now say for certain that the new coronavirus is the cause of SARS.”
Cite the source of this quote. This quote does not appear in the official WHO press release.
You state:
The “SARS” papers you cite explicitly used Rivers’ modified criteria, not Koch’s original four postulates. That’s exactly what I’ve been arguing: virology moved the goalposts.
The WHO press release, however, didn’t say “Rivers.” It invoked Koch and listed his four postulates.
You can’t claim the SARS study “moved the goalposts” by using Rivers’ criteria, while simultaneously arguing its press release proves they used Koch’s original postulates. The press release summarized the science, which was explicitly based on Rivers’ framework. Your argument is a direct contradiction.
You are trying to hold the science to the standard of the press release. The definitive methodology is always in the scientific paper, not the press summary. The papers used the correct, modified postulates for viruses, and it successfully fulfilled them. There was no moving of the goalposts.
You state:
If the WHO had meant Rivers, they would have said Rivers and listed his six steps.
It’s a press release and short summary of the study, not the study. Why did the WHO-led studies all state, “According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases.”?
Follow the flaw in your own ‘logic’:
The WHO press release quotes scientists like Dr. Stöhr and Dr. Osterhaus.
Those same scientists are the co-authors of the Nature study.
In their own scientific paper, they explicitly state their methodology: “Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers.” And they did this over the course of not one, but two studies.
Your argument requires us to believe that these virologists suffered from a bizarre split personality: that they publicly promised to use one standard (the original postulates) while in their actual lab work they meticulously followed and documented a different one (Rivers’).
The only logical conclusion is that the press release used the basic “Koch’s Postulates” as shorthand for the established process of proving viral causation, a process the scientific community understands is built upon Rivers’ modifications. There is no contradiction unless you deliberately ignore who was speaking and in what context.
You are now arguing that a public-facing document, meant for general consumption, didn’t use the precise technical jargon you demand. This is what a lost argument looks like.
Threatening to block someone who is genuinely challenging you reveals discomfort with the truth and signals desperation.
Clearly, Jeff did not heed my warning. Still feeling generous, I gave him one last chance after walking him through the WHO/Koch timeline and showing multiple instances of virologists invoking Koch’s—not Rivers’—Postulates. If he failed to produce the evidence this time, I would not continue another endless loop with him.
Predictably, Jeff continued spinning in circles. Rather than producing the evidence he claimed existed, he argued that virologists always mean Rivers when they say Koch. Jeff even acknowledged that Rivers’ criteria differ from Koch’s and that they do not require a pure culture. Ironically, he pointed to the quote I had provided from virologist Hongzhou Lu, which explicitly contrasted “classical Koch’s” with “modified” postulates—thereby distinguishing them as not the same. One cannot say Koch and mean Rivers, Huebner, Bradford-Hill, Fredricks and Relman, or anyone else. Each modification weakened Koch’s logical framework and drifted further from the scientific method.
As Jeff kept strawmanning my argument (I never demanded every virology paper include a history lesson on 150 years of evidence), and continued to deflect with speculation about WHO press officers and his own reinterpretations of what was “meant,” I was done. I outlined his fallacious reasoning one final time, reminded him that he had failed to produce a single instance of the evidence he insisted existed, and blocked him for bad faith, intellectual dishonesty, and wasting my time.
You are wrong again. Let’s lay out the timeline:
March 27, 2003 – WHO stated plainly that proving causation required fulfilling Koch’s Postulates, and that additional experiments to do so were underway in the Netherlands.
April 15, 2003 – WHO’s lead virologist, Dr. Klaus Stöhr, publicly declared: “The Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled, so we can now say for certain that the new coronavirus is the cause of SARS.”
April 16, 2003 – WHO reinforced this in their own press release, explicitly listing Koch’s four conditions—not Rivers’.
May 15, 2003 – The published SARS papers in Nature invoked Rivers’ modifications, not Koch’s. This is the very “moving of the goalposts” I have highlighted.
September 2012 – Ron Fouchier, one of the very same virologists involved, said in an interview about the new coronavirus: “To show that it causes disease you need to fulfill Koch’s Postulates. That’s what we did for SARS.” Again: Koch’s, not Rivers’.
Public statements (WHO, Stöhr, Fouchier): “Koch’s Postulates were/are fulfilled.”
Technical papers: “Rivers’ modified criteria.”
That is not a contradiction in my reasoning—it is a contradiction in yours. If the WHO and their lead scientists really meant Rivers, they would have said Rivers—especially in 2003 when the press release literally listed Koch’s four steps, and Stöhr himself invoked Koch by name. Instead, they invoked Koch’s gold standard while leaning on a weaker substitute in the publications. They are not interchangeable.
The options are simple:
A. The WHO knowingly misled the world by claiming Koch’s Postulates were fulfilled when they weren’t.
B. Or, the scientific community failed to meet the very standard the WHO itself declared essential.
Either way, your claim that “the WHO meant Rivers” is flatly contradicted by their own words in 2003 and again in 2012.
And this isn’t limited to “SARS.” Virologists to date still invoke Koch’s Postulates over Rivers:
2012 – Zaki et al. (NEJM, MERS): “It will be equally important to test whether HCoV-EMC fulfills Koch’s postulates as the causative agent of severe respiratory disease.”
2020 – Zhou et al. (Nature, SARS-CoV-2): “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…”
2020 – Zhu et al. (NEJM, SARS-CoV-2): “Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak…”
2020 – Hongzhou Lu (J Med Virol): “The data collected so far is not enough to confirm the causal relationship… based on classical Koch’s postulates or modified ones as suggested by Fredricks and Relman.”
2021 – Müller et al. (Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol): “The available data currently fulfil two of the four Koch postulates… There is not yet absolute proof of a causal [relationship].”
Even prominent retrovirologist Peter Duesberg affirmed:
“Koch’s postulates are pure logic. Logic will never be “out of date” in science.”
You are not engaging honestly. When confronted with the WHO’s own explicit words, you brush them aside as “shorthand.” When confronted with virologists themselves repeatedly invoking Koch’s Postulates, you hand-wave it away. And when asked to provide the actual necessary evidence—a purified particle preparation directly imaged and biochemically characterized before culture, then shown to replicate in a controlled host experiment—you avoid the request altogether.
Instead of providing the evidence, you misrepresent WHO’s statements, redefine standards after the fact, and attack the questioner. Until you can produce the evidence requested, your position remains evasive, contradictory, and unsupported.
I’ll give you one more chance. Produce the evidence.
You are treating “Koch’s Postulates” like some unchanging scripture, as if scientists are bound to 19th-century lab rituals forever. In reality, it’s an evolving framework for proving causation—something every virologist understands. The studies literally spell it out: “Koch’s Postulates, as modified by Rivers.” That should have been your first clue. The phrase is literally right there: “Koch’s Postulates.”
You have to pretend they mean the original postulates so you can insist on “pure culture” for viruses—something biologically impossible since viruses need host cells. This pedantic setup lets you cry “Gotcha!” and claim deception. But “pure culture” was never required for viruses; Rivers replaced it with cultivation in host cells.
Your entire argument is a semantic trap.
Further, your study quotes disprove your own argument. Scientists consistently use "Koch's Postulates" as shorthand for the logical principle of causation, not a rigid technique. This is proven by Hongzhou Lu explicitly contrasting "classical" with "modified" postulates, and Duesberg affirming it's about the timeless "logic." They are referring to the conceptual framework, which has always evolved while preserving its core logical purpose.
You're demanding that every scientific paper include a footnote explaining 150 years of methodological evolution, when the entire field already understands the context.
Source Support:
The Nature paper (PMC7095368), authored and credited by the WHO, explicitly states that the criteria met were “Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases,” and details the specific steps and animal experiments carried out.
The related WHO press release (2003) giving credit to laboratories “working in conjunction with WHO” list Koch’s postulates in summary form for accessibility, not to declare unmodified bacteriological standards.
The person who wrote the WHO press release was almost certainly a science communicator or press officer, not one of the lead research scientists.
Rivers’ postulates are the accepted standard for proving viral disease causation—not Koch’s classical postulates. Period.
You’ve already conceded that Rivers’ postulates are separate from Koch’s by calling them “the accepted standard” for “viral” causation. While Rivers’ postulates are not the accepted standard for virology—as I’ve demonstrated to you repeatedly—you are correct in one respect: they are not Koch’s. That admission alone proves my point. Once modified, they are no longer Koch’s postulates. You don’t get to replace his requirements with Rivers’ looser ones and still claim “Koch’s Postulates” were fulfilled.
This exposes the fallacies in your defense:
Equivocation: You argue that “Koch’s Postulates” can mean either Koch’s or Rivers’ depending on context. That’s wordplay, not science.
Begging the Question: You assume “viruses” exist and therefore deserve special rules. But that assumption is the very claim that needs to be demonstrated by fulfilling proper causation criteria.
Special Pleading: You excuse virology’s inability to meet Koch’s criteria by saying “viruses” are a special case. You acknowledge the IV must be purified, but then let virology off the hook by saying “pure culture was never required for viruses.” If they can’t meet the criteria, then Koch’s Postulates aren’t satisfied—period.
Appeal to Authority: Saying “every virologist understands” the reinterpretation doesn’t make it legitimate to still call them Koch’s. It’s also demonstrably false, as I’ve already shown.
Red Herring: Blaming press officers doesn’t change that the WHO itself explicitly invoked Koch’s four steps. If Rivers was intended, they should have said Rivers and listed his six steps.
And remember—you also agreed that the independent variable must be purified particles. That’s Koch’s “pure culture” requirement restated. Yet virology never does this, which means even Rivers’ softened framework fails at the most basic level.
So let’s be clear: if virologists want Rivers, they should say Rivers. If they want Koch, they should meet Koch. What they cannot do is invoke Koch’s name while practicing Rivers’ method. That’s intellectual dishonesty—and you’ve essentially admitted as much by drawing the very line I’ve been pointing out.
Finally, you’ve failed to produce the evidence you yourself claimed exists. Your words:
“You observe a novel particle, physically isolate it, and then introduce that purified particle into a clean system. When that specific particle is introduced and the system then produces copies of it, you then have direct evidence of a replicating entity.”
“But in reality, the independent variable is the purified particle solution. It is physically demonstrated before the key experiment through direct methods like electron microscopy and biochemical analysis.”
I repeatedly asked you to provide a single instance where this has actually been done in practice. You repeatedly dodged. You are acting in bad faith.
For that reason, and because you’ve wasted my time with intellectual dishonesty and evasions, you are now blocked.
As can be seen, Jeff Green is engaging in intellectual dishonesty and bad faith. He clearly understands that the assumed “viral” particles must be purified and isolated directly from the original fluids—with confirmation via electron microscopy and biochemical analysis—before any experimentation can take place in order to serve as a valid independent variable. He agreed that this is necessary and claimed that it is done in virology, yet failed to produce any evidence when challenged to do so.
Instead, he shifted focus to the WHO and Koch’s Postulates, attempting to reinterpret their public statements to deflect from his own contradiction. This is a textbook example of circular reasoning and evasion: rather than demonstrating the existence of the “virus” through empirical validation, he assumed its existence from the outset and then tried to justify that assumption after the fact.
Jeff chose to remain in a self-reinforcing loop to avoid substantiating his positive claim, knowing he could not. This highlights precisely why I no longer engage with people who refuse to debate honestly or scientifically—it’s a complete waste of time and effort. If Jeff wishes to remain locked in his “virus” solvent fantasy, that’s his choice, but it’s not a discussion worth continuing.
Did Ed finally produce the “best proof” supporting his positive claim? I imagine he must have mountains of “hard evidence” ready to tear my challenge apart. 🤔
With Thomas and Jeff out of the way, it is time for the main event: the return of Ed Rybicki. Interestingly, Ed had commented on my main site while I was embroiled with Thomas and Jeff on Substack, so I missed it at first. Once I saw his reply, I admit I was curious—would this seasoned virologist, who revised Cann’s Principles of Molecular Virology, finally produce the essential evidence my challenge demanded?
Remember: Jeff had implied that all virologists mean Rivers’ six postulates when they mention Koch, but Ed disagreed. He even acknowledged that Koch’s four postulates are “still generally regarded as the best proof” that an “infectious” agent—cellular or “viral”—is responsible for a specific disease:
“Koch defined four famous criteria which are now known as Koch’s postulates, which are still generallyregarded as the best proof that an infectious agent—cellular or viral—is responsible for a specific disease.”
So: would Ed present evidence derived from the scientific method that satisfies Koch’s Postulates proving “pathogenic viruses?” Would he dismantle my challenge with piles of scientific papers demonstrating a succinct logical chain of evidence? I hoped for either the evidence or, at minimum, a lively, substantive discussion. Instead, prepare to be disappointed.
Ed’s entire response was a dismissal—no evidence, no counterargument, no engagement with the points I raised. He called it “word salad,” asserted that “simple proofs” exist, claimed they can synthesize “infectious viruses” from nucleotides, and labeled me “willfully ignorant.” That was the sum total of his contribution:
Word salad!! And all avoiding the simple proofs of the existence of viruses, and of their causation of diseases. Of animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea. We can make infectious viruses from inanimate nucleotides by chemical synthesis. This should be enough for you, or for anyone. If it is not, you are wilfully ignorant.
After over a month of waiting, the best response Ed could offer was filled with fallacious reasoning, hand-waving away his responsibility to defend his positive claims with logic and scientific evidence. I responded by pointing out the logically fallacious—and frankly, rather embarrassing—nature of his reply:
Ed, your response is nothing more than a series of logical fallacies.
Assertion without evidence: Declaring “simple proofs” exist is not the same as presenting them.
Begging the question: Claiming “infectious viruses can be made from nucleotides” assumes what must first be proven—the independent existence of the "virus" in nature.
Ad hominem: Dismissing me as “willfully ignorant” avoids the evidence request altogether.
You have refused to provide the absolutely necessary scientific evidence I asked for: a purified, isolated "viral" particle demonstrated directly by EM/biochemistry prior to culturing, and then shown to cause disease in a host under controlled conditions in accordance with the scientific method and the satisfaction of Koch's Postulates.
Instead of engaging, you resort to hand-waving and insults. The fact that you cannot present the evidence and must fall back on fallacies to avoid doing so speaks volumes.
Ed did surprise me with one final response over a week later. Sadly, it was essentially the same logically fallacious dismissal, lacking any thoughtful engagement on his part:
Man, you do double down…crankery followed by tortuous and fallacious logic, until what you have is an impenetrable bush of words, that long ago became tl;dr.
While viruses carry on their merry way.
It seems you have not grasped the fact that viruses have a dual nature: the particles, that you can purify (at least, for the simple nucleoprotein kind) to 99.99% homogeneity, and leave on the shelf for 40 years (as I have) – and the virus, which manifests when you introduce the particles to compatible cells. Viruses are the ultimate obligate intracellular parasites: parasitic genomes, effectively, which use particles to preserve their genomes and to get them into new cells.
I will leave it at that. Don’t comment on my site; I’ll just delete it.
I responded by pointing out his fallacious tactics once again and thanking Ed for serving as a perfect example of the illogical mindset of a virologist when challenged:
Hi Ed,
It appears that you are not interested in having a civil or substantive conversation about the evidence supporting virology. I’ll address your message here, and that will be the end of it.
You begin with an ad hominem attack, followed by an accusation of “fallacious logic.” Yet, you have not demonstrated any logical fallacies in my argument, whereas I have identified several in yours.
Your attempt to dismiss my argument as “an impenetrable bush of words” and “tl;dr” reflects an unwillingness to engage critically and honestly. If you refuse to read the argument, you cannot form a valid opinion or a logical counterargument against it.
Your claim that I have not “grasped the fact that viruses have a dual nature” simply assumes the very thing in dispute—the existence of “viruses.” I’m challenging the foundational evidence on which such claims rest. To assert what a “virus” can or cannot do, one must first demonstrate that such an entity exists through purification and isolation directly from host fluids—without cell culture—and confirm it via electron microscopy and biochemical analysis. This has never been done for any alleged “virus.” Claiming 99.99% purification of homogeneous particles without demonstrating that this purification process has actually isolated a “viral” entity is precisely the issue under debate.
Your insistence that “viruses are the ultimate obligate intracellular parasites” is a restatement of the same unproven assumption. It describes the supposed behavior of an entity whose independent existence has not been established.
I did not seek you out; you came to my page and initiated this exchange. I merely asked you to support your positive claims. You need not worry about me commenting on your site. I have said all I need to say here.
Thank you for serving as a clear example of the mindset common in modern virology: when faced with requests for empirical proof, the response is dismissal and rhetoric rather than evidence and logic. I will not delete your comments, as they perfectly illustrate this point for future readers. You are correct that there is no need to continue this exchange further—you’ve already made your position abundantly clear.
It says a lot when I get a greater attempt from Thomas and Jeff to present a counterargument than from a virologist of nearly fifty years’ standing. One would think that a veteran virologist would at least be able to present the “hard evidence” for the existence, purification, and characterization of “viruses” that he claims exists. However, at this point, I have given up expecting any of them to produce the necessary scientific evidence or even a logical counterargument, as Ed’s fallacious responses are par for the course.
Some, like Thomas, might argue that Ed is simply not engaging because it is somehow “better for me” if he does than for him. But the evidence shows otherwise. I did not seek out Ed—he initiated the engagement by commenting on my posts and then writing about it on his own blog. He failed to respond when I replied. If Ed did not think he could make an example out of me and benefit in some way, he never would have commented or drawn attention to my article in the first place.
I suspect Ed thought it would be an easy “win.” He could insult me, brush aside my TMV article without addressing any of the points raised, and boast about his “takedown” of a “no-virus” proponent. What he did not expect was to be challenged to support his positive claims. I doubt he has ever truly been asked to defend his position logically and scientifically. He did not anticipate being held to his own words about having the “hard evidence” or the “best proof.” If that evidence truly existed, he could have presented it easily and made an example out of me—perhaps even put the entire “no-virus” issue to rest. Instead, Ed apparently decided it was not in his best interests to continue after I asked him to substantiate his claims with actual scientific evidence. The best he could do was resort to ad hominem attacks and dismiss the challenge as an avoidance of the “simple proofs” he failed to furnish.
In a sense, Thomas is right: this entire affair was better for me than for Ed. I was able to show clearly that he does not possess the “best evidence” for his positive claims and that he has no logical counterargument to any of the points I raised. The same holds true for others defending virology, such as Thomas and Jeff. In the end, what could have been a decisive “win” for them—had any been able to meet the challenge—has instead become an embarrassing demonstration of their inability to support their own position logically and with the necessary scientific evidence that must exist, but clearly does not.
What this exchange ultimately reveals is not just a lack of evidence, but a deeper problem in the epistemology of virology itself. When a field can no longer distinguish between evidence and assumption, between experimental artifact and natural phenomenon, it stops being science and becomes pseudoscientific dogma. Ed’s refusal to engage with the actual challenge is not merely personal avoidance, it is symptomatic of a discipline that can not defend its own foundations when confronted with logic and the scientific method it claims to uphold.
ViroLIEgy Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Oh. My. GOD. I would have torn my hair out. The fact that you have to explain what science is to a self-proclaimed scientist is truly stunning. I interviewed Jeff years ago, back when it was still just me Stefan, Tom, Rappaport and a few others long gone, like Hume, etc understanding the issues with virology...I was looking for alliances. I assumed he would eventually figure it out...but here we are.
The challenges seem to be more about ego, vocation and psychology rather than displaying the facts of the argument. Everything has been easily laid out for them yet their minds refuse to allow them to see it. Kudos to you for your abundance of patience. There is so much circular logic from them to make one dizzy.
Oh. My. GOD. I would have torn my hair out. The fact that you have to explain what science is to a self-proclaimed scientist is truly stunning. I interviewed Jeff years ago, back when it was still just me Stefan, Tom, Rappaport and a few others long gone, like Hume, etc understanding the issues with virology...I was looking for alliances. I assumed he would eventually figure it out...but here we are.
The challenges seem to be more about ego, vocation and psychology rather than displaying the facts of the argument. Everything has been easily laid out for them yet their minds refuse to allow them to see it. Kudos to you for your abundance of patience. There is so much circular logic from them to make one dizzy.
For heaven's sake, why don't they just come clean and start calling viruses "evil spirits?"