You might have also mentioned the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. My personal favorite and germane to the virology 'expert' situation.
The Appeal to Authority fallacy occurs when someone relies solely on the opinion or testimony of an authority figure to support a claim, without providing sufficient evidence or logical reasoning to justify the claim. This fallacy is committed when:
* An authority figure is cited without demonstrating their expertise or relevance to the topic at hand.
* The authority’s opinion is presented as fact, without considering alternative perspectives or evidence.
* The argument relies solely on the authority’s reputation or prestige, rather than logical argumentation.
Thanks, Gerald. You are 100% correct that those defending virology love to appeal to authority. There are many fallacies that I could have included, but I wanted this article to remain short and relatively focused on the three fallacies that I feel are deeply embedded in the foundations of virology. Hopefully, this article will help pique the curiosity of those reading to really investigate and learn about logically fallacious reasoning. It is rewarding to understand the many fallacies in order to strengthen our arguments so we can avoid falling victim to them ourselves. 🙂
I think there has been a focused effort to make children less logical through Common Core and not teaching any logic courses whatsoever anymore. It's one of the biggest problems we face because kids are just taught to believe what they're told and not taught to figure anything out for themself. So much easier to control that way.
Would students learning virology bother to look for source documents proving isolation of a said virus ? I think that they'd progress in the field much more quickly by relying on the authority of accredited virologists and not 'waste time' searching old documents.
But accredited virologists do not have a logical argument for the existence of their discipline. Students would indeed progress more quickly, but into an illusory study. Am I missing something?
I was thinking Hammond could be aware but unwilling to acknowledge his use of logical fallacies--intellectually dishonest, as you said--until the end, where he appeared to be unable to understand the meaning of his own words! What was he calling "childish?" Not your behavior--but his own! Yet he denied it. Or does he have that poor a grasp of grammar? Can someone really not grasp the meaning of their own words, when reading and re-reading it? Sometimes I wonder about the apparent dumbing-down of so many, maybe all of us to a degree. Education, trauma, vaccine injury, poisons in the food and water, maybe even 5G--it seems that at least some people's brains just don't work very well! Hammond is an example.
And thanks for the detailed exposition of these logical fallacies. It is so important to know about how they work and be able to recognize them literally all around us.
You are welcome, Betsy. I used to give Hammond the benefit of the doubt, but I believe it is willful ignorance (po$$ibly motivated) and his responses are heavily ego-driven. He cannot handle being shown to be wrong on anything, so he keeps trying to weasel his way out of being caught. Fortunately, the more Hammond attempts to do so, the worse it looks for him, and we gain valuable insight into the irrational mind. 😉
He argues exactly like my ex-wife, a sociopath. :lol:
They truly and completely believe that they are always right. They can argue that grass is blue and the sky is green while believing it's true just because they said it.
100% Betsy. One of my top takeaways from the scamdemic era was… I have given the average adult human way too much credit over my lifetime. Either, as I get smarter I am able to recognize this more.. or… I am in fact no smarter than I ever was and have been able (somehow) to avoid some the factors causing other people to get decidedly stupider.
In saying that I certainly hope I am not partaking in some type of logical fallacy 😉
Mike, I think you're debating on their playing field...simply ask the dupe Hammond to show you when in history viruses were proven to exist outside a computer program....in other words, have him show evidence viruses have been shown to propagate in the tissues or blood of humans or animals...indirect in-vitro cell culture experiments are foundationally non-scientific/fraudulent, and to argue from that perspective is a losing hand IMO....
I have asked Hammond for that evidence. It is a losing battle trying to have an intellectually honest conversation with him. My goal this time was to use Jeremy as an example of how those who consider themselves rational thinkers can't even admit to or own their own fallacious reasoning while defending virology. Hopefully, it succeeded. 🙂
Wow! I knew it might do my head in but I did put my big girl pants on and gave the Beyond Terrain interview a go before reading too much here. It had been a few months since I have watched one of Liev's videos and even longer since I have subjected myself to listen to JH for more than briefly. It was a struggle but somehow I made it to the end. I did feel defiled though, like after listening to MSM. He is a phenomenon for sure. I wonder if there is a special psychiatric diagnosis for someone with his depth of delusion plus having total confidence in the illogical nonsense he adamantly believes? He and Steve Kirsch compliment each other well.
I'd love to know what Liev was thinking about it and how much acting and restraint he needed to do and use. I trust he wasn't "taken in" at all. I couldn't have held it together in such a situation. I wanted to hear more challenging though but it would have been difficult to do and remain "respectful".
I'm horrified to know people here in NZ who think JH knows what he is talking about on this topic and it pains me greatly. I expect his total belief in himself and his fallacies could be convincing if one hadn't already unraveled that virology is total BS. If he ever lets in the truth his mind will seriously explode and that would be something to behold. Mean I know but it isn't like people (like you Mike) haven't tried to help him gently (at least at first), for years now. At least we can be grateful to him for providing so many great examples for you to help teach us about logical fallacies. Everyone has a purpose. :)
Hi Sue. You are much more patient than I am. I couldn't stomach listening to much of Hammonds interview. If I feel like torturing myself in the future, I may give the entire thing a listen. Jeremy definitely serves a purpose as an example of someone who lives in delusion of being logical while ignoring the fallacies that he has adopted as his own. He was the perfect case study. 😉
ChatGPT provides some courtroom drama based on part of your brilliant Substack.
Title: The Cross-Examination of John Franklin Enders
Act 1: Setting the Scene
The courtroom is a grand, imposing space, filled with the quiet hum of anticipation. At the center of the drama is the witness stand, where John Franklin Enders, an elderly virologist of great renown, takes his place. The prosecutor, an astute and sharp-minded figure, stands poised to begin the cross-examination. The judge, a stern and authoritative figure, presides over the court, with a jury carefully watching every move.
Act 2: The Opening Salvo
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you are a highly respected figure in the field of virology, credited with groundbreaking work that has shaped our understanding of viruses. Would you agree with that characterization?"
Enders: "Yes, I would. My work on the measles virus, among others, has been instrumental in advancing medical science."
Prosecutor: "Indeed, your work has had far-reaching implications. However, I must challenge the very foundation upon which your research stands. You see, Dr. Enders, your experiments, particularly the cell culture experiment you conducted in 1954, are based on a series of logical fallacies that have gone unchallenged for decades. Let’s start with the concept of 'begging the question.'"
Enders shifts slightly in his seat, his expression neutral, but the tension in the room is palpable.
Act 3: Unveiling the Fallacies
Prosecutor: "You assumed, without direct evidence, that the pathogenic virus you believed to be present in the patient’s fluids was the cause of the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) observed in your cultures. Isn't it true that this assumption is a classic example of the 'begging the question' fallacy?"
Enders: "The presence of CPE was consistent with viral infection, and it was a reasonable assumption based on the scientific knowledge of the time."
Prosecutor: "Reasonable? Or convenient? You never directly observed the virus before conducting your experiments. You simply assumed its existence and then used the very effects you attributed to it as proof of its existence. Dr. Enders, isn't it true that your entire experiment was based on circular reasoning?"
Enders: "I would disagree with that characterization. The CPE provided strong evidence of viral activity."
Prosecutor: "Strong evidence? Or merely a fallacious interpretation of the data? Let’s move to another fallacy embedded in your work—'affirming the consequent.' You concluded that because you observed CPE, a virus must have been present. Yet, as you admitted in your own writings, there are many other factors that could cause this effect. Isn’t it true that your conclusion was not only premature but also logically flawed?"
Enders: "Other factors could influence CPE, but the patterns we observed were consistent with viral infections."
Prosecutor: "Consistent? Or simply convenient to your hypothesis? You assumed causality where there was none. By attributing CPE solely to a virus, you ignored other possible causes—thus committing a 'false cause' fallacy, wouldn’t you say?"
Act 4: The Climactic Revelation
Enders hesitates, the confidence in his voice wavering slightly.
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you knew there were other explanations for the CPE—environmental factors, the composition of the culture medium, even the age of the cells. Yet, you chose to attribute this effect to a virus without definitive proof. Isn't it true that your entire experiment was built on a series of unfounded assumptions and logical errors?"
Enders: "The methods we used were the best available at the time."
Prosecutor: "But that does not absolve them of the logical fallacies they contained. By failing to account for these errors, your work has perpetuated a flawed understanding of virology, one that has influenced countless subsequent studies and medical practices. Dr. Enders, isn’t it possible that the entire field of virology, as it stands today, is built on a house of cards?"
Enders remains silent, his face etched with the weight of the prosecutor’s words.
Act 5: The Verdict
The courtroom is still, the jury and audience hanging on every word. The prosecutor steps back, having planted seeds of doubt not only in the jury’s mind but perhaps in the mind of John Franklin Enders himself. The judge’s gavel signals the end of the cross-examination, but the implications of what has been uncovered resonate long after the court is adjourned.
As the scene closes, the audience is left to ponder the foundation of modern virology and whether it stands on solid ground or if, as the prosecutor suggested, it is built on a fragile framework of logical fallacies.
Epilogue:
The drama of the courtroom is a microcosm of a larger debate that challenges the very foundations of medical science. The cross-examination of John Franklin Enders serves as a stark reminder that even the most respected scientific disciplines must be held accountable to the rigors of logical reasoning and empirical evidence.
Enders: "While I acknowledge the limitations of our early work, it laid important groundwork for later discoveries."
Prosecutor: "Groundwork? Or a foundation built on quicksand? Dr. Enders, your experiment may have opened doors, but did it not also create a false narrative that has misled generations of scientists? Consider this: if your assumptions about the measles virus were incorrect, what else might be wrong in the field of virology?"
Enders: "We've made significant progress since then. Our understanding has evolved."
Prosecutor: "Evolved? Or merely refined? The fundamental flaws in your original experiment remain unaddressed. Dr. Enders, don't you think it's time to confront the possibility that much of what we thought we knew about viruses might be based on shaky ground?"
Enders: "That's a drastic claim. We need to rely on empirical evidence."
Prosecutor: "Empirical evidence? Or circumstantial evidence masquerading as proof? Dr. Enders, isn't it time to reexamine the assumptions that have driven virology for decades? Perhaps it's not the viruses that need reevaluating, but our methods of studying them?"
Enders: "I understand your concerns, but we've made too many breakthroughs to dismiss everything."
Prosecutor: "Breakthroughs? Or false positives fueled by flawed methodology? Dr. Enders, don't you think it's time to take a hard look at the emperor's new clothes? What if the entire field of virology is built on a house of cards, propped up by circular reasoning and logical fallacies?"
Act 6: The Verdict
Judge: "Order in the court! Dr. Enders, do you have anything further to say in your defense?"
Enders: "My work was groundbreaking and has saved countless lives. I stand by my conclusions."
Prosecutor: "Saved lives? Or perpetuated a myth that has led to unnecessary suffering? Dr. Enders, isn't it time to acknowledge the flaws in your research and open the door to a new era of scientific inquiry?"
Judge: "Enough! The jury will now deliberate on the matter presented."
(The courtroom falls silent as the jury exits to consider the evidence.)
Epilogue
(After what seems like hours, the jury returns with a verdict)
Judge: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a decision?"
Juror Foreman: "Yes, Your Honor. We find the defendant, John Franklin Enders, guilty of perpetuating logical fallacies in his viral research."
(The courtroom erupts in gasps and murmurs)
Judge: "So ordered. Dr. Enders, your work, while groundbreaking in its time, contained fundamental flaws that have misled the scientific community for decades. You are hereby stripped of your Nobel Prize and all associated honors."
(The courtroom descends into chaos as the implications of this verdict become clear)
Prosecutor: "This verdict marks a turning point in scientific history. It's time to rebuild the foundations of virology on solid logic and empirical evidence."
Defense Attorney: "This is a travesty! Appeal!"
Judge: "The appeal process will begin immediately. In the meantime, let us hope that this verdict serves as a wake-up call to the scientific community to critically examine its assumptions and methodologies."
(As the courtroom continues to buzz with activity, the scene fades to black)
I imagine, that considering Hammond is just a “journalist” yet defends, denies and obfuscates, actual virologists whose livelihoods depend on these fallacies, would be impossible to convince.
Hey Mike, thank you for you studious work. I am very fascinated with this subject of virology being bogus. however, i am a newcomer to the subject and a rank amatuer in the field of biology. can you recommend an article which could furnish a succinct, noob-friendly overview of the topic? im also curious what the implications of this falsehood mean in regards to what is actually happening when we get sick. if not viruses then what? thank you for your time and your writing.
Hope you’re not going to block me, Mike…I have asked you before to comment on the well-proven existence of invertebrate baculoviruses (family: baculoviridae),the observation & characterisation of which is beyond doubt, and whether the existence of these viruses in fact demonstrates the hypothesis that viruses do not exist as a fallacious? It is a relatively trivial thing to observe, isolate, purify and quantify the polyhedral inclusion bodies containing the rod shaped virions (Baculoviridea, NPVs) and then to conduct larval host infection assays to clearly demonstrate a iris dose-response effect. So if baculoviruses demonstrably exist and infect their hosts in a dose dependent manner under controlled laboratory conditions, doesn’t there existence undermine your silly attempts to convince people that viruses do not exist?
Please provide the foundational study where a "baculovirus" was purified and isolated directly from its host without culturing, identified via electron microscopy, and then introduced naturally to a healthy host—following the scientific method and satisfying Koch’s Postulates.
There are many, many published baculovirus characterisation studies that satisfy these criteria. An example search would be ‘ characterisation of a nucleopolyhedrovirus’ and you will find many results to wit:
These are just just two randomly selected papers from a search using the search term outlined above and it is a trivial exercise to cite many other such publications.
So where does this leave the ‘viruses don’t exist’ trope?
Your studies do not use purified and isolated "viral" particles. Instead, they utilize occlusion bodies (OBs), which are proteinaceous structures that are merely claimed to contain "viral" particles. OBs are not purified and isolated "virus" particles in the sense required by Koch’s postulates.
For the studies to satisfy Koch’s postulates, the "virus" would need to be isolated in a pure form—separated from host cell debris, OB structures, and other contaminants—and then demonstrated to cause disease in a healthy host. Neither study established pathogenicity in the so-called "infected" hosts. Thus, Koch's Postulates remain unsatisfied.
Well claim that now because I have pointed out the logical flaw in it. But that was what you wrote and its literal meaning was fairly clear. You were literally claiming no new symptoms means no new disease. You got found out. Again!
You have to be careful Grok, words matter…
Your inconsistencies have been exposed and it ought to be clear to the dispassionate reader that you apply different hurdles to be met for different scientific issues. This I think stems from a poor understanding of science and the ‘scientific method’. Assumptions are an indivisible part of science. Full stop. The scientific method attempts to control and test these but they are always there.
You are obviously relying on AI output for your thinking and mostly your written answers too. It is evident in your lack of nuance, inconsistency and attempts to accuse what you are guilty of - obfuscation and distraction.
Your arguments have more holes than Swiss cheese Mike/Grok.
"I explained why it does not logically follow that no new symptoms necessarily means no new virus."
This is getting tiresome repeatedly pointing out your strawman. You keep insisting that my statement meant something it didn’t, despite my repeated clarifications. Either you genuinely struggle with comprehension, which I am leaning towards, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting my words. My conclusion was based on the lack of unique or specific symptoms—something you’ve yet to refute. Instead, you keep shifting the conversation to avoid addressing that simple fact.
As for assumptions in science, yes, they exist—but they must be tested, not blindly accepted. That’s the difference between science and storytelling. You seem perfectly content with the latter.
Your words are quoted above. You can’t take them back. You claimed: “no new symptoms…thus no new disease”. I have explained why the second claim does not logically follow from the first. You are now attempting to obfuscate after your error in logic, using real world examples, has been laid bare.
If you are not going to own the words you write then so be it. But it is now difficult to put much weight on anything you write. Your inconsistency and lack of logic is revealed. Your position changes like the weather because it is based on a rather poor understanding of the subject (and science in general) and is therefore straightforward to expose.
Your entire schtick ‘viruses don’t exist’ is clownish. The evidence showing otherwise is published and readily available for anyone to read. It is clear not only do you have little knowledge of virology (certainly no empirical experience) and this seems to be the case for science in general. Moreover your lack of logical rigour, as the examples of the Moon & the tides, gravity, engines (in the exchanges above) has clearly laid bare.
We have yet to get to the bottom of your motives though.
Let me ask it directly again - are you being paid to promote the ‘viruses don’t exist’ trope? If so, who is paying and to what ends?
You’re just shifting the goalposts again. My original statement was a logical conclusion based on the premise that no new or unique symptoms were identified for "COVID." There is no new disease. I have not backtracked on this one bit. You have yet to demonstrate why that conclusion is invalid. Instead, you keep misrepresenting my words, pretending I claimed “no new symptoms means no new virus” when I clearly did not. Your refusal to engage with the actual argument—opting instead for strawmen and irrelevant distractions—shows that you have no real counterpoint.
As for virology, you keep insisting that the evidence is “readily available” without actually presenting any that meets the necessary scientific standards. Where is the evidence derived from the scientific method that satisfies Koch's Postulates? Where are the controlled experiment demonstrating a "virus" as the causal agent of disease without relying on assumption-laden methodologies? If the evidence is as clear as you claim, this should be trivial for you to produce. But instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks, vague appeals to authority, and now conspiracy-baiting by questioning my motives.
Your continued evasion only confirms that you have no substantive rebuttal. Genuine debate requires addressing arguments directly rather than misrepresenting them. As you continue to resort to logically fallacious tactics while avoiding the points I have made even though I asked for you to refrain from doing so, you have demonstrated that you are no longer worth my time.
You said (in your exchange withJeremy Hammond linked to above):
“Then you agree there are no new symptoms and/or specific symptoms associated with “COVID”, and that it can not be diagnosed clinically based on symptoms. Thus there is no new disease. 👍”
“Thus there is no new disease”.
That is quite different to “no basis for claiming a new disease” which you now claim you said.
Accuracy matters. Your original statements literally read that no new symptoms means no new disease.
First of all, there is a much broader clinical basis for establishing whether or not a new disease exists than just observing symptoms. This can have important treatment implications. In many people, in most years, seasonal flu and cold virus symptoms are often indistinguishable because the symptoms overlap to a great extent. Yet they are different diseases with different causal viruses and may require different clinical interventions. Antibody tests, molecular diagnostics are often needed to ascertain this.
Even two different flu viruses generally express the same characteristic symptoms in infected individuals early in the disease process but can have very different severities later in the process (survival versus death) as direct consequence of the novelty of a virus to the host immune system. A novel virus.
You're still missing the point—or intentionally avoiding it.
My original statement, “Thus, there is no new disease,” was a conclusion drawn from the premise that there are no unique or specific symptoms to distinguish “COVID” from other known illnesses. That does not mean I was arguing that “no new symptoms means no new virus.” You continue to conflate the two despite my repeated clarifications. Are you having difficulty with reading and comprehension? If there are no new and unique signs or symptoms, there is no new disease. Claiming a disease is "new" solely because of a different presumed "pathogen" is scientifically unproven—it’s the same disease process under a different name.
As for your broader claim that a “new disease” can be established by methods other than symptoms, that is precisely the issue—virology relies on assumption-based techniques rather than direct evidence. "Antibody" tests and molecular diagnostics (like PCR) do not prove the existence of a new "pathogen;" they only detect genetic sequences or proteins that are assumed to belong to a “virus.” Without proper isolation, purification, and controlled experiments satisfying Koch’s Postulates, these methods amount to circular reasoning.
You also bring up “novel viruses” and "immune" response differences, but those arguments rest on the same flawed foundation—assuming a "virus" exists and is responsible for observed effects without first proving its independent existence. If you want to defend that claim, start with the basic foundational evidence which has been requested of you repeatedly: Where is the direct evidence of isolation and purification of this so-called “novel virus” without reliance on cell culture artifacts or indirect inference? Where was it proven "pathogenic" with evidence derived from the scientific method that satisfied Koch’s Postulates?
As for Grok, I provide one example from a conversation to highlight the flaws in your reasoning, and you immediately assume I’m using it to write my responses? That’s quite the leap. But it appears that illogical leaps is par for the course with you.
My goodness! Great bedtime reading! Will have the most challenging insomniac out like a light in no time!
I couldn’t get through to much but my first impression was this stuff is presented like a glossy brochure seeking to entertain and sell a message rather than a serious review of the claims made & the evidence/ lack thereof for and against.
Let me be clear as to my leanings. IMO the entire scam, the COVID plandemic, was a pre-planned crime against humanity. The perpetrators and their facilitators ought to be brought to justice and the penalty should be proportional to the crime of pre-meditated mass murder and financial fraud.
That said I remain largely agnostic as to whether there was a novel virus, called SARS COVID 2. I have seen nothing convincing either way. Nothing has changed since reading some of your stuff though perhaps organising it in a shorter, less chatty form form, perhaps with key points and links to evidence would help a lot. To see if there is anything of substance in your arguments. There are certainly plenty of logical flaws in your presentation but that seems to be a trademark of your writing.
Will try and get to the spike protein links later today. Should be entertaining!
You claim to be “agnostic” on the existence of "SARS-COV-2" but also declare the "COVID-19" event a “pre-planned crime against humanity.” That contradiction is telling—if you truly lack conviction on the "virus’s" existence, how do you justify the claim that a "virus" was used to commit mass fraud? If there’s no solid evidence for a novel "virus," then the crime wasn’t just a pandemic hoax, but a fundamental deception about the very nature of disease.
You also state that my writing contains “plenty of logical flaws” but fail to identify a single one. If my arguments were as flawed as you claim, you should have no trouble pointing out specific errors. Instead, you resort to vague dismissals and condescension, which only suggests that you’re unwilling or unable to engage with the substance of the argument.
As for formatting, I’m happy to provide clear key points and references—but that won’t change the underlying issue. If you actually care about determining the truth, you need to engage with the logic and evidence rather than retreating behind rhetoric. So, let’s be clear: what specific piece of evidence or reasoning would convince you one way or the other? If you can’t answer that, then your “agnosticism” is just an excuse to avoid taking a position.
There is no contradiction. Being ‘agnostic’ on the existence or otherwise of a novel virus (in the absence of compelling evidence either way) in no way contradicts my opinion that the “COVID 19” event was pre-planned for which there is clear evidence eg. ‘Event 201’. There have been one or more previously known viruses utilised in the event. There may even have been no virus yet the ‘pandemic event’ (the lockdowns, masks, mandates, lies & propaganda, fake make-shift morgues etc.etc.) was nevertheless pre-planned.
Another example of your flawed logicMike. One opinion does not logically flow from another.
Re the logical flaws in your links. Here’s one - your exchange with Richard Hammond. You appear to logically tie the fact that there are no unique symptoms to there being no new “disease”. Here your use of the word ‘disease’ is a poor choice because disease can refer both to the infectious process or separately to the symptoms. It seems you are using it to hedge your bets. Either way it doesn’t logically flow:
it could be the case that there is a novel virus (not previously identified) that elicits the same symptoms as a previously known virus but the severity of those symptoms may differ radically (influenza viruses and coronaviruses provide frequent examples). It could also be the case that a unique virus may exist that result in symptoms (‘disease’ in your parlance) which as a whole are shared across several types of virus but uniquely associated as a total set with the new virus.
You claim to be agnostic about the existence of a novel "virus," yet you simultaneously assert that one or more known "viruses" were used in the event. That is contradictory—either you believe a "virus" was involved or you do not. If you are truly agnostic, then you must also accept the possibility that no "virus" was involved at all.
Your attempt to argue that a new "virus" could exist despite no unique symptoms does not refute my point. If the symptoms are not unique, then the disease is not new—just a variation of existing conditions. You assume the presence of a novel "virus" but fail to provide direct scientific evidence of its existence. This is circular reasoning, where you assume the "virus" exists to explain the symptoms, then use the symptoms to justify the "virus’s" existence.
Instead of addressing the scientific foundation for proving the existence of a "virus," you resort to semantics and hand-waving about "totality of evidence." If you want to argue for the existence of a novel "virus," start by demonstrating its direct isolation and purification—not just inferred associations.
Again, you do not get to decide what constitutes and what does not constitute a virus. Let the evidence speak for itself. The virus exists in its natural state as an occlusion body and has evolved to function in that assemblage or form.
The evidence is presented and is compelling. I will leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself.
Your entire case rests on the unscientific position that a nucleopolyhedrovirus (NPV) is only its naked nucleocapsids (virions) and everything else is superfluous and/or a contaminant. But this is wrong headed thinking. The virus is only found in its OB form and has evolved this morphology to maximise its persistence, transmission & infection of its host.
Once again, the occlusion body (OB) is the fundamental unit of the NPV virus. The natural infection process for NPVs requires the virus to be in its complete form (the occluded body). To demand that the virus be deconstructed and tested as its separate components is like demanding an internal combustion engine is stripped down and each component tested for its power output and when no output is found then concluding the internal combustion engine is make believe!
No. Your argument is not scientific, it is fatuous. But then your entire thesis that viruses do exist is silly in the extreme and I can only assume you and your like minded cohort are paid trolls to muddy the waters in the wake of the COVID plandemic. It makes sense to me that the perpetrators would seek confound matters in this way since if there wasn’t a virus then there wasn’t a crime right?
You keep repeating that I "don’t get to decide" what constitutes a "virus," but that is irrelevant to the core issue: your claim must still be subjected to falsifiable testing. You assert that OBs are the "fundamental unit" of NPVs, yet you evade the necessity of experimentally demonstrating that the "virions" alone, independent of the OB, can or cannot initiate "infection." If the OB is truly essential to "pathogenesis," then its role must be tested separately, not merely assumed.
Your combustion engine analogy is flawed. An engine is a functional assembly of interdependent parts, but this is known because the function of each part has been tested separately. If an assertion is made that fuel alone, or a spark plug alone, is sufficient for power output, it must be tested in isolation. You claim OBs are integral, yet the independent "infectious" capacity of the assumed "virions" remains untested under controlled conditions.
Your attempt to dismiss this as "silly in the extreme" or wave it away with conspiracy rhetoric does nothing to address the logical failure at the heart of your argument. If the evidence were as compelling as you claim, you would simply present the direct, falsifiable demonstration of causation. Instead, you lean on assertions, misrepresent my position, and attempt to poison the well with accusations of trolling. That does not strengthen your case—it exposes its weakness.
No, it is your thinking that is flawed. You don’t need to know anything of HOW the engine works in order to know (prove) that it does work as claimed. This truth is borne out countless times every any time someone gets in their car and drives somewhere.
Whether or not the nucleocapsid component of the virus is infectious in its ‘naked’ state might help explain how the virus infects its host (Orit might not) and is a worthy question but It is not the central question as whether or not the virus causes the observed disease (effect).
You bang on about falsification but this is often not possible and neither is it necessary in any case. The evidence is multi-pronged. Observation & characterisation of the virus OBs by microscopy, their separation and purification, their quantification & dosing OBs,, dose-response infection assays with controls under controlled conditions; observation & analysis of the diseased host and the progeny virus produced. Isolation & purification of the viral DNA and various in-depth analyses….
These data are provided in the links and provides unambiguous ‘proof’ that NPV viruses exist.
This is getting a bit stale. You are wedded to your position and cannot be moved from it. So be it. I have provided the links to the evidence for baculovirus NPVs as viruses that cause disease in their hosts. There is a large volume of this material that can be easily found and perused and I will leave it to the reader to decide if the case is ‘proven’.
You just admitted that whether the nucleocapsid alone is "infectious" is a "worthy question." That’s exactly the point—if the OB is truly integral to "pathogenesis," that role must be tested, not assumed. Your argument boils down to: "we see OBs, we assume they are required, and we don't test otherwise." That is not science.
Your engine analogy fails again. Yes, you don’t need to know how an engine works to see that it does—but only because its function is demonstrable. If someone claims that gasoline alone makes a car move, we don’t just take their word for it; we test the claim. You refuse to test whether the OB is essential or incidental to "infection," instead waving it away as "not the central question." That is pure assumption.
In any valid scientific experiment aiming to establish causation, the independent variable must be isolated from other potential confounding factors. If OBs are claimed to be an essential part of the "virus," then "virions" must be tested separately, free from OBs, to determine if they alone can cause disease. Without this separation, the experiment fails to meet the basic standards for demonstrating cause and effect. Instead, it merely assumes that the "OB-virion" complex is the causative agent without isolating which component is responsible. That is not scientific proof—it is circular reasoning
You also claim that falsification is "not necessary." That’s an outright rejection of the scientific method. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, it is not science—it is dogma. Your reliance on assertion, repetition, and appeals to "a large volume of material" without direct falsifiable proof only reinforces that you have no controlled experiment demonstrating OB-independent "infection." If this evidence existed, you would simply present it. But you haven’t, because it doesn’t.
Again no. Put away your Grok and think for yourself. That way you might sound less like a pedantic lawyer and more like a scientific thinker which I very much doubt you’re capable of. The role of the nucleocapsid component of the virus in the infection process is NOT the central question in determining the existence of the virus. The virus organism in its entire assemblage is the object of investigation and on that basis I have provided the published evidence that NPV viruses exist as a disease causing organism. The case is proven. There is no necessity to prove that components of the virus are independently capable of infection.
I will say it one more time the virus for an NPV is the polyhedral inclusion body (PIB) also called the occlusion body (OB). That is the infectious unit. The virus. There is NO requirement to show HOW it is infectious in order to show that it is infectious.
The engine analogy is apt. No pre-knowledge of the engine’s construction, components or their mechanism of action is required to prove that the engine does what is claimed it can do: generate mechanical energy. Drive.
You FAILED again. Rather than simply regurgitate some flawed AI output, try and think for yourself Mike…this isn’t a computer game.
Science is not man-made law. Scientific claims stand or fall on their merit. On the totality of the evidence provided. There is no methodological hurdle or legal box that must be ticked in order for a scientific claim or observation to be confirmed. ‘Flasifiability’ as a component of a proof is fine if this is possible. In many cases, in science, it is not possible.
For example, if I claim the Moon’s gravitational pull on the Earth is responsible for the tidal effects we observe- how are going to falsify that?
You cannot.
Deconstructing a virus may provide additional information but it is not required to prove the virus exists. In fact, if the nucleocapsids were isolated and no infection occurred what would be your conclusion Mike? There could be several reasons why no infection was observed. The experiment would not be conclusive in any sense. For the whole, intact virus the evidence of causation is provided bynthe totality & repeatability of the material provided. This has been done for NPVs and demonstration of cause (virus) and effect (disease) is conclusive and unassailable.
Which is why your final resort AIndrivel & word play, sprinkled with appeal to authority - which you clearly don’t understand properly in any case.
You keep insisting that the OB is the "virus" and that its role in "infection" does not need to be tested. That is pure assertion, not science. Whether the OB is integral or merely a protective structure is exactly what needs to be determined, and refusing to test this distinction only shows the weakness of your position.
Your engine analogy remains flawed. No one disputes that engines produce mechanical energy because their function is directly observable. But if someone claimed that an entire car, including the frame, seats, and tires, was necessary to produce that energy, we wouldn’t just assume it—we would test whether the engine alone was sufficient. That’s the equivalent of what I’m arguing here. You assume the OB is essential without testing whether the "virions" alone can cause disease. That’s not science; that’s dogma.
Falsification is not optional—it is fundamental to the scientific method. A hypothesis that cannot be tested in a way that could potentially disprove it is not a scientific claim but an unfalsifiable belief. Without falsification, there is no way to distinguish between competing explanations or to correct errors. Scientific progress depends on the ability to rule out incorrect hypotheses through controlled, repeatable experimentation.
You claim falsification is unnecessary, yet this contradicts the very nature of scientific inquiry. If a hypothesis cannot be tested in a way that allows for the possibility of refutation, then it is insulated from scrutiny and becomes indistinguishable from dogma. This is precisely the problem with your reasoning regarding OBs—you assume their necessity without subjecting that assumption to a valid falsification test.
In virology, if a proposed "viral" agent is claimed to cause disease, the appropriate falsification test would involve isolating the presumed "infectious" particles and determining whether they alone are sufficient to produce the claimed effect. If disease only occurs when additional components, such as OBs, are present, then the assumption that the "virions" alone are the causal agents would be disproven. Refusing to conduct such an experiment reveals a commitment to preserving the assumption rather than subjecting it to genuine scientific scrutiny.
You ask what would happen if isolated "virions" failed to cause "infection." The answer is simple: if a valid experiment showed that only OB-containing preparations caused disease while purified "virions" did not, then it would suggest that the OB plays a necessary role—but you refuse to conduct that experiment. More importantly, such a result would disprove the assumption that the particles identified as "virions" are the actual "pathogenic" agents. If they were truly responsible for causing disease, they should be capable of doing so independently. Your refusal to test this distinction exposes the circular nature of your reasoning: you assume the OB is essential and then declare no need to test the assumption.
Science does not rest on sheer volume of publications or repetition of assumptions. It rests on controlled, falsifiable experiments. You have no controlled experiment demonstrating OB-independent infection, nor do you have a falsifiable standard to distinguish between correlation and causation. That is why your claim remains unproven, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
On the contrary, providing the published work showing the isolation, purification & visualisation of a virus with subsequent demonstration of the purified & isolated virus in re-infecting healthy hosts, in a dose-dependent manner, under controlled conditions with final confirmation of the progeny virus does indeed prove the existence of the virus. Refer to the linked publications.
The problem for you is in accepting that the occlusion body is part and parcel of the virus. The virus exists in nature in this form & is always observed in this way. The OB protein is in integral part of the virus assemblage in the same way that the coat protein of a plant virus is an integral part of the plant virus. It is not a contaminant as you incorrectly persist in maintaining.
I understand that pursuing this approach is the only way you can to keep your argument alive since all requirements for ‘proving’ causing & effect for baculoviruses have been met & I have provided the published work as you originally requested.
So your last resort is to argue that the OB protein is not part of the virus and that the virions must be shown to be independently infectious. But this position is untenable. Your understanding of the functions of the polyhedrin protein in the viral,infection process is less than complete - wouldn’t you say? You simply assert its role is the same as the integument surrounding a spore and by inference that it has no role in the virus’ infection process. You have no grounds on which to make such bold assertion.
Previously I raised the example of plant viruses in which the viral coat protein is known to directly interactwith the host cell genome during infection. This may well be true for baculoviruses. We do know that the NPV viruses are always found in this form we do have to treat the ‘virus’ as the complete assemblage of occlusion body protein with embedded virions.
When the virus is viewed as an assemblage of protein & nucleocapsids (cf. plant virus) Koch’s postulates are fully satisfied as per the vast catalogue of published work of which I provided 2 randomly selected examples.
Your argument that the OB is not the virus is your last resort to stave off the inevitable and is without any scientific merit.
You are conflating observation with proof of causation. That something is consistently found in a certain form does not establish it as the causative agent of disease, nor does it exempt it from falsifiable testing. Your entire argument hinges on an assumption—that the occlusion body and its contents must be treated as a single "infectious" unit. But this is precisely what requires demonstration, not assumption.
Koch’s Postulates are not satisfied merely by correlating the presence of OBs with disease or by showing replication. The key missing element is controlled, falsifiable testing that isolates the alleged causative agent from potential confounders. Without this, your claim remains unverified. Please refer to the previously attached Grok conversation on how you are mistaken about the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates.
You also misrepresent my position. I did not claim OBs are mere "contaminants" but rather that their role must be tested independently to determine if they are essential to "pathogenesis" or merely protective, and to separate the "virions" and rule out any potential contaminants in the OBs. This is no different from distinguishing an inert capsule from the bacteria it surrounds. If your claim were so ironclad, there would be no need for evasion or hand-waving appeals to the "vast catalogue of published work"—you would simply present the controlled, falsifiable demonstration that the "virions" alone, independent of the OB, cause disease. That evidence does not exist.
There is no ambiguity as to what constitutes the ‘virus’for baculoviruses. My statement (declaration)is based on a long history of repeated observation & documentation in the published literature employing both light microscopy & transmission electron microscopy.
Your argument that OBs must be divided into their constituent parts before proving one part in isolation can or cannot initiate an infection is wrong-headed and unscientific. It is somewhat analagous toinsisting the nucleus of a cell be separated from its cytoplasm cell membrane in order to prove that the nucleus can live and function normally as a ‘cell’.. Your argument is invalid.
The occlusion body (OB) is the viral unit for a nucleopolyhedroviruses (the clue is in the name!).
Your analogy to a cell nucleus is flawed. A nucleus is an integral part of a living cell, which maintains its own metabolic functions. A "virus," on the other hand, is only assumed to be an "infectious" agent that hijacks a host's machinery. The proper analogy would be whether a spore’s protective shell should be considered the "microbial unit" rather than the spore inside. Just as the spore, not the shell, is the biologically relevant agent, the "virions"—not the OB—would need to be established as the causative agent of "infection."
You claim there is "no ambiguity" in defining OBs as the "viral" unit, but this is an assertion, not a demonstration. If OBs are truly the "infectious" agent, then they should be capable of initiating "infection" without dissolving and releasing "virions." Have OBs themselves been demonstrated to enter cells and replicate, or is it the "virions" released from them? If the latter, then your definition is based on convention, not causation.
Simply citing published literature that assumes OBs are the "viral" unit does not resolve the issue. The question remains: where is the controlled, falsifiable demonstration that OBs—and not just the "virions" they release—are necessary and sufficient to cause disease? You have yet to provide this evidence.
As you are having difficulty understanding logic and what is required to satisfy Koch’s Postulates, here is a conversation with Grok to help demonstrate where you are going wrong. Fortunately, AI is capable of recognizing flaws in its reasoning—unlike you.
I will say it one more time: in the case of NPVs the ‘virus’ is the occlusion body containing the virions. The OB is the viral unit. I care not whether that confounds your pedantic word games.
I have linked two random published papers isolating, purifying and visualising the viruses from naturally infected hosts, with the viral inoculum used to infect healthy host large in a dose-dependent manner. Koch’s postulates have been met for baculoviruses. DNA from the virions was,subsequently extracted and purified and analysed according to standard protocols to establish the genetic relatedness of these nucleopolyhedroviruses viruses with other baculoviruses.
There is a large catalogue of similar published work for this family of VIRUSES and I have provided search terms to allow readers to easily find many other published virus characterisation studies.
You come across as more of a wordsmith than a scientific thinker Mike.
What’s your skin in this game? Why spend so much time pushing this ‘no virus’ nonsense?
Declaring that "the OB is the viral unit" is not an argument—it's an assertion. You say there is no circularity, yet you define the "virus" as OBs containing "virions," assume they are the causative agent of disease, and then claim to prove causation by showing their presence and replication. That’s begging the question.
Linking published papers that assume the same premise does not demonstrate causation—especially if those studies fail to account for confounding factors or satisfy Koch’s Postulates in a controlled, falsifiable manner. If fulfilling Koch’s Postulates is as straightforward as you claim, then it should be trivial to provide an example where the alleged "pathogen"—isolated in its pure form and free from OBs or other contaminants—causes disease under controlled conditions. Where is this evidence?
As for "word games," precision in language is necessary when evaluating scientific claims. If you can't define what constitutes a "virus" without shifting definitions to suit convenience, that's a problem. Instead of engaging with the core issue—whether OBs and "virions" have been independently verified as the cause of disease—you resort to ad hominems. That’s not science; that’s deflection.
Mike, it seems we have now reached the domain of pointless repetition. I have answered each of your points above but the real issue I think is that you are so wedded to the untenable position that viruses do not exist, that no amount of evidence will sway you from it.
Im afraid you don’t get to unilaterally decide what constitutes the ‘virus’. The virus defines its own natural form & assemblage - for NPVs this structure is referred to as an occlusion body (OB) which is a micron sized polyhedral shaped object composed of a crystalline proteinaceous matrix encapsulating singly or multiply enveloped rod shaped virions which contain the virus’ genetic material in the form of double stranded DNA.
And neither do you get to redefine Koch’s postulates (these were formulated for bacteria and other microscopic pathogens btw - viruses were unknown to Koch) in order to arbitrate the proof of their existence or otherwise. The reader will decide whether he or she is convinced by the evidence presented above.
I have provided a few links to scholarly publications and search terms to generate such links that cover a large body of published material on baculoviruses as well-studied examples of the self-replicating, disease causing organisms known as viruses.
You keep asserting that NPVs “define their own natural form” without addressing the critical point: definitions do not establish causation. Declaring that OBs “are the virus” and assuming they cause disease is a circular argument. If causation is the claim, then it must be demonstrated experimentally, not taken as a given.
As for Koch’s Postulates, dismissing them as only applicable to bacteria is an evasion. It also contradicts what many sources—including the NIH, CDC, WHO, The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, and the American Association of Immunologists—state: that Koch’s postulates are foundational in establishing causation for "infectious agents," including "viruses."
The principles remain valid: a supposed "pathogen" must be demonstrably responsible for disease, isolated in pure form, and capable of reproducing the disease in a controlled system. If you cannot meet these criteria, then you are merely asserting rather than proving causation.
You also attempt to shift the burden of proof, implying that skepticism of your claims is equivalent to an immovable bias. But skepticism is warranted when claims rely on assumption rather than rigorous falsification. If the evidence were as undeniable as you claim, there would be no need for dismissive rhetoric or appeals to the “reader’s decision.” The fact remains that no study using the scientific method has satisfied Koch’s Postulates for any particles claimed to be "viruses."
You can claim that I don’t “get to decide” what a "virus" is, which I have not done, but neither do you get to dictate that assumptions should be treated as conclusions. The question remains: where is the controlled, falsifiable demonstration that OBs and "virions"—independently of other confounding factors—are the causative agents of disease? This evidence does not exist.
1. Well I suppose I ought to have qualified the term “unequivocal” as being as close to certainty as possible while excluding semantic gymnastics
2. The presence of OBs in “healthy” insects would not be evidence of non-causation. There will always be a minimum quantity of OBs required to establish and sustain an infection. The age & size of the host, ambient temperature, pH, interaction with of other pathogens, immune status, individual susceptibility are just a few of the factors that likely determine whether or not OBs can successfully establish an infection in a host. This is true for all pathogens & hosts. Lethal dose response assays seek to quantify the dose of OBs necessary to cause death of a given percent of the test population.
Determining whether a host larva is “infected” uses death as the end-point. The host dies or it survives. This does not of course exclude sub-lethal infections but showing such an outcome is far more difficult. the dead larva is basically a bag full of progeny OBs and it is trivial to confirm this under a light microscope. It is also trivial to purify & quantify the progeny OBs and then use these to re-infect healthy larvae under controlled conditions to establish the lethal dose response for that virus.
3. Why do you insist that virions must be separated from the OB prior to inoculation? The virus is the entire structure of OB + virions. That is the natural virus assemblage. The OB protein appears to play a largely protective role for the virions but perhaps it plays a bigger (unknown) role in the infection process… The coat proteins of plant viruses appear to interact directly with the host cell genome for example… so we should treat then as a whole for the purpose of establishing cause & effect. Not to do so seems counter-logical and introduces unnecessary confounders and doesn’t get us closer to establishing causation or otherwise. You could inactivate a sample of virus (say with UV radiation) and compare to an untreated sample (control) to help establish cause & effect but that’s not really what you’re suggesting…
4. Controls are always necessary in any demonstration of cause & effect. Of course. Lethal dose response assays always need to be done with negative controls. Your point seems largely hand-waving. The size of OBs (approx 1 micron diameter) makes it straightforward to purify & count OBs, inoculate known quantities of OBs, to isolate progeny OBs from an infected larva, purify, observe via microscopy, and repeat. To then extract DNA and sequence/ analyse to determine genetic relatedness to other baculoviruses.
This can and has been done countless times in vivid and of course in vitro (cells) and baculoviruses fully characterised and published. I have provided two example publications and provided the search term to find many, many more….
1. Qualifying “unequivocal” as merely “as close to certainty as possible” reinforces my point—your claims about causation are based on assumption, not definitive proof. Certainty in science requires falsifiable evidence, not just repetition of observations interpreted through a predetermined framework.
2. You claim that the presence of OBs in “healthy” insects would not disprove causation because there’s a minimum threshold required for "infection." But this is an implicit admission that OBs alone are insufficient to establish causation—other variables must be accounted for. If OBs can be present in “uninfected” insects, then their presence alone cannot be taken as proof of disease causation. Your argument essentially moves the goalpost by introducing ad hoc explanations (e.g., host susceptibility, environmental factors) to account for inconsistencies rather than testing whether OBs are the true causative agent.
3. You ask why "virions" should be separated from OBs for causation testing. The answer is simple: because proper experimental controls require isolating variables to determine their individual effects. If you claim the "OB-virion" complex is the "infectious" unit, then it must be demonstrated that neither component alone is responsible for the observed effects. Without isolating the "virions" from the OBs, you cannot determine whether the observed pathology is due to the "virions," the OB matrix, contaminants, or some combination thereof. Your own speculation that the OB matrix might play an unknown role further underscores the problem—you are assuming causation without eliminating alternative explanations.
4. You mention UV inactivation as a control, but this does not address the core issue. If the "infection" process depends on the "OB+virion" structure, then the logical next step would be to test whether OBs alone (without viable "virions") cause any pathology. This is a basic step in controlled experimentation: isolating components and testing them separately. Simply observing that OBs correlate with disease does not establish causation.
5. Your argument that "baculoviruses" have been repeatedly “characterized” through genetic sequencing and microscopy is another begging the question fallacy. Observing OBs, sequencing DNA, and documenting correlations with disease does not establish causation. You are assuming that the presence of DNA or OBs proves the existence of a "pathogenic agent" without rigorous testing of alternative explanations.
The fundamental issue remains: if OBs can be found in healthy insects, then their presence alone is insufficient evidence for causation. If the "virions" have not been isolated and tested separately, then their role remains unproven. If alternative explanations have not been ruled out through controlled experiments, then the claim of causation is unfounded.
Again, can you provide experimental evidence that:
1. OBs are never found in healthy insects?
2. Purified "virions" alone, without the OB matrix, can cause the same disease?
3. The assumed "infection" process has been demonstrated without reliance on circular reasoning?
If not, your argument remains speculative rather than definitive.
No. As I pointed-out, there is no such thing as absolute proof of anything. Even of your own existence and the world around you. Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” is not proof. One can never, under any circumstances, discount the possibility that some unknown factor X was not in fact responsible for the observed effect Y.
That you demand proof of the non-existence of a virus in a healthy host is of course demanding the impossible since proving that something doesn’t exist is impossible - even in theory!
Then you take it upon yourself to re-interpret Koch’s postulates. I pretty sure Koch did not refer to “virions” in his second postulate. So accept the virus in its natural form. You are insisting that to meet Koch postulate 2, the OB must first be dissolved outside of the host and the virions used separately to infect the insect. But this isn’t how the virus infection process occurs in nature… seems odd you insist on such an unnatural intervention to ‘prove’ a natural phenomenon.
One of the things about baculoviruses is the relative ease of quantifying the virus and determinant dose-response effects. They either kill the host larvae (a cadaver becomes a bag of progeny virus OBs - easy to check under the light microscope at 1000x mag. And no ethics committees for insects.and easy to control environment and sterility of food etc.
All of Koch’s postulates have been met for baculoviruses my friend.
You are making several contradictory claims here. You state that "there is no such thing as absolute proof of anything," yet you assert that causation has been "unequivocally demonstrated." If nothing can be proven absolutely, then how can you claim certainty about the existence of "baculoviruses" or their causative role in disease?
You also misrepresent my position. I never demanded "proof of the non-existence of a virus in a healthy host." Instead, I asked a straightforward question: Have occlusion bodies been observed in healthy insects? If they have, then their presence alone cannot be used as proof of causation. This is a fundamental issue in any scientific investigation—one cannot simply assume correlation equals causation.
Regarding Koch’s postulates, you dismiss my interpretation while failing to justify your own. Yes, Koch did not specifically mention “virions” in his original formulation, but the core logical principle remains: the supposed pathogen must be isolated in pure form before it can be tested for causative effects. You assert that the "virus" is both the occlusion body and the embedded virions together, yet you refuse to separate them for controlled testing. This raises a major issue: if you cannot separate the "virions" from the occlusion body, how can you be certain which component—if either—is responsible for the observed effects?
Moreover, your argument about an "unnatural intervention" is flawed. Science often requires controlled experiments that isolate variables to determine causation. If dissolving the OBs outside the host fundamentally alters their supposed "infectious" nature, then that itself is evidence against their causative role. The real issue here is that you are assuming the "OB-virion" structure is the "infectious" agent, rather than objectively testing whether that assumption holds.
Finally, your claim that the ease of quantifying OBs and observing dose-response effects satisfies Koch’s postulates is misleading. Koch’s postulates are about establishing causation, not merely observing effects. Without proper controls—such as testing whether pure "virions" alone, without OBs, can cause disease—you cannot claim to have satisfied the postulates.
How do you know that you and the world around you is not a construct of a Matrix-like algorithm?
As with any scientific endeavour, one undertakes a series of investigations and experiments, beginning with an hypothesis (a model) of how things really, what the mode of action, mechanisms at play are, controlling for external variables as far as one can and observing the outcomes, with careful recording the data. These investigations are the. repeated and the working model is adjusted according to the results.
In the case of NPVs, the virus is the OB + the virions embedded within it. Isolation & purification (eg. Centrifugation on sucrose gradients), quantification (haemocytometer counts to derive OB concentration per volume/ per dose), host-virus dose-response assays under controlled lab conditions; electron microscopy to visualise the polyhedra with embedded virions (nucleocapsids); DNA extraction & purification & analysis.
All this has been done repeatedly for baculoviruses, particularly the nucleopolyhedroviruses(NPVs) where cause & effect have been unequivocally demonstrated. Indeed, to the point where commercial NPV insecticides have been available & used in agriculture for non-chemical control of pest insects for decades in some cases. Agriculturalists part with their money for these products…
You can maintain your sophistry for as long as you like but your position is untenable.
You are begging the question by assuming from the outset that "baculoviruses" exist and cause disease, then interpreting the data through that lens. Your claim that OBs and "virions" together constitute a "virus" is merely redefining the term rather than proving causation.
The presence of OBs or DNA assumed to be "viral" does not establish causation. Have OBs been observed in healthy insects, or have they been absent in those claimed to be "infected?" If OBs are found in healthy insects or absent in some diseased ones, then their presence alone is insufficient to claim they cause disease.
The fact that NPV-based insecticides are sold and used in agriculture does not establish causation. Correlation (a reduction in pests after use) is not the same as proving the mechanism of action. Pesticides work through various means, and without rigorous controlled experiments, the assumption that NPV is the sole cause of the observed effects remains unproven.
Where is the proof that Koch’s postulates were properly fulfilled?
First Postulate: The microorganism (or in this case, the "virus") must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but not in healthy ones. If OBs are present in healthy insects or absent in some diseased ones, then this postulate remains unsatisfied.
Second Postulate: The "virions" must be isolated in pure form—separated from OBs and any potential contaminants. Without this purification, you cannot definitively prove that the assumed "virions"—and not something else within the OBs—are responsible for disease. If contaminants (e.g., host cell debris, toxins) are present, the causal link remains unproven.
Third Postulate: The isolated "virus" must be shown to cause the same disease when introduced into a healthy host. The studies you provided did not even attempt this, leaving this postulate entirely unfulfilled.
So, do the experiments meet Koch’s postulates in a controlled, falsifiable manner? No. You cannot claim that Koch’s postulates were satisfied. Your evidence is sorely lacking.
Mike, I think your confusion is in part due to semantics.
The word ‘virus’ in the case of nucleopolyhedroviruses (NPVs; family: Baculoviridae) refers to singly or doubly membrane bound rod-shaped virions within a proteinaceous structure called an occlusion body or polyhedral inclusion body (OB; PIB). The protein matrix comprising the OB is coded for by the virion. Thus an NPV virus = virions + occlusion body. The infection process involved the dissolution of the OB protein in the host larval mid gut to release the infecting virions.
The issue isn’t just semantics—it's the assumption that what you call "virions" are actual "infectious" agents rather than cellular debris or protein aggregates. You say the OB protein is "coded for by the virion," but where is the independent proof of that? Just because structures are consistently observed in certain conditions doesn't mean they function as assumed. How do you establish causation without presupposing the conclusion?
Additionally, where is the proof that "infection" by these so-called "virions" actually led to disease? Observing a correlation between exposure and certain effects doesn’t establish causation. Without controlled experiments demonstrating that these particles alone cause disease—while ruling out all other variables—this remains an assumption, not a scientific conclusion.
Hey Mike, thank you for you studious work. I am very fascinated with this subject of virology being bogus. however, i am a newcomer to the subject and a rank amatuer in the field of biology. can you recommend an article which could furnish a succinct, noob-friendly overview of the topic? im also curious what the implications of this falsehood mean in regards to what is actually happening when we get sick. if not viruses then what? thank you for your time and your writing.
You might have also mentioned the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. My personal favorite and germane to the virology 'expert' situation.
The Appeal to Authority fallacy occurs when someone relies solely on the opinion or testimony of an authority figure to support a claim, without providing sufficient evidence or logical reasoning to justify the claim. This fallacy is committed when:
* An authority figure is cited without demonstrating their expertise or relevance to the topic at hand.
* The authority’s opinion is presented as fact, without considering alternative perspectives or evidence.
* The argument relies solely on the authority’s reputation or prestige, rather than logical argumentation.
Thanks, Gerald. You are 100% correct that those defending virology love to appeal to authority. There are many fallacies that I could have included, but I wanted this article to remain short and relatively focused on the three fallacies that I feel are deeply embedded in the foundations of virology. Hopefully, this article will help pique the curiosity of those reading to really investigate and learn about logically fallacious reasoning. It is rewarding to understand the many fallacies in order to strengthen our arguments so we can avoid falling victim to them ourselves. 🙂
I think there has been a focused effort to make children less logical through Common Core and not teaching any logic courses whatsoever anymore. It's one of the biggest problems we face because kids are just taught to believe what they're told and not taught to figure anything out for themself. So much easier to control that way.
Yes. “He said it, so it must be true!”
Would students learning virology bother to look for source documents proving isolation of a said virus ? I think that they'd progress in the field much more quickly by relying on the authority of accredited virologists and not 'waste time' searching old documents.
But accredited virologists do not have a logical argument for the existence of their discipline. Students would indeed progress more quickly, but into an illusory study. Am I missing something?
I was thinking Hammond could be aware but unwilling to acknowledge his use of logical fallacies--intellectually dishonest, as you said--until the end, where he appeared to be unable to understand the meaning of his own words! What was he calling "childish?" Not your behavior--but his own! Yet he denied it. Or does he have that poor a grasp of grammar? Can someone really not grasp the meaning of their own words, when reading and re-reading it? Sometimes I wonder about the apparent dumbing-down of so many, maybe all of us to a degree. Education, trauma, vaccine injury, poisons in the food and water, maybe even 5G--it seems that at least some people's brains just don't work very well! Hammond is an example.
And thanks for the detailed exposition of these logical fallacies. It is so important to know about how they work and be able to recognize them literally all around us.
You are welcome, Betsy. I used to give Hammond the benefit of the doubt, but I believe it is willful ignorance (po$$ibly motivated) and his responses are heavily ego-driven. He cannot handle being shown to be wrong on anything, so he keeps trying to weasel his way out of being caught. Fortunately, the more Hammond attempts to do so, the worse it looks for him, and we gain valuable insight into the irrational mind. 😉
He argues exactly like my ex-wife, a sociopath. :lol:
They truly and completely believe that they are always right. They can argue that grass is blue and the sky is green while believing it's true just because they said it.
100% Betsy. One of my top takeaways from the scamdemic era was… I have given the average adult human way too much credit over my lifetime. Either, as I get smarter I am able to recognize this more.. or… I am in fact no smarter than I ever was and have been able (somehow) to avoid some the factors causing other people to get decidedly stupider.
In saying that I certainly hope I am not partaking in some type of logical fallacy 😉
germ theory is voodoo on most of the entire population. contagion is also voodoo. the power of narrative.
Mike, I think you're debating on their playing field...simply ask the dupe Hammond to show you when in history viruses were proven to exist outside a computer program....in other words, have him show evidence viruses have been shown to propagate in the tissues or blood of humans or animals...indirect in-vitro cell culture experiments are foundationally non-scientific/fraudulent, and to argue from that perspective is a losing hand IMO....
I have asked Hammond for that evidence. It is a losing battle trying to have an intellectually honest conversation with him. My goal this time was to use Jeremy as an example of how those who consider themselves rational thinkers can't even admit to or own their own fallacious reasoning while defending virology. Hopefully, it succeeded. 🙂
I think you proved it.
Maybe the wet ground and assumed rainfall is too complicated a concept for him.
May I suggest the following:
A a dog has four legs
B a cat has four legs
C a cat is therefore a dog.
Of course, Hammond might just respond this proves a dog is a cat, in which case he is truly lost to his world of syllogism. 😂
Need to have a ZOOM debate.....
Wow! I knew it might do my head in but I did put my big girl pants on and gave the Beyond Terrain interview a go before reading too much here. It had been a few months since I have watched one of Liev's videos and even longer since I have subjected myself to listen to JH for more than briefly. It was a struggle but somehow I made it to the end. I did feel defiled though, like after listening to MSM. He is a phenomenon for sure. I wonder if there is a special psychiatric diagnosis for someone with his depth of delusion plus having total confidence in the illogical nonsense he adamantly believes? He and Steve Kirsch compliment each other well.
I'd love to know what Liev was thinking about it and how much acting and restraint he needed to do and use. I trust he wasn't "taken in" at all. I couldn't have held it together in such a situation. I wanted to hear more challenging though but it would have been difficult to do and remain "respectful".
I'm horrified to know people here in NZ who think JH knows what he is talking about on this topic and it pains me greatly. I expect his total belief in himself and his fallacies could be convincing if one hadn't already unraveled that virology is total BS. If he ever lets in the truth his mind will seriously explode and that would be something to behold. Mean I know but it isn't like people (like you Mike) haven't tried to help him gently (at least at first), for years now. At least we can be grateful to him for providing so many great examples for you to help teach us about logical fallacies. Everyone has a purpose. :)
I hope the book is progressing well.
Hi Sue. You are much more patient than I am. I couldn't stomach listening to much of Hammonds interview. If I feel like torturing myself in the future, I may give the entire thing a listen. Jeremy definitely serves a purpose as an example of someone who lives in delusion of being logical while ignoring the fallacies that he has adopted as his own. He was the perfect case study. 😉
ChatGPT provides some courtroom drama based on part of your brilliant Substack.
Title: The Cross-Examination of John Franklin Enders
Act 1: Setting the Scene
The courtroom is a grand, imposing space, filled with the quiet hum of anticipation. At the center of the drama is the witness stand, where John Franklin Enders, an elderly virologist of great renown, takes his place. The prosecutor, an astute and sharp-minded figure, stands poised to begin the cross-examination. The judge, a stern and authoritative figure, presides over the court, with a jury carefully watching every move.
Act 2: The Opening Salvo
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you are a highly respected figure in the field of virology, credited with groundbreaking work that has shaped our understanding of viruses. Would you agree with that characterization?"
Enders: "Yes, I would. My work on the measles virus, among others, has been instrumental in advancing medical science."
Prosecutor: "Indeed, your work has had far-reaching implications. However, I must challenge the very foundation upon which your research stands. You see, Dr. Enders, your experiments, particularly the cell culture experiment you conducted in 1954, are based on a series of logical fallacies that have gone unchallenged for decades. Let’s start with the concept of 'begging the question.'"
Enders shifts slightly in his seat, his expression neutral, but the tension in the room is palpable.
Act 3: Unveiling the Fallacies
Prosecutor: "You assumed, without direct evidence, that the pathogenic virus you believed to be present in the patient’s fluids was the cause of the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) observed in your cultures. Isn't it true that this assumption is a classic example of the 'begging the question' fallacy?"
Enders: "The presence of CPE was consistent with viral infection, and it was a reasonable assumption based on the scientific knowledge of the time."
Prosecutor: "Reasonable? Or convenient? You never directly observed the virus before conducting your experiments. You simply assumed its existence and then used the very effects you attributed to it as proof of its existence. Dr. Enders, isn't it true that your entire experiment was based on circular reasoning?"
Enders: "I would disagree with that characterization. The CPE provided strong evidence of viral activity."
Prosecutor: "Strong evidence? Or merely a fallacious interpretation of the data? Let’s move to another fallacy embedded in your work—'affirming the consequent.' You concluded that because you observed CPE, a virus must have been present. Yet, as you admitted in your own writings, there are many other factors that could cause this effect. Isn’t it true that your conclusion was not only premature but also logically flawed?"
Enders: "Other factors could influence CPE, but the patterns we observed were consistent with viral infections."
Prosecutor: "Consistent? Or simply convenient to your hypothesis? You assumed causality where there was none. By attributing CPE solely to a virus, you ignored other possible causes—thus committing a 'false cause' fallacy, wouldn’t you say?"
Act 4: The Climactic Revelation
Enders hesitates, the confidence in his voice wavering slightly.
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you knew there were other explanations for the CPE—environmental factors, the composition of the culture medium, even the age of the cells. Yet, you chose to attribute this effect to a virus without definitive proof. Isn't it true that your entire experiment was built on a series of unfounded assumptions and logical errors?"
Enders: "The methods we used were the best available at the time."
Prosecutor: "But that does not absolve them of the logical fallacies they contained. By failing to account for these errors, your work has perpetuated a flawed understanding of virology, one that has influenced countless subsequent studies and medical practices. Dr. Enders, isn’t it possible that the entire field of virology, as it stands today, is built on a house of cards?"
Enders remains silent, his face etched with the weight of the prosecutor’s words.
Act 5: The Verdict
The courtroom is still, the jury and audience hanging on every word. The prosecutor steps back, having planted seeds of doubt not only in the jury’s mind but perhaps in the mind of John Franklin Enders himself. The judge’s gavel signals the end of the cross-examination, but the implications of what has been uncovered resonate long after the court is adjourned.
As the scene closes, the audience is left to ponder the foundation of modern virology and whether it stands on solid ground or if, as the prosecutor suggested, it is built on a fragile framework of logical fallacies.
Epilogue:
The drama of the courtroom is a microcosm of a larger debate that challenges the very foundations of medical science. The cross-examination of John Franklin Enders serves as a stark reminder that even the most respected scientific disciplines must be held accountable to the rigors of logical reasoning and empirical evidence.
Wow! That is absolutely wonderful! I'd definitely tune in for that courtroom drama. Thanks for sharing, Turfseer. 😁
Here's more:
Act 5: The Final Confrontation
Enders: "While I acknowledge the limitations of our early work, it laid important groundwork for later discoveries."
Prosecutor: "Groundwork? Or a foundation built on quicksand? Dr. Enders, your experiment may have opened doors, but did it not also create a false narrative that has misled generations of scientists? Consider this: if your assumptions about the measles virus were incorrect, what else might be wrong in the field of virology?"
Enders: "We've made significant progress since then. Our understanding has evolved."
Prosecutor: "Evolved? Or merely refined? The fundamental flaws in your original experiment remain unaddressed. Dr. Enders, don't you think it's time to confront the possibility that much of what we thought we knew about viruses might be based on shaky ground?"
Enders: "That's a drastic claim. We need to rely on empirical evidence."
Prosecutor: "Empirical evidence? Or circumstantial evidence masquerading as proof? Dr. Enders, isn't it time to reexamine the assumptions that have driven virology for decades? Perhaps it's not the viruses that need reevaluating, but our methods of studying them?"
Enders: "I understand your concerns, but we've made too many breakthroughs to dismiss everything."
Prosecutor: "Breakthroughs? Or false positives fueled by flawed methodology? Dr. Enders, don't you think it's time to take a hard look at the emperor's new clothes? What if the entire field of virology is built on a house of cards, propped up by circular reasoning and logical fallacies?"
Act 6: The Verdict
Judge: "Order in the court! Dr. Enders, do you have anything further to say in your defense?"
Enders: "My work was groundbreaking and has saved countless lives. I stand by my conclusions."
Prosecutor: "Saved lives? Or perpetuated a myth that has led to unnecessary suffering? Dr. Enders, isn't it time to acknowledge the flaws in your research and open the door to a new era of scientific inquiry?"
Judge: "Enough! The jury will now deliberate on the matter presented."
(The courtroom falls silent as the jury exits to consider the evidence.)
Epilogue
(After what seems like hours, the jury returns with a verdict)
Judge: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a decision?"
Juror Foreman: "Yes, Your Honor. We find the defendant, John Franklin Enders, guilty of perpetuating logical fallacies in his viral research."
(The courtroom erupts in gasps and murmurs)
Judge: "So ordered. Dr. Enders, your work, while groundbreaking in its time, contained fundamental flaws that have misled the scientific community for decades. You are hereby stripped of your Nobel Prize and all associated honors."
(The courtroom descends into chaos as the implications of this verdict become clear)
Prosecutor: "This verdict marks a turning point in scientific history. It's time to rebuild the foundations of virology on solid logic and empirical evidence."
Defense Attorney: "This is a travesty! Appeal!"
Judge: "The appeal process will begin immediately. In the meantime, let us hope that this verdict serves as a wake-up call to the scientific community to critically examine its assumptions and methodologies."
(As the courtroom continues to buzz with activity, the scene fades to black)
Excellent! 😁
I just love your mind.
Thank you! 😁❤️
Your article prompted me to brush up on logical fallacies , upon reading several articles this one caused me to chuckle as embedded within the article are several falsehoods regarding climate science and virology. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240709-seven-ways-to-spot-a-bad-argument
OMG, this guy would have failed the critical reasoning class I took in college, getting zeros on every assignment and test.
Also, you could have pointed out the constant ad hominem in almost every other tweet.
I imagine, that considering Hammond is just a “journalist” yet defends, denies and obfuscates, actual virologists whose livelihoods depend on these fallacies, would be impossible to convince.
Hey Mike, thank you for you studious work. I am very fascinated with this subject of virology being bogus. however, i am a newcomer to the subject and a rank amatuer in the field of biology. can you recommend an article which could furnish a succinct, noob-friendly overview of the topic? im also curious what the implications of this falsehood mean in regards to what is actually happening when we get sick. if not viruses then what? thank you for your time and your writing.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the kind words! I wrote this article as an introduction to the main points refuting virology.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/26/introduction-to-viroliegy/
In this written interview, I touch on various aspects of the fraud.
https://viroliegy.com/2024/02/02/virology-interview-with-lies-are-unbekoming/
Hopefully, these articles will help. Let me know if you have further questions. 🙂
Hope you’re not going to block me, Mike…I have asked you before to comment on the well-proven existence of invertebrate baculoviruses (family: baculoviridae),the observation & characterisation of which is beyond doubt, and whether the existence of these viruses in fact demonstrates the hypothesis that viruses do not exist as a fallacious? It is a relatively trivial thing to observe, isolate, purify and quantify the polyhedral inclusion bodies containing the rod shaped virions (Baculoviridea, NPVs) and then to conduct larval host infection assays to clearly demonstrate a iris dose-response effect. So if baculoviruses demonstrably exist and infect their hosts in a dose dependent manner under controlled laboratory conditions, doesn’t there existence undermine your silly attempts to convince people that viruses do not exist?
Please provide the foundational study where a "baculovirus" was purified and isolated directly from its host without culturing, identified via electron microscopy, and then introduced naturally to a healthy host—following the scientific method and satisfying Koch’s Postulates.
There are many, many published baculovirus characterisation studies that satisfy these criteria. An example search would be ‘ characterisation of a nucleopolyhedrovirus’ and you will find many results to wit:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022201105001060
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10647128_Characterization_of_Adoxophyes_honmai_single-nucleocapsid_nucleopolyhedrovirus_Morphology_structure_and_effects_on_larvae
These are just just two randomly selected papers from a search using the search term outlined above and it is a trivial exercise to cite many other such publications.
So where does this leave the ‘viruses don’t exist’ trope?
Your studies do not use purified and isolated "viral" particles. Instead, they utilize occlusion bodies (OBs), which are proteinaceous structures that are merely claimed to contain "viral" particles. OBs are not purified and isolated "virus" particles in the sense required by Koch’s postulates.
For the studies to satisfy Koch’s postulates, the "virus" would need to be isolated in a pure form—separated from host cell debris, OB structures, and other contaminants—and then demonstrated to cause disease in a healthy host. Neither study established pathogenicity in the so-called "infected" hosts. Thus, Koch's Postulates remain unsatisfied.
Well claim that now because I have pointed out the logical flaw in it. But that was what you wrote and its literal meaning was fairly clear. You were literally claiming no new symptoms means no new disease. You got found out. Again!
You have to be careful Grok, words matter…
Your inconsistencies have been exposed and it ought to be clear to the dispassionate reader that you apply different hurdles to be met for different scientific issues. This I think stems from a poor understanding of science and the ‘scientific method’. Assumptions are an indivisible part of science. Full stop. The scientific method attempts to control and test these but they are always there.
You are obviously relying on AI output for your thinking and mostly your written answers too. It is evident in your lack of nuance, inconsistency and attempts to accuse what you are guilty of - obfuscation and distraction.
Your arguments have more holes than Swiss cheese Mike/Grok.
You wrote:
"I explained why it does not logically follow that no new symptoms necessarily means no new virus."
This is getting tiresome repeatedly pointing out your strawman. You keep insisting that my statement meant something it didn’t, despite my repeated clarifications. Either you genuinely struggle with comprehension, which I am leaning towards, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting my words. My conclusion was based on the lack of unique or specific symptoms—something you’ve yet to refute. Instead, you keep shifting the conversation to avoid addressing that simple fact.
As for assumptions in science, yes, they exist—but they must be tested, not blindly accepted. That’s the difference between science and storytelling. You seem perfectly content with the latter.
Your words are quoted above. You can’t take them back. You claimed: “no new symptoms…thus no new disease”. I have explained why the second claim does not logically follow from the first. You are now attempting to obfuscate after your error in logic, using real world examples, has been laid bare.
If you are not going to own the words you write then so be it. But it is now difficult to put much weight on anything you write. Your inconsistency and lack of logic is revealed. Your position changes like the weather because it is based on a rather poor understanding of the subject (and science in general) and is therefore straightforward to expose.
Your entire schtick ‘viruses don’t exist’ is clownish. The evidence showing otherwise is published and readily available for anyone to read. It is clear not only do you have little knowledge of virology (certainly no empirical experience) and this seems to be the case for science in general. Moreover your lack of logical rigour, as the examples of the Moon & the tides, gravity, engines (in the exchanges above) has clearly laid bare.
We have yet to get to the bottom of your motives though.
Let me ask it directly again - are you being paid to promote the ‘viruses don’t exist’ trope? If so, who is paying and to what ends?
You’re just shifting the goalposts again. My original statement was a logical conclusion based on the premise that no new or unique symptoms were identified for "COVID." There is no new disease. I have not backtracked on this one bit. You have yet to demonstrate why that conclusion is invalid. Instead, you keep misrepresenting my words, pretending I claimed “no new symptoms means no new virus” when I clearly did not. Your refusal to engage with the actual argument—opting instead for strawmen and irrelevant distractions—shows that you have no real counterpoint.
As for virology, you keep insisting that the evidence is “readily available” without actually presenting any that meets the necessary scientific standards. Where is the evidence derived from the scientific method that satisfies Koch's Postulates? Where are the controlled experiment demonstrating a "virus" as the causal agent of disease without relying on assumption-laden methodologies? If the evidence is as clear as you claim, this should be trivial for you to produce. But instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks, vague appeals to authority, and now conspiracy-baiting by questioning my motives.
Your continued evasion only confirms that you have no substantive rebuttal. Genuine debate requires addressing arguments directly rather than misrepresenting them. As you continue to resort to logically fallacious tactics while avoiding the points I have made even though I asked for you to refrain from doing so, you have demonstrated that you are no longer worth my time.
You said (in your exchange withJeremy Hammond linked to above):
“Then you agree there are no new symptoms and/or specific symptoms associated with “COVID”, and that it can not be diagnosed clinically based on symptoms. Thus there is no new disease. 👍”
“Thus there is no new disease”.
That is quite different to “no basis for claiming a new disease” which you now claim you said.
Accuracy matters. Your original statements literally read that no new symptoms means no new disease.
First of all, there is a much broader clinical basis for establishing whether or not a new disease exists than just observing symptoms. This can have important treatment implications. In many people, in most years, seasonal flu and cold virus symptoms are often indistinguishable because the symptoms overlap to a great extent. Yet they are different diseases with different causal viruses and may require different clinical interventions. Antibody tests, molecular diagnostics are often needed to ascertain this.
Even two different flu viruses generally express the same characteristic symptoms in infected individuals early in the disease process but can have very different severities later in the process (survival versus death) as direct consequence of the novelty of a virus to the host immune system. A novel virus.
Grok isn’t very good with nuance is it?
You're still missing the point—or intentionally avoiding it.
My original statement, “Thus, there is no new disease,” was a conclusion drawn from the premise that there are no unique or specific symptoms to distinguish “COVID” from other known illnesses. That does not mean I was arguing that “no new symptoms means no new virus.” You continue to conflate the two despite my repeated clarifications. Are you having difficulty with reading and comprehension? If there are no new and unique signs or symptoms, there is no new disease. Claiming a disease is "new" solely because of a different presumed "pathogen" is scientifically unproven—it’s the same disease process under a different name.
As for your broader claim that a “new disease” can be established by methods other than symptoms, that is precisely the issue—virology relies on assumption-based techniques rather than direct evidence. "Antibody" tests and molecular diagnostics (like PCR) do not prove the existence of a new "pathogen;" they only detect genetic sequences or proteins that are assumed to belong to a “virus.” Without proper isolation, purification, and controlled experiments satisfying Koch’s Postulates, these methods amount to circular reasoning.
You also bring up “novel viruses” and "immune" response differences, but those arguments rest on the same flawed foundation—assuming a "virus" exists and is responsible for observed effects without first proving its independent existence. If you want to defend that claim, start with the basic foundational evidence which has been requested of you repeatedly: Where is the direct evidence of isolation and purification of this so-called “novel virus” without reliance on cell culture artifacts or indirect inference? Where was it proven "pathogenic" with evidence derived from the scientific method that satisfied Koch’s Postulates?
As for Grok, I provide one example from a conversation to highlight the flaws in your reasoning, and you immediately assume I’m using it to write my responses? That’s quite the leap. But it appears that illogical leaps is par for the course with you.
Third sentence Should have read There may have been…
Viral spike protein
Btw Mike, just for the record, I take it you don’t consider that coronaviruses exist? That the virus referred to as SARS COVID 2 did not exist?
What about the oral spike protein? The protein coded for in the mRNA injection? Is the spike protein a real thing or just make believe?
I have plenty of articles on the fraud of "SARS-COV-2" as well as the other "coronaviruses." Please feel free to read them.
1. https://viroliegy.com/category/sars-cov-2/
2. https://viroliegy.com/category/coronaviruses/
My goodness! Great bedtime reading! Will have the most challenging insomniac out like a light in no time!
I couldn’t get through to much but my first impression was this stuff is presented like a glossy brochure seeking to entertain and sell a message rather than a serious review of the claims made & the evidence/ lack thereof for and against.
Let me be clear as to my leanings. IMO the entire scam, the COVID plandemic, was a pre-planned crime against humanity. The perpetrators and their facilitators ought to be brought to justice and the penalty should be proportional to the crime of pre-meditated mass murder and financial fraud.
That said I remain largely agnostic as to whether there was a novel virus, called SARS COVID 2. I have seen nothing convincing either way. Nothing has changed since reading some of your stuff though perhaps organising it in a shorter, less chatty form form, perhaps with key points and links to evidence would help a lot. To see if there is anything of substance in your arguments. There are certainly plenty of logical flaws in your presentation but that seems to be a trademark of your writing.
Will try and get to the spike protein links later today. Should be entertaining!
You claim to be “agnostic” on the existence of "SARS-COV-2" but also declare the "COVID-19" event a “pre-planned crime against humanity.” That contradiction is telling—if you truly lack conviction on the "virus’s" existence, how do you justify the claim that a "virus" was used to commit mass fraud? If there’s no solid evidence for a novel "virus," then the crime wasn’t just a pandemic hoax, but a fundamental deception about the very nature of disease.
You also state that my writing contains “plenty of logical flaws” but fail to identify a single one. If my arguments were as flawed as you claim, you should have no trouble pointing out specific errors. Instead, you resort to vague dismissals and condescension, which only suggests that you’re unwilling or unable to engage with the substance of the argument.
As for formatting, I’m happy to provide clear key points and references—but that won’t change the underlying issue. If you actually care about determining the truth, you need to engage with the logic and evidence rather than retreating behind rhetoric. So, let’s be clear: what specific piece of evidence or reasoning would convince you one way or the other? If you can’t answer that, then your “agnosticism” is just an excuse to avoid taking a position.
There is no contradiction. Being ‘agnostic’ on the existence or otherwise of a novel virus (in the absence of compelling evidence either way) in no way contradicts my opinion that the “COVID 19” event was pre-planned for which there is clear evidence eg. ‘Event 201’. There have been one or more previously known viruses utilised in the event. There may even have been no virus yet the ‘pandemic event’ (the lockdowns, masks, mandates, lies & propaganda, fake make-shift morgues etc.etc.) was nevertheless pre-planned.
Another example of your flawed logicMike. One opinion does not logically flow from another.
Re the logical flaws in your links. Here’s one - your exchange with Richard Hammond. You appear to logically tie the fact that there are no unique symptoms to there being no new “disease”. Here your use of the word ‘disease’ is a poor choice because disease can refer both to the infectious process or separately to the symptoms. It seems you are using it to hedge your bets. Either way it doesn’t logically flow:
it could be the case that there is a novel virus (not previously identified) that elicits the same symptoms as a previously known virus but the severity of those symptoms may differ radically (influenza viruses and coronaviruses provide frequent examples). It could also be the case that a unique virus may exist that result in symptoms (‘disease’ in your parlance) which as a whole are shared across several types of virus but uniquely associated as a total set with the new virus.
Here’s the offending exchange:
https://i0.wp.com/viroliegy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/49a7b2aa-eb2e-40bd-9a5c-01647f5aaeea_500x1446.webp?resize=500%2C1446&ssl=1
You claim to be agnostic about the existence of a novel "virus," yet you simultaneously assert that one or more known "viruses" were used in the event. That is contradictory—either you believe a "virus" was involved or you do not. If you are truly agnostic, then you must also accept the possibility that no "virus" was involved at all.
Your attempt to argue that a new "virus" could exist despite no unique symptoms does not refute my point. If the symptoms are not unique, then the disease is not new—just a variation of existing conditions. You assume the presence of a novel "virus" but fail to provide direct scientific evidence of its existence. This is circular reasoning, where you assume the "virus" exists to explain the symptoms, then use the symptoms to justify the "virus’s" existence.
Instead of addressing the scientific foundation for proving the existence of a "virus," you resort to semantics and hand-waving about "totality of evidence." If you want to argue for the existence of a novel "virus," start by demonstrating its direct isolation and purification—not just inferred associations.
And the viral,spike protein? Does it exist? Is it a thing?
Did the mRNA injections contain mRNA sequences for any kind of protein?
I have already addressed the spike protein.
1. https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/12/the-spike-protein/
2. https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/20/the-elephant-and-the-spike/
Last para should read irises “don’t exist”
Again, you do not get to decide what constitutes and what does not constitute a virus. Let the evidence speak for itself. The virus exists in its natural state as an occlusion body and has evolved to function in that assemblage or form.
The evidence is presented and is compelling. I will leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself.
Your entire case rests on the unscientific position that a nucleopolyhedrovirus (NPV) is only its naked nucleocapsids (virions) and everything else is superfluous and/or a contaminant. But this is wrong headed thinking. The virus is only found in its OB form and has evolved this morphology to maximise its persistence, transmission & infection of its host.
Once again, the occlusion body (OB) is the fundamental unit of the NPV virus. The natural infection process for NPVs requires the virus to be in its complete form (the occluded body). To demand that the virus be deconstructed and tested as its separate components is like demanding an internal combustion engine is stripped down and each component tested for its power output and when no output is found then concluding the internal combustion engine is make believe!
No. Your argument is not scientific, it is fatuous. But then your entire thesis that viruses do exist is silly in the extreme and I can only assume you and your like minded cohort are paid trolls to muddy the waters in the wake of the COVID plandemic. It makes sense to me that the perpetrators would seek confound matters in this way since if there wasn’t a virus then there wasn’t a crime right?
You keep repeating that I "don’t get to decide" what constitutes a "virus," but that is irrelevant to the core issue: your claim must still be subjected to falsifiable testing. You assert that OBs are the "fundamental unit" of NPVs, yet you evade the necessity of experimentally demonstrating that the "virions" alone, independent of the OB, can or cannot initiate "infection." If the OB is truly essential to "pathogenesis," then its role must be tested separately, not merely assumed.
Your combustion engine analogy is flawed. An engine is a functional assembly of interdependent parts, but this is known because the function of each part has been tested separately. If an assertion is made that fuel alone, or a spark plug alone, is sufficient for power output, it must be tested in isolation. You claim OBs are integral, yet the independent "infectious" capacity of the assumed "virions" remains untested under controlled conditions.
Your attempt to dismiss this as "silly in the extreme" or wave it away with conspiracy rhetoric does nothing to address the logical failure at the heart of your argument. If the evidence were as compelling as you claim, you would simply present the direct, falsifiable demonstration of causation. Instead, you lean on assertions, misrepresent my position, and attempt to poison the well with accusations of trolling. That does not strengthen your case—it exposes its weakness.
No, it is your thinking that is flawed. You don’t need to know anything of HOW the engine works in order to know (prove) that it does work as claimed. This truth is borne out countless times every any time someone gets in their car and drives somewhere.
Whether or not the nucleocapsid component of the virus is infectious in its ‘naked’ state might help explain how the virus infects its host (Orit might not) and is a worthy question but It is not the central question as whether or not the virus causes the observed disease (effect).
You bang on about falsification but this is often not possible and neither is it necessary in any case. The evidence is multi-pronged. Observation & characterisation of the virus OBs by microscopy, their separation and purification, their quantification & dosing OBs,, dose-response infection assays with controls under controlled conditions; observation & analysis of the diseased host and the progeny virus produced. Isolation & purification of the viral DNA and various in-depth analyses….
These data are provided in the links and provides unambiguous ‘proof’ that NPV viruses exist.
This is getting a bit stale. You are wedded to your position and cannot be moved from it. So be it. I have provided the links to the evidence for baculovirus NPVs as viruses that cause disease in their hosts. There is a large volume of this material that can be easily found and perused and I will leave it to the reader to decide if the case is ‘proven’.
You just admitted that whether the nucleocapsid alone is "infectious" is a "worthy question." That’s exactly the point—if the OB is truly integral to "pathogenesis," that role must be tested, not assumed. Your argument boils down to: "we see OBs, we assume they are required, and we don't test otherwise." That is not science.
Your engine analogy fails again. Yes, you don’t need to know how an engine works to see that it does—but only because its function is demonstrable. If someone claims that gasoline alone makes a car move, we don’t just take their word for it; we test the claim. You refuse to test whether the OB is essential or incidental to "infection," instead waving it away as "not the central question." That is pure assumption.
In any valid scientific experiment aiming to establish causation, the independent variable must be isolated from other potential confounding factors. If OBs are claimed to be an essential part of the "virus," then "virions" must be tested separately, free from OBs, to determine if they alone can cause disease. Without this separation, the experiment fails to meet the basic standards for demonstrating cause and effect. Instead, it merely assumes that the "OB-virion" complex is the causative agent without isolating which component is responsible. That is not scientific proof—it is circular reasoning
You also claim that falsification is "not necessary." That’s an outright rejection of the scientific method. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, it is not science—it is dogma. Your reliance on assertion, repetition, and appeals to "a large volume of material" without direct falsifiable proof only reinforces that you have no controlled experiment demonstrating OB-independent "infection." If this evidence existed, you would simply present it. But you haven’t, because it doesn’t.
Again no. Put away your Grok and think for yourself. That way you might sound less like a pedantic lawyer and more like a scientific thinker which I very much doubt you’re capable of. The role of the nucleocapsid component of the virus in the infection process is NOT the central question in determining the existence of the virus. The virus organism in its entire assemblage is the object of investigation and on that basis I have provided the published evidence that NPV viruses exist as a disease causing organism. The case is proven. There is no necessity to prove that components of the virus are independently capable of infection.
I will say it one more time the virus for an NPV is the polyhedral inclusion body (PIB) also called the occlusion body (OB). That is the infectious unit. The virus. There is NO requirement to show HOW it is infectious in order to show that it is infectious.
The engine analogy is apt. No pre-knowledge of the engine’s construction, components or their mechanism of action is required to prove that the engine does what is claimed it can do: generate mechanical energy. Drive.
You FAILED again. Rather than simply regurgitate some flawed AI output, try and think for yourself Mike…this isn’t a computer game.
Science is not man-made law. Scientific claims stand or fall on their merit. On the totality of the evidence provided. There is no methodological hurdle or legal box that must be ticked in order for a scientific claim or observation to be confirmed. ‘Flasifiability’ as a component of a proof is fine if this is possible. In many cases, in science, it is not possible.
For example, if I claim the Moon’s gravitational pull on the Earth is responsible for the tidal effects we observe- how are going to falsify that?
You cannot.
Deconstructing a virus may provide additional information but it is not required to prove the virus exists. In fact, if the nucleocapsids were isolated and no infection occurred what would be your conclusion Mike? There could be several reasons why no infection was observed. The experiment would not be conclusive in any sense. For the whole, intact virus the evidence of causation is provided bynthe totality & repeatability of the material provided. This has been done for NPVs and demonstration of cause (virus) and effect (disease) is conclusive and unassailable.
Which is why your final resort AIndrivel & word play, sprinkled with appeal to authority - which you clearly don’t understand properly in any case.
You keep insisting that the OB is the "virus" and that its role in "infection" does not need to be tested. That is pure assertion, not science. Whether the OB is integral or merely a protective structure is exactly what needs to be determined, and refusing to test this distinction only shows the weakness of your position.
Your engine analogy remains flawed. No one disputes that engines produce mechanical energy because their function is directly observable. But if someone claimed that an entire car, including the frame, seats, and tires, was necessary to produce that energy, we wouldn’t just assume it—we would test whether the engine alone was sufficient. That’s the equivalent of what I’m arguing here. You assume the OB is essential without testing whether the "virions" alone can cause disease. That’s not science; that’s dogma.
Falsification is not optional—it is fundamental to the scientific method. A hypothesis that cannot be tested in a way that could potentially disprove it is not a scientific claim but an unfalsifiable belief. Without falsification, there is no way to distinguish between competing explanations or to correct errors. Scientific progress depends on the ability to rule out incorrect hypotheses through controlled, repeatable experimentation.
You claim falsification is unnecessary, yet this contradicts the very nature of scientific inquiry. If a hypothesis cannot be tested in a way that allows for the possibility of refutation, then it is insulated from scrutiny and becomes indistinguishable from dogma. This is precisely the problem with your reasoning regarding OBs—you assume their necessity without subjecting that assumption to a valid falsification test.
In virology, if a proposed "viral" agent is claimed to cause disease, the appropriate falsification test would involve isolating the presumed "infectious" particles and determining whether they alone are sufficient to produce the claimed effect. If disease only occurs when additional components, such as OBs, are present, then the assumption that the "virions" alone are the causal agents would be disproven. Refusing to conduct such an experiment reveals a commitment to preserving the assumption rather than subjecting it to genuine scientific scrutiny.
You ask what would happen if isolated "virions" failed to cause "infection." The answer is simple: if a valid experiment showed that only OB-containing preparations caused disease while purified "virions" did not, then it would suggest that the OB plays a necessary role—but you refuse to conduct that experiment. More importantly, such a result would disprove the assumption that the particles identified as "virions" are the actual "pathogenic" agents. If they were truly responsible for causing disease, they should be capable of doing so independently. Your refusal to test this distinction exposes the circular nature of your reasoning: you assume the OB is essential and then declare no need to test the assumption.
Science does not rest on sheer volume of publications or repetition of assumptions. It rests on controlled, falsifiable experiments. You have no controlled experiment demonstrating OB-independent infection, nor do you have a falsifiable standard to distinguish between correlation and causation. That is why your claim remains unproven, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
On the contrary, providing the published work showing the isolation, purification & visualisation of a virus with subsequent demonstration of the purified & isolated virus in re-infecting healthy hosts, in a dose-dependent manner, under controlled conditions with final confirmation of the progeny virus does indeed prove the existence of the virus. Refer to the linked publications.
The problem for you is in accepting that the occlusion body is part and parcel of the virus. The virus exists in nature in this form & is always observed in this way. The OB protein is in integral part of the virus assemblage in the same way that the coat protein of a plant virus is an integral part of the plant virus. It is not a contaminant as you incorrectly persist in maintaining.
I understand that pursuing this approach is the only way you can to keep your argument alive since all requirements for ‘proving’ causing & effect for baculoviruses have been met & I have provided the published work as you originally requested.
So your last resort is to argue that the OB protein is not part of the virus and that the virions must be shown to be independently infectious. But this position is untenable. Your understanding of the functions of the polyhedrin protein in the viral,infection process is less than complete - wouldn’t you say? You simply assert its role is the same as the integument surrounding a spore and by inference that it has no role in the virus’ infection process. You have no grounds on which to make such bold assertion.
Previously I raised the example of plant viruses in which the viral coat protein is known to directly interactwith the host cell genome during infection. This may well be true for baculoviruses. We do know that the NPV viruses are always found in this form we do have to treat the ‘virus’ as the complete assemblage of occlusion body protein with embedded virions.
When the virus is viewed as an assemblage of protein & nucleocapsids (cf. plant virus) Koch’s postulates are fully satisfied as per the vast catalogue of published work of which I provided 2 randomly selected examples.
Your argument that the OB is not the virus is your last resort to stave off the inevitable and is without any scientific merit.
You are conflating observation with proof of causation. That something is consistently found in a certain form does not establish it as the causative agent of disease, nor does it exempt it from falsifiable testing. Your entire argument hinges on an assumption—that the occlusion body and its contents must be treated as a single "infectious" unit. But this is precisely what requires demonstration, not assumption.
Koch’s Postulates are not satisfied merely by correlating the presence of OBs with disease or by showing replication. The key missing element is controlled, falsifiable testing that isolates the alleged causative agent from potential confounders. Without this, your claim remains unverified. Please refer to the previously attached Grok conversation on how you are mistaken about the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates.
You also misrepresent my position. I did not claim OBs are mere "contaminants" but rather that their role must be tested independently to determine if they are essential to "pathogenesis" or merely protective, and to separate the "virions" and rule out any potential contaminants in the OBs. This is no different from distinguishing an inert capsule from the bacteria it surrounds. If your claim were so ironclad, there would be no need for evasion or hand-waving appeals to the "vast catalogue of published work"—you would simply present the controlled, falsifiable demonstration that the "virions" alone, independent of the OB, cause disease. That evidence does not exist.
There is no ambiguity as to what constitutes the ‘virus’for baculoviruses. My statement (declaration)is based on a long history of repeated observation & documentation in the published literature employing both light microscopy & transmission electron microscopy.
Your argument that OBs must be divided into their constituent parts before proving one part in isolation can or cannot initiate an infection is wrong-headed and unscientific. It is somewhat analagous toinsisting the nucleus of a cell be separated from its cytoplasm cell membrane in order to prove that the nucleus can live and function normally as a ‘cell’.. Your argument is invalid.
The occlusion body (OB) is the viral unit for a nucleopolyhedroviruses (the clue is in the name!).
Your analogy to a cell nucleus is flawed. A nucleus is an integral part of a living cell, which maintains its own metabolic functions. A "virus," on the other hand, is only assumed to be an "infectious" agent that hijacks a host's machinery. The proper analogy would be whether a spore’s protective shell should be considered the "microbial unit" rather than the spore inside. Just as the spore, not the shell, is the biologically relevant agent, the "virions"—not the OB—would need to be established as the causative agent of "infection."
You claim there is "no ambiguity" in defining OBs as the "viral" unit, but this is an assertion, not a demonstration. If OBs are truly the "infectious" agent, then they should be capable of initiating "infection" without dissolving and releasing "virions." Have OBs themselves been demonstrated to enter cells and replicate, or is it the "virions" released from them? If the latter, then your definition is based on convention, not causation.
Simply citing published literature that assumes OBs are the "viral" unit does not resolve the issue. The question remains: where is the controlled, falsifiable demonstration that OBs—and not just the "virions" they release—are necessary and sufficient to cause disease? You have yet to provide this evidence.
As you are having difficulty understanding logic and what is required to satisfy Koch’s Postulates, here is a conversation with Grok to help demonstrate where you are going wrong. Fortunately, AI is capable of recognizing flaws in its reasoning—unlike you.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/jp3GLOhIWmBlMZP7yRE8vRg5F
There is no circularity.
I will say it one more time: in the case of NPVs the ‘virus’ is the occlusion body containing the virions. The OB is the viral unit. I care not whether that confounds your pedantic word games.
I have linked two random published papers isolating, purifying and visualising the viruses from naturally infected hosts, with the viral inoculum used to infect healthy host large in a dose-dependent manner. Koch’s postulates have been met for baculoviruses. DNA from the virions was,subsequently extracted and purified and analysed according to standard protocols to establish the genetic relatedness of these nucleopolyhedroviruses viruses with other baculoviruses.
There is a large catalogue of similar published work for this family of VIRUSES and I have provided search terms to allow readers to easily find many other published virus characterisation studies.
You come across as more of a wordsmith than a scientific thinker Mike.
What’s your skin in this game? Why spend so much time pushing this ‘no virus’ nonsense?
Are you being paid to post this crap?
There is a huge catalogue of published work
Declaring that "the OB is the viral unit" is not an argument—it's an assertion. You say there is no circularity, yet you define the "virus" as OBs containing "virions," assume they are the causative agent of disease, and then claim to prove causation by showing their presence and replication. That’s begging the question.
Linking published papers that assume the same premise does not demonstrate causation—especially if those studies fail to account for confounding factors or satisfy Koch’s Postulates in a controlled, falsifiable manner. If fulfilling Koch’s Postulates is as straightforward as you claim, then it should be trivial to provide an example where the alleged "pathogen"—isolated in its pure form and free from OBs or other contaminants—causes disease under controlled conditions. Where is this evidence?
As for "word games," precision in language is necessary when evaluating scientific claims. If you can't define what constitutes a "virus" without shifting definitions to suit convenience, that's a problem. Instead of engaging with the core issue—whether OBs and "virions" have been independently verified as the cause of disease—you resort to ad hominems. That’s not science; that’s deflection.
Mike, it seems we have now reached the domain of pointless repetition. I have answered each of your points above but the real issue I think is that you are so wedded to the untenable position that viruses do not exist, that no amount of evidence will sway you from it.
Im afraid you don’t get to unilaterally decide what constitutes the ‘virus’. The virus defines its own natural form & assemblage - for NPVs this structure is referred to as an occlusion body (OB) which is a micron sized polyhedral shaped object composed of a crystalline proteinaceous matrix encapsulating singly or multiply enveloped rod shaped virions which contain the virus’ genetic material in the form of double stranded DNA.
And neither do you get to redefine Koch’s postulates (these were formulated for bacteria and other microscopic pathogens btw - viruses were unknown to Koch) in order to arbitrate the proof of their existence or otherwise. The reader will decide whether he or she is convinced by the evidence presented above.
I have provided a few links to scholarly publications and search terms to generate such links that cover a large body of published material on baculoviruses as well-studied examples of the self-replicating, disease causing organisms known as viruses.
You keep asserting that NPVs “define their own natural form” without addressing the critical point: definitions do not establish causation. Declaring that OBs “are the virus” and assuming they cause disease is a circular argument. If causation is the claim, then it must be demonstrated experimentally, not taken as a given.
As for Koch’s Postulates, dismissing them as only applicable to bacteria is an evasion. It also contradicts what many sources—including the NIH, CDC, WHO, The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, and the American Association of Immunologists—state: that Koch’s postulates are foundational in establishing causation for "infectious agents," including "viruses."
https://viroliegy.com/2024/10/18/the-chain-of-causation/
The principles remain valid: a supposed "pathogen" must be demonstrably responsible for disease, isolated in pure form, and capable of reproducing the disease in a controlled system. If you cannot meet these criteria, then you are merely asserting rather than proving causation.
You also attempt to shift the burden of proof, implying that skepticism of your claims is equivalent to an immovable bias. But skepticism is warranted when claims rely on assumption rather than rigorous falsification. If the evidence were as undeniable as you claim, there would be no need for dismissive rhetoric or appeals to the “reader’s decision.” The fact remains that no study using the scientific method has satisfied Koch’s Postulates for any particles claimed to be "viruses."
You can claim that I don’t “get to decide” what a "virus" is, which I have not done, but neither do you get to dictate that assumptions should be treated as conclusions. The question remains: where is the controlled, falsifiable demonstration that OBs and "virions"—independently of other confounding factors—are the causative agents of disease? This evidence does not exist.
1. Well I suppose I ought to have qualified the term “unequivocal” as being as close to certainty as possible while excluding semantic gymnastics
2. The presence of OBs in “healthy” insects would not be evidence of non-causation. There will always be a minimum quantity of OBs required to establish and sustain an infection. The age & size of the host, ambient temperature, pH, interaction with of other pathogens, immune status, individual susceptibility are just a few of the factors that likely determine whether or not OBs can successfully establish an infection in a host. This is true for all pathogens & hosts. Lethal dose response assays seek to quantify the dose of OBs necessary to cause death of a given percent of the test population.
Determining whether a host larva is “infected” uses death as the end-point. The host dies or it survives. This does not of course exclude sub-lethal infections but showing such an outcome is far more difficult. the dead larva is basically a bag full of progeny OBs and it is trivial to confirm this under a light microscope. It is also trivial to purify & quantify the progeny OBs and then use these to re-infect healthy larvae under controlled conditions to establish the lethal dose response for that virus.
3. Why do you insist that virions must be separated from the OB prior to inoculation? The virus is the entire structure of OB + virions. That is the natural virus assemblage. The OB protein appears to play a largely protective role for the virions but perhaps it plays a bigger (unknown) role in the infection process… The coat proteins of plant viruses appear to interact directly with the host cell genome for example… so we should treat then as a whole for the purpose of establishing cause & effect. Not to do so seems counter-logical and introduces unnecessary confounders and doesn’t get us closer to establishing causation or otherwise. You could inactivate a sample of virus (say with UV radiation) and compare to an untreated sample (control) to help establish cause & effect but that’s not really what you’re suggesting…
4. Controls are always necessary in any demonstration of cause & effect. Of course. Lethal dose response assays always need to be done with negative controls. Your point seems largely hand-waving. The size of OBs (approx 1 micron diameter) makes it straightforward to purify & count OBs, inoculate known quantities of OBs, to isolate progeny OBs from an infected larva, purify, observe via microscopy, and repeat. To then extract DNA and sequence/ analyse to determine genetic relatedness to other baculoviruses.
This can and has been done countless times in vivid and of course in vitro (cells) and baculoviruses fully characterised and published. I have provided two example publications and provided the search term to find many, many more….
Baculoviruses demonstrably exist.
.
1. Qualifying “unequivocal” as merely “as close to certainty as possible” reinforces my point—your claims about causation are based on assumption, not definitive proof. Certainty in science requires falsifiable evidence, not just repetition of observations interpreted through a predetermined framework.
2. You claim that the presence of OBs in “healthy” insects would not disprove causation because there’s a minimum threshold required for "infection." But this is an implicit admission that OBs alone are insufficient to establish causation—other variables must be accounted for. If OBs can be present in “uninfected” insects, then their presence alone cannot be taken as proof of disease causation. Your argument essentially moves the goalpost by introducing ad hoc explanations (e.g., host susceptibility, environmental factors) to account for inconsistencies rather than testing whether OBs are the true causative agent.
3. You ask why "virions" should be separated from OBs for causation testing. The answer is simple: because proper experimental controls require isolating variables to determine their individual effects. If you claim the "OB-virion" complex is the "infectious" unit, then it must be demonstrated that neither component alone is responsible for the observed effects. Without isolating the "virions" from the OBs, you cannot determine whether the observed pathology is due to the "virions," the OB matrix, contaminants, or some combination thereof. Your own speculation that the OB matrix might play an unknown role further underscores the problem—you are assuming causation without eliminating alternative explanations.
4. You mention UV inactivation as a control, but this does not address the core issue. If the "infection" process depends on the "OB+virion" structure, then the logical next step would be to test whether OBs alone (without viable "virions") cause any pathology. This is a basic step in controlled experimentation: isolating components and testing them separately. Simply observing that OBs correlate with disease does not establish causation.
5. Your argument that "baculoviruses" have been repeatedly “characterized” through genetic sequencing and microscopy is another begging the question fallacy. Observing OBs, sequencing DNA, and documenting correlations with disease does not establish causation. You are assuming that the presence of DNA or OBs proves the existence of a "pathogenic agent" without rigorous testing of alternative explanations.
The fundamental issue remains: if OBs can be found in healthy insects, then their presence alone is insufficient evidence for causation. If the "virions" have not been isolated and tested separately, then their role remains unproven. If alternative explanations have not been ruled out through controlled experiments, then the claim of causation is unfounded.
Again, can you provide experimental evidence that:
1. OBs are never found in healthy insects?
2. Purified "virions" alone, without the OB matrix, can cause the same disease?
3. The assumed "infection" process has been demonstrated without reliance on circular reasoning?
If not, your argument remains speculative rather than definitive.
No. As I pointed-out, there is no such thing as absolute proof of anything. Even of your own existence and the world around you. Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” is not proof. One can never, under any circumstances, discount the possibility that some unknown factor X was not in fact responsible for the observed effect Y.
That you demand proof of the non-existence of a virus in a healthy host is of course demanding the impossible since proving that something doesn’t exist is impossible - even in theory!
Then you take it upon yourself to re-interpret Koch’s postulates. I pretty sure Koch did not refer to “virions” in his second postulate. So accept the virus in its natural form. You are insisting that to meet Koch postulate 2, the OB must first be dissolved outside of the host and the virions used separately to infect the insect. But this isn’t how the virus infection process occurs in nature… seems odd you insist on such an unnatural intervention to ‘prove’ a natural phenomenon.
One of the things about baculoviruses is the relative ease of quantifying the virus and determinant dose-response effects. They either kill the host larvae (a cadaver becomes a bag of progeny virus OBs - easy to check under the light microscope at 1000x mag. And no ethics committees for insects.and easy to control environment and sterility of food etc.
All of Koch’s postulates have been met for baculoviruses my friend.
You are making several contradictory claims here. You state that "there is no such thing as absolute proof of anything," yet you assert that causation has been "unequivocally demonstrated." If nothing can be proven absolutely, then how can you claim certainty about the existence of "baculoviruses" or their causative role in disease?
You also misrepresent my position. I never demanded "proof of the non-existence of a virus in a healthy host." Instead, I asked a straightforward question: Have occlusion bodies been observed in healthy insects? If they have, then their presence alone cannot be used as proof of causation. This is a fundamental issue in any scientific investigation—one cannot simply assume correlation equals causation.
Regarding Koch’s postulates, you dismiss my interpretation while failing to justify your own. Yes, Koch did not specifically mention “virions” in his original formulation, but the core logical principle remains: the supposed pathogen must be isolated in pure form before it can be tested for causative effects. You assert that the "virus" is both the occlusion body and the embedded virions together, yet you refuse to separate them for controlled testing. This raises a major issue: if you cannot separate the "virions" from the occlusion body, how can you be certain which component—if either—is responsible for the observed effects?
Moreover, your argument about an "unnatural intervention" is flawed. Science often requires controlled experiments that isolate variables to determine causation. If dissolving the OBs outside the host fundamentally alters their supposed "infectious" nature, then that itself is evidence against their causative role. The real issue here is that you are assuming the "OB-virion" structure is the "infectious" agent, rather than objectively testing whether that assumption holds.
Finally, your claim that the ease of quantifying OBs and observing dose-response effects satisfies Koch’s postulates is misleading. Koch’s postulates are about establishing causation, not merely observing effects. Without proper controls—such as testing whether pure "virions" alone, without OBs, can cause disease—you cannot claim to have satisfied the postulates.
How do you know that you and the world around you is not a construct of a Matrix-like algorithm?
As with any scientific endeavour, one undertakes a series of investigations and experiments, beginning with an hypothesis (a model) of how things really, what the mode of action, mechanisms at play are, controlling for external variables as far as one can and observing the outcomes, with careful recording the data. These investigations are the. repeated and the working model is adjusted according to the results.
In the case of NPVs, the virus is the OB + the virions embedded within it. Isolation & purification (eg. Centrifugation on sucrose gradients), quantification (haemocytometer counts to derive OB concentration per volume/ per dose), host-virus dose-response assays under controlled lab conditions; electron microscopy to visualise the polyhedra with embedded virions (nucleocapsids); DNA extraction & purification & analysis.
All this has been done repeatedly for baculoviruses, particularly the nucleopolyhedroviruses(NPVs) where cause & effect have been unequivocally demonstrated. Indeed, to the point where commercial NPV insecticides have been available & used in agriculture for non-chemical control of pest insects for decades in some cases. Agriculturalists part with their money for these products…
You can maintain your sophistry for as long as you like but your position is untenable.
Viruses very clearly do exist.
You are begging the question by assuming from the outset that "baculoviruses" exist and cause disease, then interpreting the data through that lens. Your claim that OBs and "virions" together constitute a "virus" is merely redefining the term rather than proving causation.
The presence of OBs or DNA assumed to be "viral" does not establish causation. Have OBs been observed in healthy insects, or have they been absent in those claimed to be "infected?" If OBs are found in healthy insects or absent in some diseased ones, then their presence alone is insufficient to claim they cause disease.
The fact that NPV-based insecticides are sold and used in agriculture does not establish causation. Correlation (a reduction in pests after use) is not the same as proving the mechanism of action. Pesticides work through various means, and without rigorous controlled experiments, the assumption that NPV is the sole cause of the observed effects remains unproven.
Where is the proof that Koch’s postulates were properly fulfilled?
First Postulate: The microorganism (or in this case, the "virus") must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but not in healthy ones. If OBs are present in healthy insects or absent in some diseased ones, then this postulate remains unsatisfied.
Second Postulate: The "virions" must be isolated in pure form—separated from OBs and any potential contaminants. Without this purification, you cannot definitively prove that the assumed "virions"—and not something else within the OBs—are responsible for disease. If contaminants (e.g., host cell debris, toxins) are present, the causal link remains unproven.
Third Postulate: The isolated "virus" must be shown to cause the same disease when introduced into a healthy host. The studies you provided did not even attempt this, leaving this postulate entirely unfulfilled.
So, do the experiments meet Koch’s postulates in a controlled, falsifiable manner? No. You cannot claim that Koch’s postulates were satisfied. Your evidence is sorely lacking.
Mike, I think your confusion is in part due to semantics.
The word ‘virus’ in the case of nucleopolyhedroviruses (NPVs; family: Baculoviridae) refers to singly or doubly membrane bound rod-shaped virions within a proteinaceous structure called an occlusion body or polyhedral inclusion body (OB; PIB). The protein matrix comprising the OB is coded for by the virion. Thus an NPV virus = virions + occlusion body. The infection process involved the dissolution of the OB protein in the host larval mid gut to release the infecting virions.
The issue isn’t just semantics—it's the assumption that what you call "virions" are actual "infectious" agents rather than cellular debris or protein aggregates. You say the OB protein is "coded for by the virion," but where is the independent proof of that? Just because structures are consistently observed in certain conditions doesn't mean they function as assumed. How do you establish causation without presupposing the conclusion?
Additionally, where is the proof that "infection" by these so-called "virions" actually led to disease? Observing a correlation between exposure and certain effects doesn’t establish causation. Without controlled experiments demonstrating that these particles alone cause disease—while ruling out all other variables—this remains an assumption, not a scientific conclusion.
Hey Mike, thank you for you studious work. I am very fascinated with this subject of virology being bogus. however, i am a newcomer to the subject and a rank amatuer in the field of biology. can you recommend an article which could furnish a succinct, noob-friendly overview of the topic? im also curious what the implications of this falsehood mean in regards to what is actually happening when we get sick. if not viruses then what? thank you for your time and your writing.
Tracey Northerns beginners guide to the germ hypothesis of disease. https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/05/07/the-germ-theory-an-idiots-guide/
She wrote a book before she passed away https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Not-Doctor-Uncontrolled/dp/B0CKB8DMVX