The biggest fallacy probably lies in the fact that for too long people thought that virology was too stupid and too blind to recognize its own mistakes. I think, on the other hand, that everyone involved realized quite quickly that virology leads nowhere. Perhaps there was actually an assumption at the beginning that the visibility of suspected pathogens was still beyond the technical possibilities. But we have been able to overcome this obstacle for several decades now. After that, only deliberate deception can be assumed as a motive. This would mean that the doubters have been too credulous for too long in their assumption that virology would not recognize the errors.
I believe the modern history of virology is a precisely orchestrated lie about control, power and greed. I don't believe for a second that a halfway intelligent person can succumb to self-deception for so long. It takes quasi-religious delusion.
I also don't want to believe that virology is maintained by the stupidest, most naive of us humans. Stupidity is more dangerous than malicious intent. Because no revelations and insights can counteract stupidity.
What would the vrilogists be doing differently today without the electron microscooper or equivalent? They only use the images for fearporn propaganda.
This tour de force obliterates the myth that electron microscopy can accurately characterize anything—especially the cellular debris of a toxic cell culture experiment. By the time you finish this masterpiece, it becomes crystal clear: if you’ve got a confirmation bias in need of validation, the electron microscope is the ultimate tool for ’confirming’ the ’existence’ of fake pathogens. Just squint at a grainy, grayscale mess that looks like Jackson Pollock took up monochrome splatter art, and voilà—instant ’virus’!! Who needs isolation when you’ve got imagination?
The Pollock EM 'VIRUS' Series, beginning with the iconic Measles 'Virus,' all the way through to the abstract sensation of the H einously I nvented ’V irus’ and culminating in the COVIE-2 Blockbuster, has been a massive hit for BIG HARMA! Pollack, true to form, leans on his favorite medium: the CPEs—the magic paint crafted by poisoning monkey kidney cells with a cocktail of toxins. His signature splatter technique? A masterpiece of fused, multi-blobbing chaos, leaving critics wondering: Is it art... or just another ’virus’ lie?
We can end this virology travesty rather easily. Have some of these knuckleheads go out and collect a few hundred masks that people have been wearing. Not the ones lying on the ground.
Then place them in sanitized plastic bags. One mask, one bag. Take them to a lab and look for all those nasty virus particles that they swear are floating around just waiting to take us out. There should be hundreds or thousands of them babies caught in those masks, right CDC?
Since masks are claimed to work, this should present no problem. Show us the viruses. There should be at least a few masks showing dozens of various virus particles. Until I see that study, viruses do not exist in my world. The CDC and FDA do not exist either, nor does Pig Pharma. Nor does ANY vaccine or mRNA poisons.
Is it possible to use a blood sample to determine what is making people sick when these outbreaks occur? They are spraying us routinely and during the first days or weeks of the so called plandemic I saw videos of people suited up spraying airports, schools, shopping malls and everywhere people might visit. I felt they might be spraying a poison of some kind as opposed to disinfecting the spaces. So if they sprayed arsenic for example, would it show up in a blood sample? Or anything likely to cause many people in some areas to have symptoms being described as a virus or viral outbreak? I’m obviously not a scientist and maybe this is a silly question but I don’t mind asking silly questions. If something was found in the Blood of many people in an area during a so called outbreak that could identified maybe that could shift the focus because we know it’s not a virus. Just a thought.
That’s not a silly question at all. If a toxic substance like arsenic were responsible for illness, it could potentially be detected in blood, urine, or even hair samples, depending on the timing and nature of exposure. However, many environmental toxins—such as certain pesticides or industrial chemicals—might not always be routinely tested for unless specifically suspected.
The challenge is that mainstream investigations typically operate within the assumption of "infectious" disease rather than looking for toxicological causes. If a mass illness event were truly investigated without bias, testing for chemical, radiological, or environmental factors would be a logical step. Unfortunately, that rarely happens. Instead, symptoms are often grouped under the label of a "viral outbreak" without ruling out other potential causes.
Your idea of shifting the focus toward environmental factors is crucial. The key is encouraging more independent, unbiased research that asks the right questions rather than assuming a predetermined answer.
Thank you very much for responding. I agree and hopefully this will change as more people become aware of how much potential there is for us to become ill from things other than viruses.
One more thought. So how do we make sure more things are tested ? Who would begin the process for testing for more potential toxins? Woukd not the scientific field make suggestions that an outbreak looks a lot like pesticide poisoning or arsenic, strontium, cadmium, arsenic or any of the things we know are in the chemicals they spray over our heads everyday? I would think those ingredients would be the most suspicious since we all complain about them and wonder why they continue to spray? We need a new method of dealing with this sort of problem. Help me create some change please.
Brilliant work Mr. Stone. I am still looking for ANY reasonable responses from practicing virologists to your many critiques of their methods and theories. The few responses I have read simply ignore the points of contention you and others raise, and end up begging the questions. Your field of research has so many implications, philosophic, epistemological, psychological, sociological, and ethical, that it cries for widespread dissemination and polemic to overcome this tragic use of science and medicine.
Just a quick heads-up that my free Kindle promo will be live in about 2 hours — the full promo window runs from May 18 to May 22, which is the maximum Amazon allows. I hope it brings you a few laughs! It’s the kind of book you can dip into whenever you're in the mood for a quick, satirical pick-me-up.
A massive thank you for the treasure trove of sharp, fearless insight you continue to share at viroliegy.com. Without your work lighting the way, this comedy roast of viroLIEgy might never have made it to the page.
Please feel free to pass the promo along to friends, family, fellow Team Stone members, or anyone who could use a laugh at viroLIEgy’s expense — it’s the least I can do to say thanks for your tireless brilliance and generosity.
If you experience any difficulty with the link, please let me know ASAP and I’ll do my best to fix things right away.
Viruses exist or don't exist...but a lot of diseases are caused by these 'toxic entities'; in the case of HIV, if someone don't take 'citostatics', this 'toxic entities' make decrease the leucocyts in general (limphocyts decrease is questionable). So, the important question in medicine is how to hinder the decrease of leucocyts without toxicity? Someone is researching in this direction?
"This decision – reached, as it happened, by the ‘‘uninterested’’ animal virologists – was quite the volte-face, for less than a dozen years earlier a committee of the American Phytopathological Society had listed symptoms as the first criterion for classifying the viruses while physicochemical properties were last (Bennett, 1939, as cited in Lwoff and Tournier, 1966, pp. 48–49). This drastic turnabout in the hierarchy of criteria for virus classification demonstrates the central role that the electron microscope played in the paradigm shift to the modern definition of viruses. A perusal of viral classifications devised after the 1950 guidelines were set by Andrewes and others does, in fact, show an increasing reliance on the new looking glass, not only for the purposes of detection and identification, but also specifically for classification (see, for example, Wildy, 1962; Khanna and Lund, 1967). The two purposes even melded together on occasion; an electron microscopic investigation into the rabbit fibroma virus for instance, showed its morphology to be identical of two other groups of viruses – the rabbit myxoma virus and various pox viruses (Lloyd and Kahler, 1955). Thus morphology, specifically what the electron microscope revealed about the size, shape, and symmetry of the protein subunits of viruses, became one of the major characteristics by which viruses were grouped (Horne, 1964).""
It was from Tor Van Helvoort's paper "How Seeing Became Knowing: The Role of the Electron Microscope in Shaping the Modern Definition of Viruses." Thanks for pointing out the missing link. I have it corrected now. 🙂
see the actual meaning of 'scientist' ...>> 1. a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator <<<>>> https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/ <<< and we are presented "The Evidence" time in and time out ,by 'scientists' .meaning we should be impressed over the persons 'Title'.....well anyone one can be a proven factual SCIENTIST!!!!!!.........just add a few assorted letters behind you name , like PhD* or HSG *, or GSF* ......to 'Impress'.....
The biggest fallacy probably lies in the fact that for too long people thought that virology was too stupid and too blind to recognize its own mistakes. I think, on the other hand, that everyone involved realized quite quickly that virology leads nowhere. Perhaps there was actually an assumption at the beginning that the visibility of suspected pathogens was still beyond the technical possibilities. But we have been able to overcome this obstacle for several decades now. After that, only deliberate deception can be assumed as a motive. This would mean that the doubters have been too credulous for too long in their assumption that virology would not recognize the errors.
I believe the modern history of virology is a precisely orchestrated lie about control, power and greed. I don't believe for a second that a halfway intelligent person can succumb to self-deception for so long. It takes quasi-religious delusion.
I also don't want to believe that virology is maintained by the stupidest, most naive of us humans. Stupidity is more dangerous than malicious intent. Because no revelations and insights can counteract stupidity.
Bottom line: "Virology" = Quackery. But it sure is lucrative!
What would the vrilogists be doing differently today without the electron microscooper or equivalent? They only use the images for fearporn propaganda.
This tour de force obliterates the myth that electron microscopy can accurately characterize anything—especially the cellular debris of a toxic cell culture experiment. By the time you finish this masterpiece, it becomes crystal clear: if you’ve got a confirmation bias in need of validation, the electron microscope is the ultimate tool for ’confirming’ the ’existence’ of fake pathogens. Just squint at a grainy, grayscale mess that looks like Jackson Pollock took up monochrome splatter art, and voilà—instant ’virus’!! Who needs isolation when you’ve got imagination?
Thank you, Factscinator! 🙂
I love this:
"Just squint at a grainy, grayscale mess that looks like Jackson Pollock took up monochrome splatter art, and voilà—instant ’virus’!!"
I've often thought of the TEM images of "viruses" as Jackson Pollock paintings. 🤣
LOL!! 😀😀 Great to meet a fellow fine art lover! Who knew fake ’viruses’ would become this BIG in abstract expressionism?
The Pollock EM 'VIRUS' Series, beginning with the iconic Measles 'Virus,' all the way through to the abstract sensation of the H einously I nvented ’V irus’ and culminating in the COVIE-2 Blockbuster, has been a massive hit for BIG HARMA! Pollack, true to form, leans on his favorite medium: the CPEs—the magic paint crafted by poisoning monkey kidney cells with a cocktail of toxins. His signature splatter technique? A masterpiece of fused, multi-blobbing chaos, leaving critics wondering: Is it art... or just another ’virus’ lie?
Mike, you could put hyperlinks in the article citations to make life easier for your reader. Your work would be even more excellent.
Excellent Mike
We can end this virology travesty rather easily. Have some of these knuckleheads go out and collect a few hundred masks that people have been wearing. Not the ones lying on the ground.
Then place them in sanitized plastic bags. One mask, one bag. Take them to a lab and look for all those nasty virus particles that they swear are floating around just waiting to take us out. There should be hundreds or thousands of them babies caught in those masks, right CDC?
Since masks are claimed to work, this should present no problem. Show us the viruses. There should be at least a few masks showing dozens of various virus particles. Until I see that study, viruses do not exist in my world. The CDC and FDA do not exist either, nor does Pig Pharma. Nor does ANY vaccine or mRNA poisons.
You do incredible detailed work Mike.
Is it possible to use a blood sample to determine what is making people sick when these outbreaks occur? They are spraying us routinely and during the first days or weeks of the so called plandemic I saw videos of people suited up spraying airports, schools, shopping malls and everywhere people might visit. I felt they might be spraying a poison of some kind as opposed to disinfecting the spaces. So if they sprayed arsenic for example, would it show up in a blood sample? Or anything likely to cause many people in some areas to have symptoms being described as a virus or viral outbreak? I’m obviously not a scientist and maybe this is a silly question but I don’t mind asking silly questions. If something was found in the Blood of many people in an area during a so called outbreak that could identified maybe that could shift the focus because we know it’s not a virus. Just a thought.
Thank you for all the terrific work you do.
Thank you for your kind words—I appreciate it! 🙂
That’s not a silly question at all. If a toxic substance like arsenic were responsible for illness, it could potentially be detected in blood, urine, or even hair samples, depending on the timing and nature of exposure. However, many environmental toxins—such as certain pesticides or industrial chemicals—might not always be routinely tested for unless specifically suspected.
The challenge is that mainstream investigations typically operate within the assumption of "infectious" disease rather than looking for toxicological causes. If a mass illness event were truly investigated without bias, testing for chemical, radiological, or environmental factors would be a logical step. Unfortunately, that rarely happens. Instead, symptoms are often grouped under the label of a "viral outbreak" without ruling out other potential causes.
Your idea of shifting the focus toward environmental factors is crucial. The key is encouraging more independent, unbiased research that asks the right questions rather than assuming a predetermined answer.
Thank you very much for responding. I agree and hopefully this will change as more people become aware of how much potential there is for us to become ill from things other than viruses.
One more thought. So how do we make sure more things are tested ? Who would begin the process for testing for more potential toxins? Woukd not the scientific field make suggestions that an outbreak looks a lot like pesticide poisoning or arsenic, strontium, cadmium, arsenic or any of the things we know are in the chemicals they spray over our heads everyday? I would think those ingredients would be the most suspicious since we all complain about them and wonder why they continue to spray? We need a new method of dealing with this sort of problem. Help me create some change please.
Brilliant work Mr. Stone. I am still looking for ANY reasonable responses from practicing virologists to your many critiques of their methods and theories. The few responses I have read simply ignore the points of contention you and others raise, and end up begging the questions. Your field of research has so many implications, philosophic, epistemological, psychological, sociological, and ethical, that it cries for widespread dissemination and polemic to overcome this tragic use of science and medicine.
Dear Mike,
Hello! I hope this note finds you well.
Just a quick heads-up that my free Kindle promo will be live in about 2 hours — the full promo window runs from May 18 to May 22, which is the maximum Amazon allows. I hope it brings you a few laughs! It’s the kind of book you can dip into whenever you're in the mood for a quick, satirical pick-me-up.
A massive thank you for the treasure trove of sharp, fearless insight you continue to share at viroliegy.com. Without your work lighting the way, this comedy roast of viroLIEgy might never have made it to the page.
Please feel free to pass the promo along to friends, family, fellow Team Stone members, or anyone who could use a laugh at viroLIEgy’s expense — it’s the least I can do to say thanks for your tireless brilliance and generosity.
If you experience any difficulty with the link, please let me know ASAP and I’ll do my best to fix things right away.
Grab your free copy here:
https://www.amazon.com/Bird-Brained-Virus-Crowd-Luc-Terroir-ebook/dp/B0DWM4SY89/ref=sr_1_1?crid=11B8EEK8L9L6K&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.XNQKt247FSk8Fjls6MH6cQ.MOstj2CRB-jzR8zmY2AAVJCegJv2Ug-TsSsJRskcq-M&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+bird+brained+virus+crowd&qid=1747438670&sprefix=the+bird+brained+virus+crowd%2Caps%2C680&sr=8-1
Warmest wishes,
Factscinator
Viruses exist or don't exist...but a lot of diseases are caused by these 'toxic entities'; in the case of HIV, if someone don't take 'citostatics', this 'toxic entities' make decrease the leucocyts in general (limphocyts decrease is questionable). So, the important question in medicine is how to hinder the decrease of leucocyts without toxicity? Someone is researching in this direction?
What is the source of this part?
"This decision – reached, as it happened, by the ‘‘uninterested’’ animal virologists – was quite the volte-face, for less than a dozen years earlier a committee of the American Phytopathological Society had listed symptoms as the first criterion for classifying the viruses while physicochemical properties were last (Bennett, 1939, as cited in Lwoff and Tournier, 1966, pp. 48–49). This drastic turnabout in the hierarchy of criteria for virus classification demonstrates the central role that the electron microscope played in the paradigm shift to the modern definition of viruses. A perusal of viral classifications devised after the 1950 guidelines were set by Andrewes and others does, in fact, show an increasing reliance on the new looking glass, not only for the purposes of detection and identification, but also specifically for classification (see, for example, Wildy, 1962; Khanna and Lund, 1967). The two purposes even melded together on occasion; an electron microscopic investigation into the rabbit fibroma virus for instance, showed its morphology to be identical of two other groups of viruses – the rabbit myxoma virus and various pox viruses (Lloyd and Kahler, 1955). Thus morphology, specifically what the electron microscope revealed about the size, shape, and symmetry of the protein subunits of viruses, became one of the major characteristics by which viruses were grouped (Horne, 1964).""
It was from Tor Van Helvoort's paper "How Seeing Became Knowing: The Role of the Electron Microscope in Shaping the Modern Definition of Viruses." Thanks for pointing out the missing link. I have it corrected now. 🙂
Thanks.
see the actual meaning of 'scientist' ...>> 1. a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator <<<>>> https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/ <<< and we are presented "The Evidence" time in and time out ,by 'scientists' .meaning we should be impressed over the persons 'Title'.....well anyone one can be a proven factual SCIENTIST!!!!!!.........just add a few assorted letters behind you name , like PhD* or HSG *, or GSF* ......to 'Impress'.....
* PiledHigherandDeeper-----HighSchoolGraduate-----GradeSchoolFlunkie