“Virus-like” Particles – A Critical Analysis

Written by Mike Stone on March 26, 2025. Posted in Current News

From the very beginning of my research into virology’s claims, my priority has been to examine the foundational evidence for the existence of “pathogenic viruses.”

Rather than relying on external critiques, I chose to analyze virology’s own literature, exposing its pseudoscientific methods using the field’s own work.

My approach has been to highlight the internal flaws and logical inconsistencies in virological research, demonstrating that its conclusions fail to meet essential scientific standards.

The experiments had already been conducted, and the supposed “evidence” was already documented—I simply needed to expose how it failed to support virology’s claims.

As Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, emphasized, challenging a scientific claim is ultimately about logic.

One does not need to be a virologist, work in a lab, or conduct experiments to critically evaluate the evidence behind a hypothesis. The key question is whether the foundational research adheres to the scientific method and provides logically sound evidence.

If it does not, the hypothesis is invalid. The burden of proof lies entirely with those making the claim, meaning that anyone asserting virology’s conclusions as scientific fact must either produce valid evidence or acknowledge its absence.

This approach has been highly effective for myself and others working to expose the flaws of virology. Every aspect of this pseudoscientific field—from failed contagion studies to flawed cell culture experiments—has been systematically refuted using virology’s own sources.

Through simple logic, we have demonstrated that the scientific evidence virology claims to have does not actually exist within its own literature and that the “viral” hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified.

Their burden of proof remains unmet.

Yet some, while superficially acknowledging that virology lacks the necessary scientific evidence, take an unusual stance: they argue that the burden does not fall on virologists to prove their methods meet scientific standards.

Instead, they insist that identifying the logical and methodological flaws in virology’s literature is not enough—that those challenging virology’s claims must also conduct laboratory experiments to disprove them.

In other words, they believe we must perform our own cell culture and electron microscopy studies to expose the methodological fraud in virology’s conclusions.

This is a subtle yet clear example of a burden of proof reversal fallacy—demanding that we experimentally prove a negative (i.e., that “viruses” do not exist) while using the very methodologies that presuppose their existence.

While additional evidence can always strengthen a case, it is unnecessary when nearly 150 years of virology studies contain sufficient contradictions and methodological flaws to refute the “viral” hypothesis.

For example, the cell culture experiments used to “prove” the existence of “viruses” have already been dismantled through logical analysis and a critical review of virology’s own literature. No hands-on laboratory work was required to expose these flaws—just a clear understanding of the scientific method.

Since these experiments do not originate from a naturally observed phenomenon leading to a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, do not begin with an independent variable that is isolated and manipulated, and rely on an artificial lab-created effect with multiple known “non-viral” causes, they fail to meet the standards of genuine scientific inquiry.

Therefore, they have already been demonstrated to be pseudoscientific without requiring anyone to step into a lab.

Could we commission labs to replicate these experiments and reaffirm what virology’s own literature has demonstrated since John Franklin Enders introduced the cell culture method in 1954? Certainly. But is it necessary? Not at all.

Virologists themselves have already revealed the pseudoscientific flaws in their own work. This is precisely why, during the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, HIV/AIDS dissidents like the Perth Group did not need to conduct their own lab work to expose the logical and scientific flaws in the claim that a novel “retrovirus” caused a new syndrome.

They had an arsenal of flawed evidence from peer-reviewed journals at their disposal, along with a firm grasp of logic and the scientific method to dismantle the prevailing narrative. Their rigorous analysis of virology’s own literature laid the foundation for challenging the HIV/AIDS paradigm, providing a strong basis for future scrutiny of virological claims.

However, since some may continue to argue that engaging with virology’s flawed methodologies is necessary to expose its errors, I want to provide a detailed example of why this is ultimately unnecessary.

Since the flaws of cell culture experiments have already been thoroughly exposed, I will turn to electron microscopy (EM) images of “virus-like” particles as another key example. Although the validity of these images has already been questioned—due to flaws in EM preparation methods and the misidentification of normal cellular structures as “viruses”—I will take an even deeper look at the foundational evidence to further reveal the fraud.

I will begin with a brief history of the first use of EM to identify particles assumed to be “viruses,” then examine key studies from the 1930s to the 1980s. I will demonstrate that these “virus-like” particles have never been scientifically validated as “pathogenic viruses” and that identical structures have been routinely observed in tissue and cell cultures labeled as “virus-free.”

This analysis will demonstrate that exposing the fraudulent nature of these images does not require becoming an electron microscopist or hiring one. Having a clear understanding of logic and the scientific method to critically examine the existing evidence is more than enough.

Before the invention of the electron microscope by German engineer Ernst Ruska in 1931, “viruses” were purely theoretical entities that were inferred rather than observed. Their existence was assumed based on passing materials from diseased hosts through filters designed to retain bacteria and being able to cause experimental disease in animals.

Since “viruses” were too small to be seen with light microscopes, their nature remained an elusive mystery. As virologist Karen Scholthof noted in a personal communication with historian Tor Van Helvoort, for decades, “viruses” remained “outside the bounds of understanding. We couldn’t see them.”

In 1932, just a year after the electron microscope was invented, virologist Thomas Rivers characterized these invisible agents in negative terms through three defining characteristics: they could not be seen under a regular microscope, they passed through filters that trapped bacteria, and they could not reproduce without living cells.

At the time, scientists debated what a “virus” actually was—some thought it was a toxin, an enzyme, a ferment, a soluable substance, a high-molecular-weight protein, or an exceptionally small microorganism.

The definition remained fluid for much of the early 20th century, and the term “virus” was broadly used to refer to any “infectious agent” until the mid-20th century, when advances in electron microscopy and molecular biology manufactured the consensus that “viruses” were distinct particulate entities.

With the advent of the electron microscope in 1931, virologists could finally “see” the presumed entities that had remained invisible under light microscopes, which were limited to magnifications of around 1,000 times.

Now, with magnifications ranging from 10,000 to 50,000 times, they could visualize individual particles that had previously existed only as theoretical constructs. As one observer put it, the electron microscope granted scientists “the power to actually see as individual objects things that had been only mental concepts.”

This technological breakthrough marked a paradigm shift. Until then, “viruses” had been identified primarily by their ability to cause disease in hosts. Now, they would be classified based on the morphology of the particles observed.

Historian Tor Van Helvoort emphasized the significance of this shift, stating that the electron microscope was “first among the equals” of all the technologies that transformed the concept of the “virus.”

He noted that it was “no coincidence that virology made its break from bacteriology and acquired the status of an independent discipline only after this instrument was invented and the first viruses were made visible.”

But did the ability to visualize once invisible particles with electron microscopy truly confirm their identity as pathogenic “viruses?” To answer that, we must examine the earliest depictions of these structures and evaluate whether the assumptions hold true.

Rockefeller man Frank MacFarlane Burnet, known for his work on polio and “antibodies,” is credited with being the first to use the term “virus-like particles” in his 1933 paper on the neutralization of bacteriophages by antiphage serum.

Specific Agglutination of Bacteriophage Particles

The photographs in themselves do not convey a great deal of information, and it is conceivable that under certain conditions specific precipitates from soluble reagents might produce aggregates of similar microscopic appearance.

But on the other hand, if virus-like particles of the size found for phage C16 by filtration methods 50-75 mu were aggregated into masses by specific serum agglutination, then one would expect that the image obtainable with the available technique would be exactly similar to what is in fact found.

It is not possible to give any accurate estimate of the diameter of the phage particles from these photographs, but they indicate that it is probably not much more than 50 mu.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2048370/

The image presented in the paper was not derived from electron microscopy but from ultraviolet microphotographs. Rather than depicting individual “virus-like” particles, the images showed amorphous or aggregated material.

No scientific evidence was presented to confirm that the structures identified in these microphotographs were actual pockets of “viral” entities.

Despite this uncertainty, Burnet not only classified the invisible bacteriophages as “viruses” of bacteria—an assertion still heavily contested at the time—but also took the additional step of declaring that “viruses” were particulate entities.

While virologists like Thomas Rivers had also referred to “viruses” as particles, this remained a significant assumption, as there was still no consensus on whether a “virus” was a discrete particle at all or merely a poisonous substance of some kind.

In fact, researchers Vinson and Petre in 1931 described the tobacco mosaic “virus” behaving like a chemical, stating, “…it is probable that the virus which we have investigated reacted as a chemical substance.”

Their conclusion was reinforced in 1933 by Barton-Wright and McBain, who, after replicating their work, affirmed, “We have repeated this work in detail and confirmed it in every particular, and we are also of the opinion that the virus in this case behaves as a chemical compound and not as a living organism.”

Regardless, with the emergence of technology capable of “seeing” nanoparticles, the search for the elusive “virus” particle began. Early electron microscopy studies examined cellular debris—which many argue is all that “viral” particles truly are—as well as material from chicken egg cultures, which had began being used in the 1930s to claim that these supposed “viral” entities had been cultivated and grown.

Interestingly, it was not Ernst Ruska but his brother Helmut who first utilized the electron microscope to identify “virus-like” particles. His 1938 paper Bakterien und Virus in Übermikroskopischer Aufnahme presented electron microscope images of particles he attributed to the “poxvirus” (vaccinia), mouse ectromelia “virus,” and rabbit myxoma “virus.”

The first image from his paper depicted spherical particles claimed to be the mouse ectromelia “virus.” The “infectious” material was sourced from the lymph of a diseased mouse paw and magnified 20,000 times.

However, there was no explanation as to how these specific particles were identified as the “virus” in question, let alone as a “pathogen,” rather than normal cellular constituents or debris.

“Fig. 1. Supermicroscopic image of the white mouse ectromelia virus. Infectious material from the lymph of a diseased paw. Electron-optical magnification: 20,000.”

“The supermicroscope can be used to make visible pathogens that were previously invisible in the light microscope due to their small size without the use of staining methods. Fig. I shows the mouse ectromelia virus in a supermicroscopic image. It can already be predicted with certainty that even those pathogens that have so far evaded morphological detection will be imageable.”

Helmut mentioned that the electron microscope could now visualize “pathogens” too small for light microscopy, which he believed included bacteriophages and “viruses.”

However, his presumption about the size of the “virus” led to a confirmation bias, as he focused on particles in a specific size range, already assuming they were “viral.” While he claimed to have imaged “viruses” like smallpox, ectromelia, and myxoma, Helmut acknowledged a critical issue: “The objection could be made that our newly discovered structures are artificial products, created by the vacuum or electron beams.”

Helmut’s study was driven by the assumption that “elementary bodies of viral diseases” could be prepared and imaged as easily as bacterial structures.

This assumption-based approach, rather than a purely empirical one, led to the use of biological materials from the State Vaccination Institute, which were then transferred through rabbits and chicken egg allantois.

The use of living tissues in sample preparation introduced confounding variables, such as cellular debris and other biological structures, which could then be misidentified as “viral” particles.

Helmut noted that the electron microscope images deviated from prior visual representations (likely artistic interpretations or light microscopy), showing a clear discrepancy between earlier depictions and actual observations.

Furthermore, the use of glycerine in the preparation process resulted in blurred, washed-out images, which introduced additional artifacts and further complicated the interpretation of the data.

“After the discovery of the smallest accompanying bodies of bacteria, it was expected that elementary bodies of viral diseases could also be prepared without difficulty. Fig. 21 shows Paschen’s bodies, the elementary bodies of the vaccine.

The starting material was kindly provided to us by the State Vaccination Institute and was then transferred to rabbits and the allantois of the incubated chicken. We were unable to find the forms drawn by KRAUSE from the electron optical image. The image shown is blurred and washed out due to the preparation of the virus in glycerine.”

Helmut acknowledged that the preparation of the material with saline led to the observation of “small square structures of various sizes,” which were attributed to salt crystallization, rather than “viral” particles themselves.

Only after removing the salt were the “elementary bodies” observed in their “true size and shape.” This suggests that what was being visualized may not have been distinct biological entities but artifacts from the sample preparation.

While Helmut claimed that the preparations were “proven infectious in animal experiments,” this does not confirm that the imaged structures were “viruses”—it only meant that the material caused symptoms in animals, not necessarily due to the particles observed under the microscope.

Helmut’s description of some “virus” particles as “egg-shaped” rather than spherical further underscores the subjective nature of the “virus” classification process.

This variability raises concerns about the interpretation of the images and the potential influence of preparation artifacts.

This is taken from a long document, see the rest here substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.