Intro to ViroLIEgy
When I first set out to create ViroLIEgy.com, my goal—beyond providing a place to share and preserve my research—was to build a one-stop site where people could easily access information on the fraud of virology.
As I began publishing articles and structuring the site, I aimed to categorize topics in a way that made navigation simple and intuitive. While this approach was effective, something essential was missing—something beyond organization. The site needed a reader-friendly introduction that clearly laid out the key components of the “No Virus” argument.
I have Dr. Mark Bailey to thank for pointing out this oversight. In early 2022, he suggested that I create an introductory piece to guide newcomers through the fundamental issues with virology. It was a brilliant suggestion, and since its publication in April 2022, this introduction has served as a critical resource for those unfamiliar with the topic.
Initially, my focus was strictly on virology, and the introduction reflected that. I addressed how virology fails as a science, highlighting issues such as:
- The lack of purification and isolation of the particles claimed to be “viruses”
- The pseudoscientific nature of cell culture experiments
- The importance of satisfying Koch’s Postulates
- The reliance on indirect evidence (e.g., cell cultures, electron microscopy images, “antibodies,” and genomes)
However, as I delved deeper into the origins of virology, it became increasingly clear that the very concept of a “virus” arose from the failure of germ “theory” to identify bacterial culprits for disease. To fully grasp the argument against virology, one must first understand the fundamental flaws in germ “theory”—the shaky foundation from which virology emerged.
Over the past three years, I have dedicated significant time to investigating the roots of both germ “theory” and virology, while also refining what constitutes scientific evidence and what would be necessary to meet those standards. Given this deeper understanding, I believe it is essential to update the Introduction to ViroLIEgy page to better reflect the current state of the argument.
This update will not only refine and expand upon the original sections but will also provide:
- A clearer connection between the failures of germ “theory” and the rise of virology.
- More links to relevant research and resources.
- A presentation that is more accessible and compelling for those new to the subject.
While I do not claim to speak for everyone who supports this position, this revised introduction represents what I believe are the most critical and well-supported arguments. My hope is that it will serve as a clear, digestible, and persuasive entry point for those seeking to understand—or challenge—virology.
See more here Substack
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.
Alan
| #
Thanks for publishing this. I can’t see the evidence for viruses either. I believed it until Covid but there doesn’t seem to be any organisation that claims to have a sample of the virus. It is impossible to know the truth but in view of the number of freedom of information requests that have failed to identify any organisation that has a sample of the virus, we should be suspicious. Even more so, when nobody has come forwards to say they have a sample. It was mathematical models that created the pandemic. There is no evidence in the excess data to show that there was a pandemic. There is no evidence to show that the covid vaccines were effective and saved lived. We should be concerned and we should be told the truth.
Reply
Bálint József
| #
What causes foot and mouth disease in cattle?
Reply
MattH
| #
A virus.
One weakness of the virus unbelievers is their failure to present a viable alternative hypothesis.
Maybe they should take up farming. A farm is a good place to study cause and effect.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
@ “A virus”
How did you establish that? Do you have any evidence? Please do not talk about PCR, antigen, antibody tests, etc. These are not tests for the virus. I am asking for the virus sample/specimen.
Reply
MattH
| #
And I am asking for a credible alternative hypothesis, as any credible scientific challenge would deliver.
Reply
VOWG
| #
Interesting that one person says show me the virus and instead of showing the virus the other person asks for an alternative hypothesis.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
VOWG:
Exactly. That is how these people keep the BS going and sell “fancy” (money-making) treatments to otherwise illness-free people people. Sad!
They have lost their thinking ability. Others and I are providing alternative options that there is no virus (based on actual scientific evidence). They are unable to see this option. They are blind.
Göran Åkesson
| #
The most probable causes of ‘foot & mouth’ – as well as ‘mad cow’-desease are epigenetic and/or metabolic, i.e deficits in essential minerals (& vitamins, amino- and fatty acids) and food toxins. Compare this to the proven causes of diabetic 2, which are deficits of trace minerals Crome 111 & Vanadin together with food toxins foremost from additives and vegetable oils, creating metabolic upsets.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Newton, as translated by Motte wrote the following “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to called an hypothesis; and hypothesis; whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” Read Newton’s 4th Rule of Reasoning in Philosophy.
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
Thank you for that.
Whilst we are aware of the corruption in the medical and pharmaceutical industry
to read a chemist, not you, state that microbiologists are not scientists is a special blind arrogance and of questionable integrity.
Cheers Jerry.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
@ “microbiologists are not scientists”
If this were untrue, we would not have the nonsense of viruses and vaccines, even cancer. They are all made-up stories by microbiologists (fake scientists). Science only concerns physics and chemistry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
First, I have stated several times: I don’t like short lines; hence this longest possible line.
This comment is in reference to your statement ” (based on actual scientific evidence)”. To understand “actual scientific evidence” one needs to what it is. You should have written OBSERVED EVIDENCE because your repeated claim is there its NO Observed Evidence. Science is totally based upon OBSERVED evidence and you know this; however the problem is there are too many people, who even claim to be SCIENTISTS, don’t seem to know this.
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
I do not like the OBSERVED EVIDENCE. This word started some 40 years ago (I believe), like evidence-based policy, to sneak nonscience stuff into science or science-based. Therefore, many things that were not supposed to be (actual) science were categorized as science that messed up things and scientists. Science is not based on reproducible observed evidence but on reproducible experimental results – a big difference.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed and PSI Readers,
I did not write a key word; science is totally based upon REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVED EVIDENCE.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
You just stated: “Science is not based on reproducible observed evidence but on reproducible experimental results – a big difference.”
I have asked you “what are these people dying OF?” and you give no answer. Why didn’t you spend your energy convincing people that there seems to be a treatment, or treatments, that works and save lives?
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Which disease are they dying from? I do not see the disease. They are just claims by some (medical experts/doctors) without evidence. There cannot be a treatment for something that does not exist or be defined. Sorry.
Reply