Introduction to ViroLIEgy

Written by Mike Stone on April 24, 2025. Posted in Current News

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.

The History of ViroLIEgy

To truly understand the flaws in virology, one must begin with the origins of germ “theory”—a concept that, despite widespread acceptance, was never scientifically validated as a proper theory should be.

Popularized by Louis Pasteur, a French chemist driven more by ambition than objectivity, germ “theory” emerged in the mid-to-late 19th century. Prior to Pasteur, disease was commonly explained by the miasma theory, which held that illnesses like cholera and the plague were caused by “bad air” or foul vapors from decaying matter.

Backed by Napoleon III’s government and borrowing heavily from the work of others, Pasteur rejected this idea and proposed his own: that invisible microbes—specifically bacteria and fungi—were the cause of disease and could spread from person to person.

This narrative proved politically and economically useful. Germ “theory” offered a simple, external cause of illness—one that conveniently sidestepped deeper systemic issues like poor sanitation, malnutrition, and overcrowded living conditions.

By shifting the focus to microbial “invaders,” governments could deflect responsibility while appearing proactive. For industrialists, it opened lucrative markets for antiseptics, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines.

Military planners, too, saw potential in a model of disease that could be “controlled” or weaponized. These overlapping interests aligned to elevate Pasteur’s work, securing him the scientific prestige and financial reward he desired—despite the fact that his methods often fell short of scientific rigor.

Indeed, Pasteur’s success was built more on manipulation than merit. As The Economist noted in 1995, he misrepresented his findings to “marginalize opponents and to gain public confidence, private sponsorship, and scientific prestige.”

That same year, The New York Times reported that Pasteur had “lied about his research, stole ideas from a competitor, and was deceitful in ways that would now be regarded as scientific misconduct.”

His experiments on chicken cholera, anthrax, and rabies consistently failed to meet the standards of his time. Rather than revise his conclusions, Pasteur selectively manipulated results to fit his assumptions—an approach that would become a hallmark of virology.

Ironically, germ “theory” gained further traction through one of Pasteur’s fiercest critics: German bacteriologist Robert Koch. The two were often at odds, with Koch accusing Pasteur of sloppy methods, including the use of impure materials and inappropriate test animals.

Yet Koch, too, fell into many of the same methodological traps. In an effort to bring logic and structure to microbial causation, he introduced what came to be known as Koch’s Postulates—a set of criteria meant to prove a microbe causes disease (discussed further later).

Though similar principles existed prior, Koch’s formulation became the gold standard by which diseases like anthrax and tuberculosis were officially attributed to bacteria, transforming germ “theory” from hypothesis to supposed scientific truth.

In the decades that followed, countless diseases were declared to be microbial in origin based on dubious claims that Koch’s Postulates had been fulfilled. Even Koch himself failed to meet his own standards and presented findings that contradicted germ “theory.”

His work with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae is a glaring example: it was declared the cause of cholera despite failing three of the four Postulates.

Notably, many respected critics throughout history—not fringe voices, but leaders in their fields—challenged the germ “theory,” pointing out that neither Pasteur, Koch, nor their followers ever produced rigorous, causal evidence that germs actually cause disease.

French chemist Antoine Béchamp observed, “The public do not know whether this is true; they do not even know what a microbe is, but they take it on the word of the master.” Rudolf Virchow, one of the most esteemed physicians of the 19th century, rejected Pasteur’s hypothesis and maintained that disease originates from internal cellular breakdown—not invading microbes.

Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing, concluded from her experience with smallpox patients that disease was not “caught” from others but developed internally. Renowned medical scholar Dr. Charles Creighton—considered the most learned British medical author of his time—rejected both germ “theory” and vaccination, a stance he held until his death in 1927.

Similar skepticism came from D.D. Palmer, founder of chiropractic, and his son B.J. Palmer, who famously stated, “If the germ theory were true, no one would be alive to believe it.”

Cancer researcher, surgeon, and medical writer Dr. Herbert Snow argued there had “never been anything approaching scientific proof of the causal association of micro-organisms with disease,” and that, in many cases, the evidence flatly contradicted such claims.

Dr. Walter Hadwen, once called “one of the most distinguished physicians in the world,” maintained that germs are the result, not the cause, of disease. “Nobody has yet been able to prove that there is a disease germ in existence,” he said. “In 25 percent of diseases supposed to be caused by these germs, you can’t find these germs at all.”

Some went beyond criticism. Physicians like Dr. Thomas Powell and Dr. John Bell Fraser ingested cultures of supposedly deadly germs—including diphtheria and typhoid—with no ill effects.

Dr. Emmanuel Edward Klein, skeptical of Koch’s cholera claims, drank a wineglass of Vibrio cholerae and remained healthy. Max von Pettenkofer, a leading cholera expert, did the same and suffered no harm. These men weren’t merely theorizing—they were risking their lives to expose the fragility of a hypothesis masquerading as fact.

But their dissenting voices were ultimately marginalized. Germ “theory” provided a powerful narrative—one that served industrialists like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and Carnegies.

By blaming disease on invisible, unprovable microbes, attention was diverted from unsanitary living conditions, environmental pollution, and toxic industrial byproducts. Disease was depoliticized, rebranded as an individual problem rather than a systemic failure.

These elites leveraged their immense wealth to take control of medicine, funding institutions, universities, and public health agencies that promoted the germ narrative. Simultaneously, they discredited and dismantled naturopathic, homeopathic, and holistic healing traditions that emphasized terrain theory and internal balance.

What was presented as medical “progress” was, in reality, a carefully engineered paradigm shift—one that prioritized profit over public well-being.

As research continued, it became clear that the presence of bacteria alongside disease was not proof of causation. In his 1905 Nobel Prize presentation for Koch, Professor Count K.A.H. Mörner conceded that while there were “good grounds for supposing” microbial involvement in some diseases, the experimental findings were “very divergent.”

Some researchers found bacteria; others did not. The same bacteria appeared in different diseases, and different bacteria appeared in the same disease. At times, bacterial presence varied dramatically in appearance, casting doubt on whether they were cause, effect, or irrelevant altogether.

More troubling still, disease was sometimes induced in experimental animals using inoculums devoid of any detectable bacteria. This presented researchers with a dilemma: admit that the disease might be caused by the experimental procedure itself—or propose an even smaller, invisible culprit.

Rather than confront the mounting contradictions, researchers invented the concept of a filterable “virus.” This idea wasn’t born from direct observation or rigorous experimentation, but from the need to salvage a failing theory. Invisible “pathogens” filled the gaps left by failed bacterial causation, allowing germ “theory” to persist in the absence of proof.

Thus, virology emerged—not as a science built on demonstrable causality, but as an extension of a collapsing hypothesis. It offered a convenient explanation for disease when neither bacteria nor environmental factors could be blamed.

But its foundation, like that of germ “theory” itself, was built not on evidence—but on assumption, omission, and the manipulation of public belief.

The “Virus” Concept

The above quote was taken from one of Robert Koch’s final speeches, the inaugural address at the Academy of Sciences on July 1, 1909. In it, he acknowledged that, unlike bacteria, “viruses” must be inferred as these entities could not be directly observed, even with the best available microscopes at the time.

The “virus” was simply a concept that lacked empirical proof. This quote reveals a significant leap in reasoning, where the existence of invisible “pathogens” was asserted based on inference rather than direct evidence.

This type of thinking laid the groundwork for virology, where indirect methods became the standard for identifying supposed “viral” agents, without meeting the rigorous standards of proof required in other fields of science.

As noted by Field’s Virology, it was when Koch’s logical “rules broke down and failed to yield a causative agent that the concept of a virus was born.” The creation of the “virus” concept is most often attributed to three men: Dmitri Ivanovski and Martinus Beijerinck for the tobacco mosaic “virus” (TMV) in plants, and Koch’s pupil Friedrich Loeffler for foot-and-mouth disease “virus” (FMD) in animals.

As these researchers were able to induce disease in filtered solutions that contained no bacteria, they ultimately concluded that there must be an invisible agent smaller than bacteria that slipped pass the filters and caused disease when inoculated into healthy plants and animals.

They concluded this despite using invasive and unnatural methods that damaged healthy subjects to induce disease.

According to biochemist and historian of science Ton van Helvoort’s 1996 paper When Did Virology Start?, the early concept of the “filterable virus” was ambiguous and uncertain.

In fact, the connection between the study of filterable “viruses” and bacteriology was so strong that these unseen entities were initially considered just another form of bacteria rather than a distinct category. This aligned with Robert Koch’s assumption that these invisible agents “operate in exactly the same way as with pure cultures of bacteria.”

William Summers, a retired professor of Therapeutic Radiology, Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, and History of Medicine, echoed this sentiment, stating, “The concept of a virus has not been stable and has evolved since its introduction in the latter half of the nineteenth century.”

He noted that the definition of “virus” was continually reworked, shaped more by technological advancements than by scientific understanding.

Virologist Thomas Rivers further highlighted this uncertainty in 1932, acknowledging that “viruses” were defined primarily in negative terms—by what they were not, rather than by what they were. Their defining characteristics included:

1. Being invisible to standard microscopic methods.
2. Passing through filters designed to retain bacteria.
3. Requiring living cells for propagation.

Despite an abundance of data, Rivers admitted that much of it was unreliable, plagued by contradictions and poor-quality research. While estimates existed regarding the supposed size of “viral” particles, he cautioned that none could be accepted without reservation and that the exact size of any “virus” remained unknown.

He attributed the “numerous discordant results” in the literature—particularly on filterability, size, and visibility—to inadequate experimentation, flawed reasoning, bias, and imperfect methods. Rivers also acknowledged that purified “viruses” were essential for proper study, yet no “virus” had ever been obtained in an absolutely pure state.

At the time, theories about the nature of these invisible entities varied widely. Some interpretations of “viruses” included:

• Living contagious fluids
• Oxidizing enzymes
• Protozoan parasites
• Inanimate chemical substances
• Minute living organisms related to bacteria
• A nucleoprotein toxin

Interestingly, nearly a decade earlier in 1923, Rivers had admitted that when working with material “supposed to contain a virus which is invisible, or not recognizable, and about which practically nothing is known experimentally, one can easily be mistaken about the identity of the virus or even in regard to its presence.”

This persistent uncertainty in defining and isolating “viruses” underscores the fundamental issues at the core of virology—a field shaped more by shifting assumptions than by definitive scientific evidence.

Unlike bacteria, which could be grown in pure cultures, studied in a living state under light microscopes, and fully characterized, “viruses” remained unobservable and unobtainable, their existence inferred only through assumptions and indirect evidence.

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

Header image: FIKA PIKA / Shutterstock

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.