An Open Challenge to Virologists
In August 2025, virologist Ed Rybicki discovered ViroLIEgy.com after I cited one of his blog posts in an article on Tobacco Mosaic “Virus”
Instead of addressing the evidence, he responded with personal insults across multiple comment sections and his own blog, while avoiding every core methodological question.
His refusal to engage on substance led me to issue a formal challenge to Rybicki and to the field of virology itself: present foundational, scientifically derived evidence that satisfies Koch’s Postulates and demonstrates the existence and “pathogenicity” of any claimed “virus.”
The Open Challenge
At a minimum, two straightforward questions must be answered:
- Do you have verifiable evidence of particles—presumed to be “viruses”—that have been directly purified and isolated from the fluids of a sick human or animal, without the use of cell culturing, and then confirmed through electron microscopy and biochemical analysis?
- Do you have evidence that these same purified and isolated particles have been proven “pathogenic” in a natural manner, through strict adherence to the scientific method and satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates?
I pointed out that if one wishes to directly prove the hypothesis that an invisible microbe within a host causes disease, the strongest scientific proof would require demonstrating that:
- Existence: The microbe actually exists directly in the fluids of sick hosts but not in the fluids of healthy hosts.
- Isolation: The specific microbe is purified, isolated, and identified via electron microscopy and biochemical analysis as a valid independent variable (the isolated, purified factor that is manipulated or tested to see if it causes an effect) prior to experimentation (establishing time order: the cause must exist before the effect).
- Transmission: The microbe is introduced into a healthy host in the manner proposed by the hypothesis (via aerosolization, ingestion, etc.) as the mode of “infection.”
- Reproduction: The specific disease associated with the microbe is reproduced following this introduction.
- Contagion: The disease is transmissible from a sick host to a healthy host in the hypothesized manner (e.g., through close contact, coughing, sneezing, etc.).
- Re-isolation: After transmission, the same microbe can be purified, isolated from the fluids of the newly sickened host, and verified.
This process must be repeated with a large sample size, utilize proper control experiments, and the results must be independently reproduced by other researchers.
Lowering the Bar
To understand why this challenge goes unanswered, one only has to look at how prominent virologists redefine the word “isolation” to lower the scientific bar.
When plant virologist Tomas Moravec attempted to bring standard methodological accuracy into the conversation by noting that a “purified virus” requires clearing out impurities via density gradient centrifugation, Ed Rybicki immediately shut the discussion down.
Intervening to warn against these foundational questions, Rybicki flatly admitted the field’s departure from strict purification.
By openly acknowledging that a “viral isolate” does not have to be pure, Rybicki confirms the exact structural flaw this challenge highlights. Once “isolation” no longer requires purification, the independent variable ceases to exist as a discrete entity, and any claim of causation becomes logically impossible.
If the independent variable is never purified from the complex cocktail of host materials, cellular debris, and metabolic waste, it is logically impossible to declare it the definitive cause of disease. Yet, within the establishment, demanding a pure independent variable is labeled as “denialism” rather than standard scientific practice.
Since issuing this challenge, I’ve discussed this issue directly with microbiologists and even virologists such as José Esparza, documenting key developments and highlights in ongoing updates.
This latest update is on the shorter side, but it involves a rather damning admission directly related to the missing independent variable from prominent Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans that is well worth sharing.
For those unfamiliar, Marion Koopmans is one of the most influential virologists in the world. She is Professor of Public Health Virology at Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands, serves as Scientific Director for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Netherlands Centre for One Health, and was a member of the Dutch Outbreak Management Team that advised the government during the “COVID-19” response.
She has authored more than 700 scientific papers and has been cited over 100,000 times. In other words, when Marion Koopmans speaks about virology, she speaks from the very center of the establishment.
Those familiar with the research compiled by Christine Massey may recall a previous exchange featured on her site, where Marion acknowledged that negative controls were not performed in her “SARS-CoV-2” experiments—a remarkable admission in its own right.
The “Dangerous” Tag
It began with a response to Marion by Frank Stassen, an assistant professor at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. He tagged me in the exchange, noting that my account was “dangerous.”
I have had a few interactions with Frank in the past, and his responses always leave much to be desired. For instance, during a discussion about the HIV demonstration by Dr. Robert Wilner—who injected the blood of an HIV-positive man into himself on live television in 1994—Frank tried to argue that because Dr. Wilner died six months later, he must have died of AIDS.
Unfortunately, Frank’s responses no longer appear online; as noted by his new profile, his old account was hacked and eventually suspended.
Fortunately, I screenshotted one of Frank’s responses prior to the “hack” because it was so absurd that I felt the need to capture it.
After informing Frank that Dr. Wilner did not die of AIDS, but rather from a heart attack, Frank insinuated that Dr. Wilner did die of AIDS…even though Frank simultaneously claimed there was no proof Wilner had actually injected himself with HIV-positive blood.
Naturally, I called him out on the inherent contradiction.
In his defense, Frank did eventually admit to his error in reasoning. However, it remains a perfect demonstration of the illogical loops that defenders of the mainstream narrative trap themselves in to maintain their positions—especially when their careers and identities depend on it.
In that exchange, I issued the same challenge to Frank that I had previously laid out for Ed Rybicki. Unfortunately, it went unanswered.
Apparently, the few interactions I had with Frank left an indelible impression, prompting him to warn Marion about how “dangerous” my account is. I decided to quote-tweet him to highlight the absurdity of labeling an account seeking empirical evidence as “dangerous.”
I also linked the challenge again to see if Frank would take the bait. Sadly, it once again went unanswered.
A Damning Admission
However, remembering a tweet about Marion Koopmans that I had posted two years prior, I took the opportunity to re-highlight it since Frank had brought her into the discussion.
It is a very revealing insight from Marion, where she admitted that German virologist Christian Drosten based his PCR test on a presumed “viral genetic code” rather than on an actual “viral isolate.”
This was not exactly news to anyone who had actually read Drosten’s paper, as he openly admitted as much, stating:
“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”
However, it is damning that those within the field see no issue with claiming they can create a test to detect unicorns without ever having a physical unicorn on hand to calibrate and validate the assay.
This is the structural insanity that the entire “SARS-CoV-2 pandemic” was built upon—a computer-code pandemic—and Marion saw absolutely nothing wrong with it.
See more here substack.com
Header image: CNRS News