When I started on this contagion road I kept coming back to a family I knew in the 80's. The woman and I were hospital room mates when I had my 1st child. Doncha know we met again one year later on the exact same day to have my 2nd child. She had 2 girls and twin boys. We became fast friends and cared for each others children.
Her husband was in construction and he hunted. She stayed at home. She and her girls were always inside while nothing could stop the boys from going outside to play. When sickness or colds rolled around all 3 males were immune as the women folk were all sick.
That family dynamic told me everything I needed to know about so-called contagion. Half that family exercised in fresh air and sunshine while the other half were couch potatoes. During this same time I was always sick during winter. The more I hunkered down and babied myself the sicker I got. One day I decided, during a snow storm, to go for a walk with my boys. They were filled with a joy I had never seen before. When we got home I made them hot chocolate, later went to bed and didn't cough all night long. After that I decided to not baby myself no matter how bad I felt. Walk, move, eat, sit in the sun, no couch, sit up and it worked every time to shorten the duration of sickness.
I also believed in contagion and viruses. Those days are over. I'm a flat-earther all the way.
I have reached the point where I don't even bother exposing the false claims that viruses don't exist. There are a lot of good points in this article on the failings of the scientific enterprise and health authorities, which are just as valid whether viruses exist or not. So what the narrative "viruses do not exist" achieves is to muddy the water and undermine all these valid points in the article. It is a poisoning of the well, a well known propaganda tool. I know some prominent "dissidents" follow this line even though they have the education to see through it and are unable to defend their position scientifically when we debated it. I don't know what motivates Alec Zeck here, whether an active participant in this particular psyop, or a naive and useful idiot.
What muddied waters are you referring to? The ones viroLIEgists defecated in with their toxic cell culture ‘experiments’? You know—the ones where they poison monkey kidney cells, trigger cytopathic effects, then blame the inevitable cell death on a 'virus' that’s never even been proven to exist? Those muddied waters?
First things first—get your language straight. Alec never says, “viruses don’t exist.” What he says is that viruses have never been proven to exist. There's a crucial difference. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof lies entirely with those making the positive claim.
So, if you're asserting that viruses exist, then show us the evidence. Just one paper. One study you’re willing to publicly pin your name to—one that doesn’t rely on circular reasoning and actually follows the scientific method.
Spoiler alert: if your “proof” involves poisoning monkey kidney cells with a toxic cocktail of antibiotics, bovine fetal serum, and other cytotoxic agents to induce cytopathic effects—without proper controls or a purified, isolated virus as an independent variable—then it doesn’t count. That’s not science. That’s standard viroLIEgy.
See, you don't even understand how the scientific method works... you cannot prove anything in science, you can only disprove, you can only refute, that's basic epistemology, look up K. Popper. So when you or Alec say viruses have never been proven to exist, you are perfectly right... When science investigates something that humans cannot directly see or handle, indirect evidence is used, by definition. Observations are made. Hypotheses are formulated. Experiments are designed to test those. Results are analyzed, hypotheses modified or discarded. Eventually a theory emerges about a particular field, and virology is a theory that accounts for the observations in that field. When you know the theory and you have made observations directly yourself, you find that the theory accounts pretty well for the observations. Do you have experiments that refute this theory? Please let me know. Do you have an alternative theory to offer to better account for the observations? Please let me now.
1. “You don't even understand how the scientific method works... you cannot prove anything in science, you can only disprove, you can only refute, that's basic epistemology, look up K. Popper.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ✅ Correct kernel: Popper did emphasize falsifiability as a criterion for science.
• ❌ Misuse: If you can't “prove” anything, then asserting viral existence as a “settled fact” directly contradicts Popper’s own criterion. According to Popper, theories must be subject to potential falsification. If you cannot prove viruses exist and instead only assert it, that’s unscientific.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Appeal to authority (Popper) without fully understanding his work. Popper didn’t say “indirect evidence” proves anything—he emphasized that theories must be actively tested for refutation. Simply defending a theory without rigorous falsifiability isn’t scientific.
• 💡 Irony: You say, “you can't prove anything,” yet you expect others to disprove viruses. This reversal of the burden of proof is a classic logical fallacy.
2. “So when you or Alec say viruses have never been proven to exist, you are perfectly right...”
🔍 Breakdown:
• 👏 Admittance: A rare flash of honesty, acknowledging that viruses haven’t been proven to exist in the strict scientific sense Popper demands.
• ❌ Contradiction: But, if you admit viruses haven’t been proven, then why is the theory still valid? You can’t acknowledge a lack of proof and simultaneously hold a theory as fact.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Doublethink — holding two contradictory beliefs: viruses haven’t been proven, and yet the theory is still solid.
3. “When science investigates something that humans cannot directly see or handle, indirect evidence is used, by definition.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ✅ True in general: Science does often rely on indirect evidence when direct observation isn’t possible.
• ❌ Overgeneralization: Not all indirect evidence is equal. The quality of indirect evidence matters greatly.
• 🧪 Problem in virology: The so-called “indirect evidence” often consists of:
A toxic cell culture soup (not purified virus).
Assumptions that cell death = viral presence (a post hoc fallacy).
No proper controls to rule out other causes.
No classical isolation of the virus.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Begging the question — assuming a virus is present before showing it, then attributing all effects to that presumed virus.
4. “Observations are made. Hypotheses are formulated. Experiments are designed to test those. Results are analyzed, hypotheses modified or discarded.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ✅ Correct description of the scientific method — textbook Popper/Karl Pearson/empiricism.
• ❌ Mismatch with virology practice:
Virology often skips key steps: no control cultures, no pure isolates, and assumptions baked into methods.
Hypotheses are often not tested with an eye toward refutation but are used to confirm a pre-decided theory. This violates Popper’s falsifiability criterion.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Idealization fallacy — describing how science should work but ignoring how it’s actually practiced in virology.
5. “Eventually a theory emerges about a particular field, and virology is a theory that accounts for the observations in that field.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ❌ Misuse of the word “theory”: A theory, according to Popper, must be falsifiable, not assumed.
• 🔄 Circular logic: Observations that assume the presence of a virus are used to justify the very theory of viral existence.
• ⚠️ Confirmation bias: Only evidence that fits within the virology framework is counted. Contradictory findings are dismissed or explained away as "anomalies."
6. “When you know the theory and you have made observations directly yourself, you find that the theory accounts pretty well for the observations.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ❌ Subjectivity alert: Personal beliefs and experiences don’t determine scientific validity. The theory should be judged by its testability, not how well it fits individual interpretations.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Subjective validation — akin to saying astrology works because "it matches my experience." That’s not how science works.
• 🚨 Red flag: A theory must survive objective and independent falsification, not personal confirmation.
7. “Do you have experiments that refute this theory? Please let me know.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ❌ Flawed assumption: The burden of proof rests with the one making the positive claim — in this case, asserting viruses cause disease.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof — asking critics to disprove something that hasn't been demonstrated properly in the first place.
• 💡 Hypocritical: If you’re a Popperian, you should be actively attempting to falsify virology, not demanding others to prove it wrong.
8. “Do you have an alternative theory to offer to better account for the observations? Please let me know.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ❌ Red herring: You don’t need an alternative theory to challenge a failed one.
• ⚠️ False dilemma: The argument assumes that if you don’t have a better theory, the existing one must be correct. That’s not how science operates.
• 🧠 Philosophy fail: Popper specifically argued that even without an alternative theory, a theory that is falsified must be discarded.
💥 Stronger Challenge:
If you believe in the scientific method as Popper described, then present empirical, falsifiable evidence that satisfies the following criteria for virology:
1. Isolation: Demonstrate a virus has been isolated from a sick host without contamination or assumptions.
2. Purification: Provide clear evidence the isolated particle is not cellular debris or culture additives.
3. Replication: Show the virus replicates exclusively inside living cells and provide real time visual evidence of this.
4. Causation: Prove the virus causes disease in a healthy host under controlled conditions, fulfilling the criteria of Koch’s postulates.
No assumptions. No circular reasoning. Show me one peer-reviewed paper that fulfils these requirements with proper controls. If virology is truly a robust, scientifically supported theory, this evidence should be readily available.
Lol, and that's why I don't engage in these debates, I gave clear answers to your questions and you just repeat your tired non sense without understanding and addressing my answers... Really, feel free to believe whatever you want, this is not my concern, this is your mind, your business, it has zero impact on the reality of viruses.
I am not ignoring falsifiability, that's why I was asking you if you had any experimental evidence refuting virology. I am not defending virology as settled truth when I am asking for evidence refuting it...
I don't now that virology routinely bypasses the scientific method, that's where you are supposed to come up with exemples.
You still don't understand the point that you cannot prove a theory in science, so really the onus is on you to disprove it, that's true in every science and there is no way around that, sorry.
It is not a classical logical fallacy to ask for what is your alternative theory to explain the observations when you attack the existing theory, this is how science has operated for a long time.
You don't have to take me seriously, like why would I care? I said at the outset I am done trying to explain and the reason is that people on your side of this debate simply don't understand how science works, as you just demonstrated again.
Of course I can define a virus, this is so strange, what makes you think I can't?!? You can look it up in a dictionary too : a virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. Happy?
Thanks for this exchange (mostly respectful), you both engaged with many interesting points. (I couldn’t read in full the 2nd thread, it became too much). At the end of the day, I still don’t know if viruses exist or not… I don’t have the ability to assess Marc’s claims, as I don’t have the capability to see the shape of the Earth. So there are some questions that I accept to leave unanswered at this point; but the questions raised in this Stack and arguments from Fascinator are certainly essential. My tin foil hat makes me prefer the questioning of the narrative in any case.
You've got it back to front. The pseudoscience of ViroLIEgy is the real PsyOp—a weaponized illusion that has unleashed a cascade of harms, laying waste to our freedoms, health, and economies.
Anyone who upholds the fraudulent ‘virus’ lie is either a knowing or unwitting accomplice, preventing the seismic shift from the life-threatening allopathic model to a world where individuals reclaim their sovereignty over health choices and eradicate the cancer of the medico-pharmaceutical cartels that have long preyed upon us.
This is a great list. However, no government will support anything like it. It would also expose their role in the criminality of the drug mafia.
Without the constant bombardment by the medical mafia about the fear of disease and death, allo-pathetic medicine would collapse. 90% of it is based in fear and panic.
Ah, the classic move—no evidence, so you resort to ad hominem attacks to cover your tracks. How original. 🙄
If you can’t provide a single paper showing a virus isolated, purified, and replicating from a sick person, maybe it’s time to stop hiding behind insults.
Funny how the scientific method gets ignored, and all that’s left are personal attacks. Proof? Still waiting. Until then, keep swinging with those 'jabs'—they’re the only thing you've got.... Oh, and Jackson Pollock EM Abstract Art!! LOL!!
Nice try Mr. BUTT!! That’s the orifice from where your 'scientific' method emanates!!
Still waiting for an answer on the cellular structures required for the 'mRNA' platform to perform. Don't know??
🚨Introducing the Revolutionary “Viral Isolation™ Method” 🚨
Because Who Needs the Scientific Method When You Have Consensus™?
Are you a virologist looking to isolate a virus but don’t want to deal with pesky scientific principles? Do you long for a world where assumptions are facts, controls are optional, and results are whatever you need them to be? Well, look no further! With Viral Isolation™, you, too, can bypass every fundamental step of the scientific method and still get published!
🎉 Special Features –ZERO Adherence to the Scientific Method! 🎉
🔬 Step 1: Skip Direct Observation!
Why waste time finding a virus in nature when you can just assume it exists? Don’t worry—no one in ‘virology’ has ever observed a virus as a distinct, independent entity directly from a sick person’s fluids. If they haven’t done it in over a century, why start now?
💡 Bonus: Instead of isolating a virus, just declare symptoms = virus. Got a cough? Must be a virus! Fever? Definitely a virus! Ate bad sushi? Yep - virus!!
📏 Step 2: The Hypothesis-Free Hypothesis™!
Real science requires an Independent Variable (IV) (the thing being tested), but who has time for that? Since we never actually isolate a virus, we’ll just assume it’s there. Science is hard—so let’s just skip the part where we identify our IV!
🧐 Scientific Method Violation:
✅ No purified virus? No problem! Just declare the existence of one and move on.
✅ Symptoms are vague? Who cares? A fever must mean viral infection!
✅ What about controls? HAHAHA, good one.
🧪 Step 3: Experimental Design... Or Lack Thereof!
Time to “prove” viral replication! But instead of isolating and testing a virus, let’s throw patient samples into a blender of monkey kidney cells, toxic antibiotics, fetal bovine serum, and a battery of chemicals! What could go wrong?
🧬 Pro-Tip: When the monkey kidney cells start dying from all the poison you added, just call it a Cytopathic Effect (CPE) and claim the virus did it! (Ignore the fact that control experiments show the same results without a virus—just pretend those don’t exist!)
📸 Step 4: The Electron Microscope Magic Show!
Now, let’s get some ‘proof.’ Instead of isolating and purifying a virus, just snap a picture of the cellular debris from our CPE Toxicity Soup™ and say, “See? That blob right there—totally a virus.”
🔍 Fun Fact: If someone asks why you didn’t purify and isolate the virus, just roll your eyes and mutter, “You don’t understand virology.” That’ll shut them up!
📊 Step 5: Data Manipulation & Narrative Control!
Science should be about unbiased analysis... but where’s the fun in that? With Viral Isolation™, you can:
✅ Assemble ‘viral genomes’ on a computer, even if no complete ‘genome’ was found! (Computers never make mistakes.)
✅ Use PCR to ‘detect’ tiny ‘genetic fragments,’ from a ‘virus’ never proven to exist.
✅ Ignore all contradictory evidence, and call anyone who questions your methods a science denier™!
🧠 Step 6: Declare Success No Matter What!
In real science, if an experiment fails, the hypothesis should be rejected. But with Viral Isolation™, failure is never an option!
🚫 Found no actual virus? Publish anyway!
🚫 Control experiments contradict your results? Ignore them!
🚫 No reproducibility? Silence the skeptics!
🌟 SPECIAL BONUS! – Support the Digital Biosecurity State! 🌟
By believing in this groundbreaking Non-Scientific Methodology™, YOU, too, can:
💰 Enable the Biosecurity State™ – The more viruses we ‘find,’ the more lockdowns, mandates, and surveillance we can justify!
📉 Help Crush Small Businesses! – Nothing says ‘progress’ like eliminating those pesky local shops and centralizing power!
🛑 Contribute to The Great Reset™! – Because why have freedom when you can have digital IDs, carbon quotas, and endless health passports?
🚀 ORDER NOW! 🚀
For a limited time, get your Viral Isolation™ Kit for the low price of your critical thinking skills!
(Side effects include cognitive dissonance, FOIA-induced panic attacks, and an uncontrollable urge to shout, “Trust the Science!” at anyone who asks for evidence)
💥 Viral Isolation™ – Where Assumptions Become Facts! ™ 💥
No ’virus’ has ever been identified in the bodily fluids of a sick person under electron microscopy. Those eerie grayscale Jackson Pollock splatters? Just the shredded remains of monkey kidney cell cultures, tortured with a cocktail of toxic chemicals. If I’m wrong, go ahead—show me the smoking gun!! 💥
Bacteria exist, but they're not pathogenic. As for viruses, their existence has never been scientifically proven using the scientific method. And, to answer your question − YES!!
I am not arguing with you but this entire supposition that viruses don’t exist would indicate that “entire” careers and industries are just a fake to make money? So the “vaccine” which inserts RNA instructions into the body. The resulting production of Covid virus spike proteins stimulates the body to mount an immune response. Unfortunately this results in a redirection of immunity and puts the body in a weakened immune response. So in your mind, what is in the Covid vaccine and every other vaccine that was or is being used to fight this mythical predator?
Oh, Lawrence... still waiting for an answer to this question: According to the official narrative, what cellular structures are required to enable the production of spike proteins?
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your claims about the ‘mRNA’ jabs function as advertised. According to the official narrative, what cellular structures are required to enable the production of spike proteins?
I’ll address each of the claims in your post shortly.
No ’virus’ has ever been identified in the bodily fluids of a sick person under electron microscopy. Those eerie grayscale Jackson Pollock splatters? Just the shredded remains of monkey kidney cell cultures, tortured with a cocktail of toxic chemicals. If I’m wrong, go ahead—show me the smoking gun!! 💥
Spatters? They pictures of viruses. FYI - there are many people on the internet that are willing to exploit vulnerable people to get eyes on their stuff. I have a friend who has been convinced the earth is flat and satellites don’t exist. So quit while you are behind. To deny that viruses exist is silly and you are publicly making a fool out of yourself.
🧪 Please, by all means—choose any one of those particles you’re pointing to in your beloved EM pics and explain, step by step, how it was isolated and purified directly from the bodily fluids of a sick human (not from a poisoned cell culture soup).
Then show us how it was demonstrated to be ‘replication-competent’—not in a petri dish poisoned with antibiotics and starved of nutrients, but via natural transmission routes, under controlled experimental conditions, using healthy subjects and proper scientific controls. If you're claiming that a particle is a virus, then back it with real science—not circular logic and camera tricks.
I had been in close proximity to two friends with 'covid' in a different town, 6 days later I had the same symptoms, I kicked it in about 8 h due to loading up on liposomal vit c.
Then there's Ebola, the same 'virus' signature shows up in all the victims, what toxin is that?
I have the same question with chicken pox and herpes. What is it that causes the exact same symptoms to appear in anyone infected with above mentioned illnesses. Nobody can answer that.
I see that your question still has not been answered. One valuable source is Dr Sam Bailey's website and substack. She and her husband cover this type of question twice per month on their substack I think. Go to their website and you will find videos on many specific dis-eases including chicken pox and herpes. You can probably also find those same videos on her substack. There are several other Terrain Therapists who have explained these dis-eases.
It's not that viruses don't exist. It's just that if they did not exist they'd have to be invented. (Yeah...I know...paraphrasing that old shyster, Voltaire on God...but even a stopped clock is right a couple of times a day.)
Because if it didn’t exist... we’d have to invent it! 🎵
🎶 "If God won’t do, then a germ will do!
One little bug—controls ALL of you!" 🎶
—The Voltaire Virus Jingle, sponsored by TrustTheScience™
Introducing the Voltaire Virus™—the invisible superstar of modern civilization! It may not be isolated, purified, or proven by the scientific method... but who cares? This shape-shifting phantom is the Swiss Army knife of global control mechanisms! 🧪🌍
✨ Features include:
🛑 Lockdown-on-Demand™ – One EM pic, and boom: cities shuttered, playgrounds taped off, grandma under house arrest!
💉 Injections for All™ – Whether you're sick, healthy, or a goldfish—there's a syringe with your name on it!
📱 Pass-Port-Apartheid™ – Want to eat, travel, or breathe in public? Flash your Bio-ID or stay home, peasant!
📊 Data Harvest Pro Max™ – Thanks to the Voltaire Virus™, every cough becomes a commodity, every sneeze a surveillance signal.
📺 Permanent Emergency™ – With a rotating cast of variants and rebrands, this franchise never ends! Stay tuned for "Kraken," "Pirola," and our upcoming hit: "Cattlepox X": The Moo-tation!” 🐄💥
🎓 Scientific Infallibility Shield™ – Question the methods? You’re an anti-science heretic! Praise be to the peer-reviewed priesthood!
🧼 Sanitized Social Conditioning™ – Mask your face, distance your soul, and bow before the algorithm.
🚨 Act now and get a free booster of fear with every Voltaire Virus narrative update! Terms and conditions apply (but they change weekly, so good luck keeping up).
📢 Remember: You may not see it, isolate it, or prove it exists...
...but the Voltaire Virus™ still runs your life. And that’s what matters. 😉
This discussion whether “they live” or not is missing a third part. What if… other factors are there in play?
What if there are other - undiscovered, as yet - contributors to the unbalancing of human health?
Just like with atomic particles, chemical elements, microscopic parts of living tissues, different forms of electromagnetic reverberations, and so on. Just like meridians in medicine. Or phases of water or hydrogen.
If we focus on proving that sure, they exist, or, they obviously don’t exist, we may be missing a completely different facet of the existence.
I agree that terrain, toxins, environmental factors are super important and play a large part in whether one catches the illness how sick one gets. I also agree that theres good evidence that the polio epidemic was caused by environmental factors (e.g.ddt) and AIDS is probably not caused by a virus either. However, I am still convinced there is such a thing as infectious diseases. It may be that the virus concept as it stands is incorrect (doesn't correctly explain Infectious diseases) but there are illnesses that pass from person to person and which one gets immunity to catching again (antibodies). Chicken pox is the best example. Growing up, everybody I know experienced chicken pox just ONCE. One child would catch it and one by one , so would every other child in the family. BUT not the the parents , because they had already had it as a child!!!! Babies who were breast feeding were also spared, funny that. Beautiful breast milk antibodies also have to be chucked out the window if you accept that there are no such thing as infectious diseases. I know of only one adult who has ever caught chicken pox and he never had it as a child because when his three siblings all caught it he was breastfeeding baby (and they were children). Terrain and environmental factors don't explain why adults who have had chicken pox never get it again. I am only referring to unvaxxed for chicken pox, which we largely still are in my home country. Things will change once more children get vaxxed for this because vaxxed immunity wans as we know. I think on balance that vaccines are terrible and I will never have another, but I will not deny that some give some protection from the virus in question , which is why the children I know who have been vaxxed for chicken pox have not caught it. Bad news when they catch it as adults, but the vaccine protection they currently enjoy does support the idea that there is antibody immunity and therefore such a thing as infectious diseases.
This may affect your theory. I am 76 years old, and I've never had a vaccine for chickenpox because they didn't exist back in my day, and I never had chickenpox as a child. In fact, I have only ever had measles in my entire life, no other infectious childhood illnesses. I don't like calling them diseases because I view them as an illness rather than a disease. When my daughter was about seven and I was in my early 30s, she came down with chickenpox, and I feared that I would as well, but, I did not. So I am unvaccinated and never caught the chickenpox from my daughter. I, of course, had direct contact with her since I bathed her, dressed her and even put a lotion on her chickenpox to prevent her scratching them. I don't know what you make of that, but I think I'm proof that not everyone who is unvaccinated, has never had chickenpox and becomes exposed to it as an adult always gets it. There are exceptions, don't you think?
Hi Marie, I have a similar story. I never had the chicken pox as a child (I did have measles) and I am immune to chickenpox because both my children got it and I took care of them but did not get sick. A possible explanation is that I DID contract chickenpox as an infant and it was so mild no one knew. I have lifelong immunity so I got it from somewhere. The younger you are when you get chickenpox the milder it is.
When I started on this contagion road I kept coming back to a family I knew in the 80's. The woman and I were hospital room mates when I had my 1st child. Doncha know we met again one year later on the exact same day to have my 2nd child. She had 2 girls and twin boys. We became fast friends and cared for each others children.
Her husband was in construction and he hunted. She stayed at home. She and her girls were always inside while nothing could stop the boys from going outside to play. When sickness or colds rolled around all 3 males were immune as the women folk were all sick.
That family dynamic told me everything I needed to know about so-called contagion. Half that family exercised in fresh air and sunshine while the other half were couch potatoes. During this same time I was always sick during winter. The more I hunkered down and babied myself the sicker I got. One day I decided, during a snow storm, to go for a walk with my boys. They were filled with a joy I had never seen before. When we got home I made them hot chocolate, later went to bed and didn't cough all night long. After that I decided to not baby myself no matter how bad I felt. Walk, move, eat, sit in the sun, no couch, sit up and it worked every time to shorten the duration of sickness.
I also believed in contagion and viruses. Those days are over. I'm a flat-earther all the way.
Adding the following article I wrote last year also titled “why it does matter” on the virus topic: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-it-does-matter
Also, the term “virus” is interesting in terms of metaphysically. It means “poison.” When understood this way, plus the pseudoscience to uphold this narrative, we see all the commotion behind this topic: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/metaphysical-terms-in-the-physical
I hope I live to see the end of vaccination and the entire Medical/ Pharmaceutical System
I’m with you all the way, it is the pivotal truth!
Brilliant!
HUGE THANKS!!
I have reached the point where I don't even bother exposing the false claims that viruses don't exist. There are a lot of good points in this article on the failings of the scientific enterprise and health authorities, which are just as valid whether viruses exist or not. So what the narrative "viruses do not exist" achieves is to muddy the water and undermine all these valid points in the article. It is a poisoning of the well, a well known propaganda tool. I know some prominent "dissidents" follow this line even though they have the education to see through it and are unable to defend their position scientifically when we debated it. I don't know what motivates Alec Zeck here, whether an active participant in this particular psyop, or a naive and useful idiot.
What's your definition of a virus Marc G W?
What muddied waters are you referring to? The ones viroLIEgists defecated in with their toxic cell culture ‘experiments’? You know—the ones where they poison monkey kidney cells, trigger cytopathic effects, then blame the inevitable cell death on a 'virus' that’s never even been proven to exist? Those muddied waters?
Right, you obviously fell for the psyop, you think that particular argument holds any water. Funny.
First things first—get your language straight. Alec never says, “viruses don’t exist.” What he says is that viruses have never been proven to exist. There's a crucial difference. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof lies entirely with those making the positive claim.
So, if you're asserting that viruses exist, then show us the evidence. Just one paper. One study you’re willing to publicly pin your name to—one that doesn’t rely on circular reasoning and actually follows the scientific method.
Spoiler alert: if your “proof” involves poisoning monkey kidney cells with a toxic cocktail of antibiotics, bovine fetal serum, and other cytotoxic agents to induce cytopathic effects—without proper controls or a purified, isolated virus as an independent variable—then it doesn’t count. That’s not science. That’s standard viroLIEgy.
So go on. Show us what you've got.
See, you don't even understand how the scientific method works... you cannot prove anything in science, you can only disprove, you can only refute, that's basic epistemology, look up K. Popper. So when you or Alec say viruses have never been proven to exist, you are perfectly right... When science investigates something that humans cannot directly see or handle, indirect evidence is used, by definition. Observations are made. Hypotheses are formulated. Experiments are designed to test those. Results are analyzed, hypotheses modified or discarded. Eventually a theory emerges about a particular field, and virology is a theory that accounts for the observations in that field. When you know the theory and you have made observations directly yourself, you find that the theory accounts pretty well for the observations. Do you have experiments that refute this theory? Please let me know. Do you have an alternative theory to offer to better account for the observations? Please let me now.
What's your definition of a virus?
1. “You don't even understand how the scientific method works... you cannot prove anything in science, you can only disprove, you can only refute, that's basic epistemology, look up K. Popper.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ✅ Correct kernel: Popper did emphasize falsifiability as a criterion for science.
• ❌ Misuse: If you can't “prove” anything, then asserting viral existence as a “settled fact” directly contradicts Popper’s own criterion. According to Popper, theories must be subject to potential falsification. If you cannot prove viruses exist and instead only assert it, that’s unscientific.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Appeal to authority (Popper) without fully understanding his work. Popper didn’t say “indirect evidence” proves anything—he emphasized that theories must be actively tested for refutation. Simply defending a theory without rigorous falsifiability isn’t scientific.
• 💡 Irony: You say, “you can't prove anything,” yet you expect others to disprove viruses. This reversal of the burden of proof is a classic logical fallacy.
2. “So when you or Alec say viruses have never been proven to exist, you are perfectly right...”
🔍 Breakdown:
• 👏 Admittance: A rare flash of honesty, acknowledging that viruses haven’t been proven to exist in the strict scientific sense Popper demands.
• ❌ Contradiction: But, if you admit viruses haven’t been proven, then why is the theory still valid? You can’t acknowledge a lack of proof and simultaneously hold a theory as fact.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Doublethink — holding two contradictory beliefs: viruses haven’t been proven, and yet the theory is still solid.
3. “When science investigates something that humans cannot directly see or handle, indirect evidence is used, by definition.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ✅ True in general: Science does often rely on indirect evidence when direct observation isn’t possible.
• ❌ Overgeneralization: Not all indirect evidence is equal. The quality of indirect evidence matters greatly.
• 🧪 Problem in virology: The so-called “indirect evidence” often consists of:
A toxic cell culture soup (not purified virus).
Assumptions that cell death = viral presence (a post hoc fallacy).
No proper controls to rule out other causes.
No classical isolation of the virus.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Begging the question — assuming a virus is present before showing it, then attributing all effects to that presumed virus.
4. “Observations are made. Hypotheses are formulated. Experiments are designed to test those. Results are analyzed, hypotheses modified or discarded.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ✅ Correct description of the scientific method — textbook Popper/Karl Pearson/empiricism.
• ❌ Mismatch with virology practice:
Virology often skips key steps: no control cultures, no pure isolates, and assumptions baked into methods.
Hypotheses are often not tested with an eye toward refutation but are used to confirm a pre-decided theory. This violates Popper’s falsifiability criterion.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Idealization fallacy — describing how science should work but ignoring how it’s actually practiced in virology.
5. “Eventually a theory emerges about a particular field, and virology is a theory that accounts for the observations in that field.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ❌ Misuse of the word “theory”: A theory, according to Popper, must be falsifiable, not assumed.
• 🔄 Circular logic: Observations that assume the presence of a virus are used to justify the very theory of viral existence.
• ⚠️ Confirmation bias: Only evidence that fits within the virology framework is counted. Contradictory findings are dismissed or explained away as "anomalies."
6. “When you know the theory and you have made observations directly yourself, you find that the theory accounts pretty well for the observations.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ❌ Subjectivity alert: Personal beliefs and experiences don’t determine scientific validity. The theory should be judged by its testability, not how well it fits individual interpretations.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Subjective validation — akin to saying astrology works because "it matches my experience." That’s not how science works.
• 🚨 Red flag: A theory must survive objective and independent falsification, not personal confirmation.
7. “Do you have experiments that refute this theory? Please let me know.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ❌ Flawed assumption: The burden of proof rests with the one making the positive claim — in this case, asserting viruses cause disease.
• ⚠️ Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof — asking critics to disprove something that hasn't been demonstrated properly in the first place.
• 💡 Hypocritical: If you’re a Popperian, you should be actively attempting to falsify virology, not demanding others to prove it wrong.
8. “Do you have an alternative theory to offer to better account for the observations? Please let me know.”
🔍 Breakdown:
• ❌ Red herring: You don’t need an alternative theory to challenge a failed one.
• ⚠️ False dilemma: The argument assumes that if you don’t have a better theory, the existing one must be correct. That’s not how science operates.
• 🧠 Philosophy fail: Popper specifically argued that even without an alternative theory, a theory that is falsified must be discarded.
💥 Stronger Challenge:
If you believe in the scientific method as Popper described, then present empirical, falsifiable evidence that satisfies the following criteria for virology:
1. Isolation: Demonstrate a virus has been isolated from a sick host without contamination or assumptions.
2. Purification: Provide clear evidence the isolated particle is not cellular debris or culture additives.
3. Replication: Show the virus replicates exclusively inside living cells and provide real time visual evidence of this.
4. Causation: Prove the virus causes disease in a healthy host under controlled conditions, fulfilling the criteria of Koch’s postulates.
No assumptions. No circular reasoning. Show me one peer-reviewed paper that fulfils these requirements with proper controls. If virology is truly a robust, scientifically supported theory, this evidence should be readily available.
Lol, and that's why I don't engage in these debates, I gave clear answers to your questions and you just repeat your tired non sense without understanding and addressing my answers... Really, feel free to believe whatever you want, this is not my concern, this is your mind, your business, it has zero impact on the reality of viruses.
You invoke Popper but ignore falsifiability.
You admit viruses haven’t been proven but defend 'virology' like it’s settled truth.
You cite the scientific method but overlook how virology routinely bypasses it.
You demand others disprove your theory, while offering no proper proof yourself.
And finally, you lean on the absence of a ‘better’ theory to prop up your own — a classic logical fallacy.
You’re not defending science. You’re defending dogma — using the language of science to shield it from scrutiny.
And to top it off, you can’t even define what a virus is.
So tell me — why should anyone take you seriously??
I am not ignoring falsifiability, that's why I was asking you if you had any experimental evidence refuting virology. I am not defending virology as settled truth when I am asking for evidence refuting it...
I don't now that virology routinely bypasses the scientific method, that's where you are supposed to come up with exemples.
You still don't understand the point that you cannot prove a theory in science, so really the onus is on you to disprove it, that's true in every science and there is no way around that, sorry.
It is not a classical logical fallacy to ask for what is your alternative theory to explain the observations when you attack the existing theory, this is how science has operated for a long time.
You don't have to take me seriously, like why would I care? I said at the outset I am done trying to explain and the reason is that people on your side of this debate simply don't understand how science works, as you just demonstrated again.
Of course I can define a virus, this is so strange, what makes you think I can't?!? You can look it up in a dictionary too : a virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. Happy?
You're promoting the ViroLIEgy PsyOp and can't even define what a virus is. LMFAO!!
Thanks for this exchange (mostly respectful), you both engaged with many interesting points. (I couldn’t read in full the 2nd thread, it became too much). At the end of the day, I still don’t know if viruses exist or not… I don’t have the ability to assess Marc’s claims, as I don’t have the capability to see the shape of the Earth. So there are some questions that I accept to leave unanswered at this point; but the questions raised in this Stack and arguments from Fascinator are certainly essential. My tin foil hat makes me prefer the questioning of the narrative in any case.
What's your definition of a virus??
What is the PsyOp Alec is promoting?
The psyop that viruses do not exist.
You've got it back to front. The pseudoscience of ViroLIEgy is the real PsyOp—a weaponized illusion that has unleashed a cascade of harms, laying waste to our freedoms, health, and economies.
Anyone who upholds the fraudulent ‘virus’ lie is either a knowing or unwitting accomplice, preventing the seismic shift from the life-threatening allopathic model to a world where individuals reclaim their sovereignty over health choices and eradicate the cancer of the medico-pharmaceutical cartels that have long preyed upon us.
Let’s pick it up from here. The other thread has essentially narrowed down to a single, literal thread…
Short answer − nope.
Now, here’s the fun bit:
Can you guess which field is absolutely swimming in artefacts?
Go on, have a stab.
Need a hint?
It starts with a "V" and ends in "...iology," and it loves a good cytopathic effect.
(Yeah, I see you!! 😄)
Don’t worry, though—without artefacts, some ’scientists’ wouldn’t have a career. Or a ’pandemic.’
Yeah, very good.
This is a great list. However, no government will support anything like it. It would also expose their role in the criminality of the drug mafia.
Without the constant bombardment by the medical mafia about the fear of disease and death, allo-pathetic medicine would collapse. 90% of it is based in fear and panic.
Ah, the classic move—no evidence, so you resort to ad hominem attacks to cover your tracks. How original. 🙄
If you can’t provide a single paper showing a virus isolated, purified, and replicating from a sick person, maybe it’s time to stop hiding behind insults.
Funny how the scientific method gets ignored, and all that’s left are personal attacks. Proof? Still waiting. Until then, keep swinging with those 'jabs'—they’re the only thing you've got.... Oh, and Jackson Pollock EM Abstract Art!! LOL!!
Nice try Mr. BUTT!! That’s the orifice from where your 'scientific' method emanates!!
Still waiting for an answer on the cellular structures required for the 'mRNA' platform to perform. Don't know??
You haven't addressed my previous question??? Why not? Evasion??
🚨Introducing the Revolutionary “Viral Isolation™ Method” 🚨
Because Who Needs the Scientific Method When You Have Consensus™?
Are you a virologist looking to isolate a virus but don’t want to deal with pesky scientific principles? Do you long for a world where assumptions are facts, controls are optional, and results are whatever you need them to be? Well, look no further! With Viral Isolation™, you, too, can bypass every fundamental step of the scientific method and still get published!
🎉 Special Features –ZERO Adherence to the Scientific Method! 🎉
🔬 Step 1: Skip Direct Observation!
Why waste time finding a virus in nature when you can just assume it exists? Don’t worry—no one in ‘virology’ has ever observed a virus as a distinct, independent entity directly from a sick person’s fluids. If they haven’t done it in over a century, why start now?
💡 Bonus: Instead of isolating a virus, just declare symptoms = virus. Got a cough? Must be a virus! Fever? Definitely a virus! Ate bad sushi? Yep - virus!!
📏 Step 2: The Hypothesis-Free Hypothesis™!
Real science requires an Independent Variable (IV) (the thing being tested), but who has time for that? Since we never actually isolate a virus, we’ll just assume it’s there. Science is hard—so let’s just skip the part where we identify our IV!
🧐 Scientific Method Violation:
✅ No purified virus? No problem! Just declare the existence of one and move on.
✅ Symptoms are vague? Who cares? A fever must mean viral infection!
✅ What about controls? HAHAHA, good one.
🧪 Step 3: Experimental Design... Or Lack Thereof!
Time to “prove” viral replication! But instead of isolating and testing a virus, let’s throw patient samples into a blender of monkey kidney cells, toxic antibiotics, fetal bovine serum, and a battery of chemicals! What could go wrong?
🧬 Pro-Tip: When the monkey kidney cells start dying from all the poison you added, just call it a Cytopathic Effect (CPE) and claim the virus did it! (Ignore the fact that control experiments show the same results without a virus—just pretend those don’t exist!)
📸 Step 4: The Electron Microscope Magic Show!
Now, let’s get some ‘proof.’ Instead of isolating and purifying a virus, just snap a picture of the cellular debris from our CPE Toxicity Soup™ and say, “See? That blob right there—totally a virus.”
🔍 Fun Fact: If someone asks why you didn’t purify and isolate the virus, just roll your eyes and mutter, “You don’t understand virology.” That’ll shut them up!
📊 Step 5: Data Manipulation & Narrative Control!
Science should be about unbiased analysis... but where’s the fun in that? With Viral Isolation™, you can:
✅ Assemble ‘viral genomes’ on a computer, even if no complete ‘genome’ was found! (Computers never make mistakes.)
✅ Use PCR to ‘detect’ tiny ‘genetic fragments,’ from a ‘virus’ never proven to exist.
✅ Ignore all contradictory evidence, and call anyone who questions your methods a science denier™!
🧠 Step 6: Declare Success No Matter What!
In real science, if an experiment fails, the hypothesis should be rejected. But with Viral Isolation™, failure is never an option!
🚫 Found no actual virus? Publish anyway!
🚫 Control experiments contradict your results? Ignore them!
🚫 No reproducibility? Silence the skeptics!
🌟 SPECIAL BONUS! – Support the Digital Biosecurity State! 🌟
By believing in this groundbreaking Non-Scientific Methodology™, YOU, too, can:
💰 Enable the Biosecurity State™ – The more viruses we ‘find,’ the more lockdowns, mandates, and surveillance we can justify!
📉 Help Crush Small Businesses! – Nothing says ‘progress’ like eliminating those pesky local shops and centralizing power!
🛑 Contribute to The Great Reset™! – Because why have freedom when you can have digital IDs, carbon quotas, and endless health passports?
🚀 ORDER NOW! 🚀
For a limited time, get your Viral Isolation™ Kit for the low price of your critical thinking skills!
(Side effects include cognitive dissonance, FOIA-induced panic attacks, and an uncontrollable urge to shout, “Trust the Science!” at anyone who asks for evidence)
💥 Viral Isolation™ – Where Assumptions Become Facts! ™ 💥
So the entire science of virology is a fake? How about bacteria? Are they just made up to control us? What about prions? Are they nonexistent?
No ’virus’ has ever been identified in the bodily fluids of a sick person under electron microscopy. Those eerie grayscale Jackson Pollock splatters? Just the shredded remains of monkey kidney cell cultures, tortured with a cocktail of toxic chemicals. If I’m wrong, go ahead—show me the smoking gun!! 💥
Bacteria exist, but they're not pathogenic. As for viruses, their existence has never been scientifically proven using the scientific method. And, to answer your question − YES!!
I am not arguing with you but this entire supposition that viruses don’t exist would indicate that “entire” careers and industries are just a fake to make money? So the “vaccine” which inserts RNA instructions into the body. The resulting production of Covid virus spike proteins stimulates the body to mount an immune response. Unfortunately this results in a redirection of immunity and puts the body in a weakened immune response. So in your mind, what is in the Covid vaccine and every other vaccine that was or is being used to fight this mythical predator?
Oh, Lawrence... still waiting for an answer to this question: According to the official narrative, what cellular structures are required to enable the production of spike proteins?
I get it now - you are rodeo goat on crack crazy and impossible to reason with.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your claims about the ‘mRNA’ jabs function as advertised. According to the official narrative, what cellular structures are required to enable the production of spike proteins?
I’ll address each of the claims in your post shortly.
So these electron microscope pictures of viruses are “all” fake? https://www.utmb.edu/virusimages/the-virus-images
No ’virus’ has ever been identified in the bodily fluids of a sick person under electron microscopy. Those eerie grayscale Jackson Pollock splatters? Just the shredded remains of monkey kidney cell cultures, tortured with a cocktail of toxic chemicals. If I’m wrong, go ahead—show me the smoking gun!! 💥
Spatters? They pictures of viruses. FYI - there are many people on the internet that are willing to exploit vulnerable people to get eyes on their stuff. I have a friend who has been convinced the earth is flat and satellites don’t exist. So quit while you are behind. To deny that viruses exist is silly and you are publicly making a fool out of yourself.
🧪 Please, by all means—choose any one of those particles you’re pointing to in your beloved EM pics and explain, step by step, how it was isolated and purified directly from the bodily fluids of a sick human (not from a poisoned cell culture soup).
Then show us how it was demonstrated to be ‘replication-competent’—not in a petri dish poisoned with antibiotics and starved of nutrients, but via natural transmission routes, under controlled experimental conditions, using healthy subjects and proper scientific controls. If you're claiming that a particle is a virus, then back it with real science—not circular logic and camera tricks.
I see both sides and flip between the two.
I had been in close proximity to two friends with 'covid' in a different town, 6 days later I had the same symptoms, I kicked it in about 8 h due to loading up on liposomal vit c.
Then there's Ebola, the same 'virus' signature shows up in all the victims, what toxin is that?
What's COVID?
ViroLIEgist: X causes Y—but don’t ask us to prove X! Just close your eyes, nod along, and Trust the Science™!!!
What's COVID?
fk off retard, i didnt answer the first time
take the hint
I have the same question with chicken pox and herpes. What is it that causes the exact same symptoms to appear in anyone infected with above mentioned illnesses. Nobody can answer that.
I see that your question still has not been answered. One valuable source is Dr Sam Bailey's website and substack. She and her husband cover this type of question twice per month on their substack I think. Go to their website and you will find videos on many specific dis-eases including chicken pox and herpes. You can probably also find those same videos on her substack. There are several other Terrain Therapists who have explained these dis-eases.
It's not that viruses don't exist. It's just that if they did not exist they'd have to be invented. (Yeah...I know...paraphrasing that old shyster, Voltaire on God...but even a stopped clock is right a couple of times a day.)
Bio-Narrative Promotions is proud to present...
🎉 The Voltaire Virus™ 🎉
Because if it didn’t exist... we’d have to invent it! 🎵
🎶 "If God won’t do, then a germ will do!
One little bug—controls ALL of you!" 🎶
—The Voltaire Virus Jingle, sponsored by TrustTheScience™
Introducing the Voltaire Virus™—the invisible superstar of modern civilization! It may not be isolated, purified, or proven by the scientific method... but who cares? This shape-shifting phantom is the Swiss Army knife of global control mechanisms! 🧪🌍
✨ Features include:
🛑 Lockdown-on-Demand™ – One EM pic, and boom: cities shuttered, playgrounds taped off, grandma under house arrest!
💉 Injections for All™ – Whether you're sick, healthy, or a goldfish—there's a syringe with your name on it!
📱 Pass-Port-Apartheid™ – Want to eat, travel, or breathe in public? Flash your Bio-ID or stay home, peasant!
📊 Data Harvest Pro Max™ – Thanks to the Voltaire Virus™, every cough becomes a commodity, every sneeze a surveillance signal.
📺 Permanent Emergency™ – With a rotating cast of variants and rebrands, this franchise never ends! Stay tuned for "Kraken," "Pirola," and our upcoming hit: "Cattlepox X": The Moo-tation!” 🐄💥
🎓 Scientific Infallibility Shield™ – Question the methods? You’re an anti-science heretic! Praise be to the peer-reviewed priesthood!
🧼 Sanitized Social Conditioning™ – Mask your face, distance your soul, and bow before the algorithm.
🚨 Act now and get a free booster of fear with every Voltaire Virus narrative update! Terms and conditions apply (but they change weekly, so good luck keeping up).
📢 Remember: You may not see it, isolate it, or prove it exists...
...but the Voltaire Virus™ still runs your life. And that’s what matters. 😉
This discussion whether “they live” or not is missing a third part. What if… other factors are there in play?
What if there are other - undiscovered, as yet - contributors to the unbalancing of human health?
Just like with atomic particles, chemical elements, microscopic parts of living tissues, different forms of electromagnetic reverberations, and so on. Just like meridians in medicine. Or phases of water or hydrogen.
If we focus on proving that sure, they exist, or, they obviously don’t exist, we may be missing a completely different facet of the existence.
I'd like your opinion on this:
https://dailygalaxy.com/2025/04/scientists-discover-jyvaskylavirus-finland/
I agree that terrain, toxins, environmental factors are super important and play a large part in whether one catches the illness how sick one gets. I also agree that theres good evidence that the polio epidemic was caused by environmental factors (e.g.ddt) and AIDS is probably not caused by a virus either. However, I am still convinced there is such a thing as infectious diseases. It may be that the virus concept as it stands is incorrect (doesn't correctly explain Infectious diseases) but there are illnesses that pass from person to person and which one gets immunity to catching again (antibodies). Chicken pox is the best example. Growing up, everybody I know experienced chicken pox just ONCE. One child would catch it and one by one , so would every other child in the family. BUT not the the parents , because they had already had it as a child!!!! Babies who were breast feeding were also spared, funny that. Beautiful breast milk antibodies also have to be chucked out the window if you accept that there are no such thing as infectious diseases. I know of only one adult who has ever caught chicken pox and he never had it as a child because when his three siblings all caught it he was breastfeeding baby (and they were children). Terrain and environmental factors don't explain why adults who have had chicken pox never get it again. I am only referring to unvaxxed for chicken pox, which we largely still are in my home country. Things will change once more children get vaxxed for this because vaxxed immunity wans as we know. I think on balance that vaccines are terrible and I will never have another, but I will not deny that some give some protection from the virus in question , which is why the children I know who have been vaxxed for chicken pox have not caught it. Bad news when they catch it as adults, but the vaccine protection they currently enjoy does support the idea that there is antibody immunity and therefore such a thing as infectious diseases.
To Kiwi Sara,
This may affect your theory. I am 76 years old, and I've never had a vaccine for chickenpox because they didn't exist back in my day, and I never had chickenpox as a child. In fact, I have only ever had measles in my entire life, no other infectious childhood illnesses. I don't like calling them diseases because I view them as an illness rather than a disease. When my daughter was about seven and I was in my early 30s, she came down with chickenpox, and I feared that I would as well, but, I did not. So I am unvaccinated and never caught the chickenpox from my daughter. I, of course, had direct contact with her since I bathed her, dressed her and even put a lotion on her chickenpox to prevent her scratching them. I don't know what you make of that, but I think I'm proof that not everyone who is unvaccinated, has never had chickenpox and becomes exposed to it as an adult always gets it. There are exceptions, don't you think?
Hi Marie, I have a similar story. I never had the chicken pox as a child (I did have measles) and I am immune to chickenpox because both my children got it and I took care of them but did not get sick. A possible explanation is that I DID contract chickenpox as an infant and it was so mild no one knew. I have lifelong immunity so I got it from somewhere. The younger you are when you get chickenpox the milder it is.