Virology Without Proof

An Essay Responding to Palmer and Bhakdi’s Defense of the Field

Dr. Michael Palmer, writing with his former colleague Sucharit Bhakdi, opens his defense of virology with an acknowledgment that should give his readers pause. He concedes that “the public has ample reason to mistrust not only politicians, public officials and the media, but also the ‘scientific community.’” He quotes Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who wrote that “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published.” He lists the lies told about COVID-19: the natural origin story, the PCR testing of asymptomatic patients, the lockdowns, the vaccine mandates. He calls these lies “absurd and brazen.”

Then Palmer asks his readers to trust the foundational claims of virology—claims that emerge from these same institutions, using these same methods, reviewed by these same journals, funded by these same interests.

This is the incoherent middle ground. You cannot acknowledge that scientific institutions have been systematically corrupted by external funding and special interests, then insist that their century-old foundational claims remain beyond question. You cannot admit that modern researchers like Christian Drosten and Anthony Fauci are “court jesters” producing fake science, then demand deference to the methodology they inherited and continue to employ. Either institutional science deserves scrutiny or it doesn’t. Palmer wants it both ways.

The position he attacks—that viruses have never been properly isolated and shown to cause disease—is not “radical skepticism bordering on nihilism.” It is the application of basic scientific method to claims that have been granted immunity from it. The signatories to “Settling the Virus Debate,” whom Palmer dismisses as armchair skeptics, asked for something elementary: show us the isolated pathogen, run the proper controls, demonstrate causation according to the standards the field itself established. That these requests are treated as unreasonable tells us something important about what virology has become.

---

Support Independent Research

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.

[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]

Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com

---

What the “Radicals” Actually Asked For

Palmer characterizes the “Settling the Virus Debate” memorandum as demanding something impossible—direct isolation from bodily fluids without the use of cell cultures. He frames this as an arbitrary standard imposed by outsiders who don’t understand how virology works. This characterization obscures what the signatories actually requested.

Settling the Virus Debate

The memorandum asks for particles that fulfill the definition of viruses to be “directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal.” It asks that these particles be shown to be “replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing.” These are not exotic demands. They represent the ordinary meaning of the word “isolation”—the separation of one thing from all other things—and the ordinary standard of scientific proof: demonstrating that A causes B by showing that B occurs when A is present and does not occur when A is absent.

Consider how isolation works in other contexts. A chemist isolating a compound separates it from all other substances in a mixture. A pharmacologist extracting a drug from a biological sample separates it from everything else present. An electrician installing an isolation switch separates one circuit from all others. In each case, isolation is subtractive—it means removing something from everything else.

Virology uses the word differently. When virologists claim to have “isolated” a virus, they have typically added patient samples to cell cultures containing animal cells, antibiotics, antifungal agents, fetal bovine serum, and various other substances. They then observe cellular breakdown—what they call “cytopathic effects”—and declare that a virus must be present and responsible. This is not isolation in any ordinary sense. It is addition followed by interpretation.

The CDC itself acknowledged this disconnect. In response to a Freedom of Information request asking for records of SARS-CoV-2 isolation using the everyday meaning of the word, the agency replied: “The definition of ‘isolation’ provided in the request is outside of what is possible in virology.” The Public Health Agency of Canada similarly responded: “The isolation of a virus cannot be completed without the use of another medium....The gold standard assay used to determine the presence of intact virus in patient samples is virus isolation in cell culture.”

These agencies are admitting that isolating a virus—in the sense that scientists isolate anything else—is not done. They are not claiming it is unnecessary. They are claiming it cannot be accomplished. The question Palmer should address is why he finds this acceptable, and why those who don’t find it acceptable are “radical.”

Koch’s Postulates Are Not “Historical Context”

Palmer’s treatment of Koch’s postulates reveals the core weakness of his position. He acknowledges that these postulates—the gold standard for establishing that a microorganism causes a specific disease—cannot be fulfilled for viruses. Rather than treating this as a problem, he dismisses the postulates as “historical context” that should be “understood” rather than applied.

Koch’s postulates are straightforward:

1. The microorganism must be found in diseased but not healthy hosts.

2. The microorganism must be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture.

3. Inoculating a healthy individual with the cultured microorganism must recreate the disease.

4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the newly infected host and matched to the original.

Palmer argues that these postulates were designed for bacteria that could be grown in pure culture, and that viruses—which require living cells to replicate—cannot meet them by their very nature. He treats this as an interesting historical footnote rather than a logical problem.

But consider what Koch himself discovered when he attempted to apply his own postulates. In his famous work on tuberculosis—the work for which he received the Nobel Prize—Koch injected cultured bacteria into animals and observed the formation of tubercles. However, as Daniel Roytas documents in Can You Catch a Cold?, “the disease that resulted when he inoculated healthy animals with M. tuberculosis was different from that of animals who acquired the disease naturally.” The bacterium did not replicate the disease; it produced something else. Shortly after, Koch worked with Vibrio cholerae and “was unable to fulfil the first postulate because he found V. cholerae in completely healthy hosts.”

Can You Catch A Cold? - Untold History & Human Experiments

By 1889—just seven years after his famous tuberculosis paper—Koch himself stated: “Attempts have been made repeatedly to prove the contagious nature of tuberculosis, but they must be looked upon as failures, as such views have never found acceptance among scientists... on the whole physicians consider tuberculosis a non-contagious disease.” This remarkable admission, published in the American Veterinary Medical Association Journal, is rarely mentioned in accounts of Koch’s legacy.

The bacteria claimed to cause typhoid fever, diphtheria, leprosy, and relapsing fever all failed to satisfy more than one of the postulates. The germs were present in healthy people, and they failed to recreate the disease when administered to healthy hosts. Koch himself admitted he could not fulfill his own postulates shortly after developing them.

When other scientists reported similar problems—finding allegedly pathogenic bacteria in healthy people, failing to produce disease through inoculation—Koch backtracked. He introduced the concept of “asymptomatic carriers” to explain why pathogens could be present in healthy individuals. He claimed that only the first two postulates needed to be fulfilled. These were not refinements based on new knowledge; they were retreats from scientific rigor when that rigor threatened his conclusions.

Palmer himself, when pressed on this point in the comments beneath his article, admitted: “Yes, the idea of asymptomatic carriers does conflict with Koch’s original postulates.” This is a remarkable concession. The concept that allows germ theory to explain away its failures—asymptomatic carriage—directly contradicts the logical framework that was supposed to establish germ causation in the first place.

The WHO stated in 2003 that “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria of the so-called Koch’s postulate.” This article has since been removed from the WHO website, but it can be accessed through the internet archive. The postulates are not obsolete curiosities. They represent the logical structure of causal proof, and that structure does not become optional because it proves inconvenient.

Yet when challenged further, Palmer revealed his true position: “Koch’s postulates have nothing to do with logic—they are perfectly arbitrary.” He continued: “If your germ can satisfy them, fine—it means you have made a very strong case. But if it can’t, then this doesn’t mean that your germ is not the cause of the disease in question.”

This is an extraordinary admission. The gold standard for establishing disease causation is now “perfectly arbitrary,” and failure to meet it proves nothing. By this reasoning, virology’s claims become unfalsifiable. If a virus satisfies the postulates, that proves causation. If it doesn’t, that also doesn’t disprove causation. The theory cannot be wrong.

Rivers’ Postulates Fare No Better

When Koch’s postulates failed for bacteria, the field invented a rescue device—the virus. Thomas Rivers developed modified postulates in 1937 specifically for these newly hypothesized particles:

1. Isolate the suspected virus from a diseased host.

2. Cultivate the virus in host cells.

3. Provide proof of filterability.

4. Reproduce the disease after inoculating the virus sample into a healthy host.

5. Re-isolate the same virus from the experimentally infected host.

6. Detect a specific immune response to the virus.

Rivers dropped Koch’s first postulate—the requirement that the pathogen be found in diseased but not healthy hosts—because many people suffering from “viral” illness did not harbor the offending particle. This should have been a signal that something was wrong with the model. Instead, it was treated as a reason to lower the evidentiary bar.

Even more revealing are the contradictions Rivers himself documented in his 1937 paper. He noted that different viruses can produce identical symptoms, that the same virus does not always produce the same symptoms in different hosts, and that inoculating a virus into a healthy host might activate an unrelated latent virus already present. These observations directly contradict the central premise of germ theory: that a single pathogenic agent causes one specific disease.

Rivers gave the example of swine flu, declaring it was caused not by a virus alone but by the “synergistic effects of a virus and a bacterium”—neither could produce the disease independently. If two or more interacting agents cause disease, then neither Rivers’ nor Koch’s postulates could prove causality, because neither framework makes provisions for this phenomenon.

As Roytas concludes: “Altogether, the two sets of postulates are inherently problematic and potentially unfulfillable. This means no one has demonstrable ‘proof’ (as stipulated by Koch and Rivers) that germs cause disease.”

The historical record reveals another uncomfortable fact: Koch did not even originate the postulates that bear his name. The framework was developed earlier by Jacob Henle, Edwin Klebs, and Friedrich Löffler. Henle proposed the basic structure in 1840, almost forty years before Koch’s work on tuberculosis. Klebs drafted a similar procedure in 1878. Löffler published three criteria in 1883. When Koch published “his” postulates in 1890, he failed to credit any of these predecessors—what some scholars have described as academic plagiarism.

The sanitarians of the 19th century—physicians like Rudolph Virchow, considered the father of modern pathology—raised immediate objections. Virchow famously stated: “If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat, diseased tissue—rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue.” He believed epidemics were driven by social factors like poverty, poor housing, and malnutrition, and should be combated through political rather than medical means.

Max von Pettenkofer, a contemporary of Koch, attempted to disprove germ theory directly by drinking a pure culture of Vibrio cholerae obtained from Koch himself. To give the alleged pathogen every chance, Pettenkofer first neutralized his stomach acid with bicarbonate and drank the bacteria on an empty stomach. Apart from mild diarrhea, he remained well—despite being a seventy-four-year-old man in declining health with signs of diabetes. His colleague Rudolf Emmerich repeated the experiment with the same negative result.

Rather than reconsidering his theory, Koch introduced the concept of the “asymptomatic carrier”—the idea that pathogenic organisms could infect people without producing symptoms while retaining the capacity to transmit disease. This concept was unfalsifiable by design. If someone got sick, the germ caused disease. If they didn’t get sick, they were an asymptomatic carrier. The germ theory could not be wrong.

The Isolation Problem

Palmer dismisses concerns about viral isolation by claiming that virus particles have “very characteristic shapes that are not likely to be confused with any particles produced by living cells” and that “biochemical methods” can characterize these particles. He presents the Theil et al. study on porcine rotavirus as his strongest evidence—a study he describes with the confident assertion: “We can see no reasonable objection to the authors’ conclusion.”

There are several reasonable objections.

The methodology that virologists call “isolation” involves taking patient samples and adding them to cell cultures—typically Vero cells (African green monkey kidney cells) treated with antibiotics, antifungal agents, and reduced nutrients. When cells break down and die, this “cytopathic effect” is taken as evidence that a virus is present and replicating.

The critical problem is that cell cultures treated this way—with reduced nutrients and added antibiotics—produce cytopathic effects even without the addition of allegedly infectious material. Dr. Stefan Lanka has argued that in the original description of this experimental method, “no control experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects.” Those who developed the method noted that many cells died without being treated with the “infectious” sample. Rather than questioning their conclusions, they attributed these deaths to “unknown viruses or other factors.”

This is backwards reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (that viruses cause cytopathic effects) before the experiment has demonstrated it. A proper control would involve subjecting identical cell cultures to the same starvation conditions and antibiotic treatments, without adding patient material, to see if the same effects occur. When this control is performed—as Stefan Lanka did in 2021—the cytopathic effects appear anyway.

John Enders’ Nobel Prize-winning work on measles provides a telling example. In 1954, Enders and Peebles claimed to have isolated the measles virus using the following procedure: they took gargled milk from measles patients, added antibiotics, centrifuged the mixture, spread the liquid atop Rhesus monkey kidney cells, added bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, horse serum, more antibiotics, and various other substances. When the monkey kidney cells broke down, they attributed this to the measles virus.

Crucially, they also performed a control: they added the same ingredients to a cell culture without the infected material. The uninoculated control broke down in exactly the same way as the inoculated culture. Enders and Peebles admitted that “whatever cytopathic agent was present in the uninoculated culture could not be distinguished with confidence from the ‘virus’ present in the inoculated culture.”

This is the foundation of modern virology—a method that cannot distinguish between its proposed cause and the effects of its own procedures. Yet this methodology remains the “gold standard” for virus isolation.

Palmer’s Best Evidence Examined

Palmer presents the Theil et al. study on porcine rotavirus as a model of proper virus isolation. The study used gnotobiotic (germ-free) pigs, claimed to isolate a novel virus, and demonstrated that it “infected villous enterocytes throughout the small intestine of gnotobiotic pigs and induced an acute, transitory diarrhea.”

When readers examined this study and asked Palmer where the purification procedure was described, his response was revealing. He admitted: “Of course this is not a highly pure preparation—just pure enough for the kinds of experiments that were carried out.” He acknowledged that the study achieved only “partial purification by filtration.”

This is Palmer’s best evidence—the study he selected to demonstrate that proper virus isolation has been accomplished. And by his own admission, it did not achieve purification. When pressed further, he explained: “It is very difficult to achieve high purity if the concentration of particles in the sample is very low. That is precisely the reason for using cell cultures, because those produce much higher particle densities, and therefore permit more rigorous purification.”

But this raises an obvious question: if cell cultures are necessary to achieve rigorous purification, where are the studies showing rigorous purification from cell cultures? When asked for such evidence, Palmer could not provide it. The promised rigor remains perpetually deferred.

Even accepting the study’s claims at face value, it faces the same methodological problems that plague virology generally. The researchers did not isolate virus particles directly from the bodily fluids of sick animals. They used cell culture techniques that introduce the confounds discussed above. The electron microscopy images they present show particles, but particles of what?

Expert electron microscopists have repeatedly warned about the difficulty of identifying viruses in such images. A 2021 article in Emerging Infectious Diseases on the CDC’s website, titled “Difficulties in Differentiating Coronaviruses from Subcellular Structures in Human Tissues by Electron Microscopy,” states that researchers have “inaccurately reported subcellular structures, including coated vesicles, multivesicular bodies, and vesiculating rough endoplasmic reticulum, as coronavirus particles.”

The problem is fundamental. As Mark Bailey notes, “electron micrographs are photos of stuff that has been embedded in resin and then cut up into very thin slices. Whatever is visualized in these images is dead.” The preparation process dehydrates samples, adds heavy metals for “shadowing,” and bombards specimens with electrons. These procedures alter what is being observed. Without having first isolated and characterized virus particles in their natural state, how do researchers know what they are looking for?

The comparison with exosomes is particularly damaging to Palmer’s position. Exosomes are particles released by cells under stress—they are well-documented, can be isolated and purified directly from bodily fluids, and have been extensively characterized. As Roytas documents: “Viruses and exosomes are so similar they cannot be easily differentiated, so much so, that their classification is often dependent on the ‘preference of the investigator.’” A 2020 paper in a leading virology journal acknowledged that “a reliable method for separating virus particles from non-virus particles (exosomes) does not exist, owing to their similar morphology.”

Influenza A and B viruses are virtually indistinguishable when viewed under an electron microscope. When a person is supposedly “co-infected” with both viruses, how do virologists know from EM images that they have obtained a purified sample of just one? Molecular or antigen-based testing might miss the second agent. The claim that viruses have “characteristic shapes” that distinguish them from cellular material does not survive scrutiny of the actual research literature.

Stefan Lanka points out that virologists “never, ever saw a virus inside the living being or inside its liquids....Everybody can check it easily on every single photograph that should show a virus—that it’s from a cell culture. But never from the blood, never from the saliva, never from the semen, never from another liquid of the body. Never from a lymph node. Never from the inside. Not from a human, not from an animal, not from a plant.”

If virologists cannot reliably distinguish alleged virus particles from exosomes—particles the body naturally produces—then the claim to have identified specific viruses becomes uncertain. This is not a peripheral technical detail. It goes to the heart of whether virology can demonstrate what it claims to demonstrate.

The Missing Controls

Palmer writes that “practicing virologists are highly likely to ignore” the demand for isolation without cell cultures, and that “we cannot fault them” for this. He frames efficiency as a legitimate reason to bypass fundamental scientific controls.

This gets the issue backwards. The question is not whether cell cultures are convenient. The question is whether they introduce confounds that invalidate conclusions. If stressing cells with nutrient deprivation and antibiotics produces the same effects attributed to viruses, then experiments using these methods cannot distinguish between viral and non-viral causation. Convenience does not resolve this problem.

Christine Massey and colleagues have submitted Freedom of Information requests to over 200 institutions in 40 countries, asking for records describing the isolation and purification of SARS-CoV-2 (or any other virus) directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient—not combined with other genetic material, not grown in cell culture. To date, no institution has provided such records.

The responses are revealing. The CDC first admitted flatly that “a search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.” Later responses became more evasive, but the pattern is consistent: when asked for evidence of isolation in the ordinary sense of the word, agencies cannot provide it.

Massey expanded her requests to cover viruses beyond SARS-CoV-2. Health agencies around the world have been unable to provide records for the purification of adenovirus, Ebola, Epstein-Barr, hepatitis B and C, herpes, HIV, HPV, swine flu, avian flu, Marburg virus, measles, MERS, monkeypox, rabies, RSV, SARS, smallpox, West Nile, and Zika.

When Massey’s team asked the UK Health Security Agency for details about control methods used in virus isolation studies, the agency cited a “national security” exemption, arguing that releasing details would “directly contravene an explicit request from the World Health Organization.”

The experiment that would resolve this debate is straightforward: perform blinded tests in certified laboratories, supplying experts with samples without telling them what results to expect—including samples from healthy individuals. If the experts return positive viral tests from healthy samples, the story ends. Virology has declined to perform this test.

Contagion Under Scrutiny

Palmer does not address the extensive experimental record on disease transmission, but this record bears directly on whether viruses cause disease as claimed.

Daniel Roytas has compiled 203 experiments conducted over the past century attempting to demonstrate sick-to-well transmission of cold and flu. The modal outcome—the most frequently occurring result—is zero transmission. Of 203 experiments, 73 (36%) failed to make a single person ill. The mean transmission rate, even using the experimenters’ own criteria for “infection,” was 32%—and this drops to 22% when outlier studies are excluded.

More striking are the individual experiments. In the 1930s, Kerr and Lagen housed healthy participants with people sick from naturally acquired colds. Both groups lived together in climate-controlled, pressure-regulated, air-locked rooms. They ate together, played cards, drank from the same glasses. Sick people sneezed directly into the faces of 19 healthy volunteers. None developed colds, even after a six-day observation period. In separate experiments, nasal secretions from sick people were squirted directly into the conjunctiva of healthy participants. All 15 remained completely well.

Buckland conducted a series of trials in 1965. Twenty groups—each consisting of one healthy participant and up to two sick donors—lived in complete isolation together for nine days. One of the 20 healthy volunteers developed “questionable” symptoms. In another trial, six sick people coughed and sneezed into bags, and eleven healthy participants immediately inhaled the air directly from those bags. None became unwell. Eight healthy participants attended “sneeze parties,” spending one hour twice daily for three days playing cards with sick participants who were coughing and sneezing profusely. All eight remained completely healthy.

In 1951, Andrews and Lovelock conducted an extraordinary experiment on a remote Scottish island that had been uninhabited for twelve years. Twelve healthy volunteers were isolated there for ten weeks with no contact with the outside world. When exposed to sick participants through contaminated objects—playing cards, books, cutlery, cups, door handles contaminated with nasal discharge—none became ill. When healthy participants spent three hours with sick people who coughed and sneezed freely in their presence, none became ill. When healthy and sick participants lived and ate together for four days, none of the healthy volunteers developed a cold.

During the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918—supposedly the deadliest pandemic in history—the U.S. Public Health Service conducted extensive experiments trying to transmit the disease. Dr. Milton Rosenau described the protocol: volunteers had direct contact with sick patients, shook hands, talked face to face, received breath directly into their faces, and had sick patients cough directly into their faces—repeated five times with ten different patients. “They were watched carefully for seven days—and none of them took sick in any way.”

No Flu, No Proof: Rosenau’s 1918 Challenge to Contagion

Rosenau reported: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps there are factors, or a factor, in the transmission of influenza that we do not know.” A century later, those factors remain unidentified.

A 2020 transmission experiment involved 127 participants. Researchers inoculated 52 healthy people with cell culture fluid allegedly containing influenza virus, and 42 developed symptoms—an apparently impressive transmission rate. However, these 42 were then directly exposed to 75 healthy participants under controlled conditions for four days, with varying levels of protection. Only one person in the unprotected group became infected. Of 75 healthy people exposed to sick people, just one (1.3%) developed symptoms. The lab-induced cold was impotent.

These results cannot be reconciled with the claim that respiratory viruses are highly contagious and spread easily through droplets and aerosols. Either the experiments were fundamentally flawed in ways that somehow prevented transmission, or the transmission model is wrong.

The experiments that did show apparent transmission face a different problem: they lack proper controls. When researchers inoculate subjects with cell culture material containing alleged viruses, they introduce numerous substances beyond the hypothesized pathogen—antibiotics, cellular debris, growth media. Without control groups receiving identical material minus the alleged virus, symptoms cannot be attributed to viral infection rather than to irritation, immune response to foreign material, or nocebo effects.

The Door Palmer Won’t Open

Palmer dismisses terrain theory as a “false dichotomy,” claiming that mainstream medicine already accepts that patient health affects disease susceptibility. He cites William Osler’s observation that pneumonia outcomes depend on age and general health.

This misses the point. Terrain theory does not merely claim that host health matters. It proposes that what we call “disease” is the body’s adaptive response to toxicity, nutritional deficiency, or environmental stress—not an attack by external pathogens. Under this framework, the microorganisms found at sites of illness are not invaders but participants in the body’s cleanup and repair processes, similar to how firefighters are found at fires without being their cause.

The terrain theory framework was articulated by Antoine Béchamp, Claude Bernard, and a collective of sanitarian physicians in the late 1800s. “Terrain” refers to bodily fluids—particularly blood and interstitial fluid—and the physiological processes that maintain these fluids in a steady state. The core premise is that the body exists in dynamic equilibrium, responding to every stimulus with an appropriate counter-stimulus to preserve the internal environment. Disease and symptoms are not the problem but the body’s answer to the problem.

Dr. Thomas Sydenham expressed this view centuries ago: disease is “nothing more than an effort of nature, who strives with might and main to restore the health of the patient by elimination of the morbific matter.” What appears as illness is the body working to restore homeostasis.

This perspective resolves anomalies that germ theory struggles to explain. Over two billion people—more than a quarter of the world’s population—are said to have “asymptomatic tuberculosis infections.” They harbor the supposedly deadly pathogen inside their bodies, often for years, without developing symptoms. The overwhelming majority live in developing countries with high rates of poverty, malnutrition, and inadequate sanitation—precisely the conditions said to weaken immune function and increase susceptibility to infection.

How do the most impoverished and malnourished people in the world present with asymptomatic tuberculosis? If weak immune function allows pathogens to flourish, these populations should have the highest symptomatic rates, not asymptomatic carriage. The germ theory explanation requires germs to be simultaneously dangerous enough to cause pandemic fear and harmless enough to sit quietly in billions of people indefinitely.

Modern germ theorists attempt to resolve this by arguing that an impoverished immune system cannot mount a sufficient response, so no symptoms occur. But this makes the contradiction worse. By this logic, highly infectious germs fail to cause disease in hosts with either strong or weak immune systems. The germs only negatively impact those who fall into some “normal” range—which means germs perform very little “heavy lifting” in determining whether billions of people fall ill.

Terrain theory offers a different account. When the body’s internal environment becomes disrupted—through toxicity, malnutrition, or environmental stress—microorganisms adapt to assist in restoration. What appears under a microscope as “infection” is microbial activity responding to damaged tissue, not causing it. Bacteria in nature are saprophytic—they decompose decaying material. The same function operates within the body: bacteria appearing at sites of cellular damage to break down dead and dying tissue.

This does not mean that ingesting decomposing biological material is safe, or that bacteria can never produce harmful effects. It means that the causal arrow points in the opposite direction from what germ theory assumes. Bacteria at the scene of illness are responding to conditions rather than creating them.

The practical implications are significant. If disease results primarily from environmental factors—toxicity, nutritional deficiency, stress—then the appropriate interventions focus on addressing those factors rather than hunting microbes. The billions spent on antiviral research and vaccine development would be better directed at clean water, adequate nutrition, and reduction of environmental poisons.

The Incoherent Middle

Palmer began by acknowledging that scientific institutions have been corrupted, that researchers serve special interests, and that the public has been systematically lied to about COVID-19. He asks us to conclude that despite all this, virology’s foundational claims—established by these same institutions, using these same methods—remain valid.

The position cannot hold. If we accept that modern medical science has been captured by pharmaceutical interests, that journals publish unreliable research, and that public health authorities systematically deceive, we cannot exempt virology from scrutiny simply because its claims are older. Age does not confer validity. The methodology that produces fraudulent COVID research is the same methodology used to establish claims about measles, polio, influenza, and every other alleged viral disease.

When pressed in the comments on his article, Palmer made several candid admissions. He dismissed Koch’s postulates as “perfectly arbitrary.” He admitted his best evidence was “not highly pure.” He conceded that asymptomatic carriers “conflict with Koch’s original postulates.” And when one commenter persisted in demanding rigorous evidence, Palmer retreated to philosophical skepticism: “You should really start at the bottom—try to understand what ‘the scientific method’ actually is... the gist of it is that in empirical science you can never ultimately prove anything.”

This is where the defense of virology ends: you can never prove anything anyway, so why demand proof?

But proof matters because lives depend on it. Virology’s claims do not remain confined to academic journals. They become vaccines administered to millions of children. They become screening programs that turn healthy women into anxious patients. They become public health policies that reshape societies. When the foundational science is fraudulent, the downstream harms are measured in bodies, not abstractions.

Consider HPV. The “virus” blamed for cervical cancer has never been properly isolated—like every other claimed virus, it exists as genetic sequences of unknown origin attributed to a pathogen by researchers who assumed what they needed to prove. Even accepting virology’s framework, the German Cancer Research Centre’s own data show that less than one percent of women who test positive for HPV markers ever develop cervical cancer. The marker is nearly universal; the disease is rare. This is not causation. This is coincidence dressed in scientific language.

The HPV Lie: Pap Smears, Gardasil, and a Cancer Caused by Something Else

Yet on the basis of this claim, girls as young as nine receive Gardasil—a vaccine tested not against saline but against aluminum adjuvant, guaranteeing that the control group would also experience adverse events and making the vaccine appear safe by comparison. Post-marketing surveillance has recorded tens of thousands of adverse events, including premature ovarian failure in teenage girls whose ovaries simply stopped functioning. A federal court ruled that Gardasil caused the death of a healthy 21-year-old woman. Screening programs built on the HPV hypothesis create fifty unnecessary patients—women subjected to anxiety, colposcopy, biopsy, and cervical excision—for every death they prevent.

This is one virus. One claimed virus that does not exist as claimed, producing one cascade of interventions that harm orders of magnitude more people than they help. Multiply this pattern across measles, polio, influenza, hepatitis, HIV, COVID—across every disease attributed to viral causation without proper isolation, without controlled experiments, without demonstrated mechanism—and the scale of harm becomes difficult to comprehend.

Palmer's defense of virology is not an intellectual exercise. Whatever his intentions, it functions as a shield protecting an industry that injures millions while claiming to save them. When those who demand basic scientific evidence are dismissed as 'radical skeptics,' the effect is to defend a captured field's right to operate without accountability. The stakes are too high for that.

Palmer positions himself as the sensible adult, correcting those who have taken skepticism “too far.” But the signatories to “Settling the Virus Debate” are not asking for the impossible. They are asking for the basics: isolated particles, controlled experiments, demonstrated causation. That virology cannot provide these basics—and treats the request as unreasonable—suggests that something is deeply wrong with the field.

Consider what has been admitted. The CDC states that isolation as ordinarily defined is “outside of what is possible in virology.” Health agencies worldwide cannot provide records of any virus isolated and purified directly from a diseased person. Veteran virologists concede that purification has never been completed. The gold-standard methodology produces the same cellular breakdown whether or not allegedly infectious material is added. Electron microscopy cannot reliably distinguish alleged viruses from normal cellular components. Transmission experiments fail at rates incompatible with claims of high contagiousness.

Palmer’s response to all this is that “practicing virologists” will “ignore” the demands for proper isolation, and “we cannot fault them.” But science that refuses to answer fundamental questions about its own foundations is not science. It is received tradition defended by credential rather than evidence.

The “radical skeptics” Palmer dismisses include physicians, researchers, and scientists who have examined virology’s primary literature and found it wanting. They are not asking virology to meet some impossible alien standard. They are asking virology to meet the standards of science itself: isolate your variables, control your experiments, demonstrate causation rather than assuming it. The resistance to these elementary requests is itself evidence that the field cannot deliver what it claims.

You cannot stop halfway. Either institutional science warrants trust or it warrants scrutiny. Palmer has made the case for scrutiny. He should follow where it leads.

---

References

Bailey, Mark. “A Farewell to Virology.” Dr. Sam Bailey website, 2022.

Cowan, Thomas, et al. “Settling the Virus Debate.” 2022.

Engelbrecht, Torsten, et al. Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. 3rd Edition, 2021.

Gober, Mark. An End to Upside Down Medicine: Contagion, Viruses, and Vaccines. Waterside Press, 2023.

Lester, Dawn, and David Parker. What Really Makes You Ill: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong. 2019.

Massey, Christine. Freedom of Information responses compiled at fluoridefreepeel.ca.

Palmer, Michael. “Do viruses even exist? Spoiler: yes, they do.” This is the Dark Age (Substack), May 18, 2024.

Roytas, Daniel. Can You Catch a Cold? Untold History and Human Experiments. 2024.

---

Book: Medicalized Motherhood: From First Pill to Permanent Patient

Available as a free download. 123 interventions documented across six phases—from pre-conception capture through postpartum surveillance. Includes practical tools: birth plan template, provider interview questions, quick reference card, and a new chapter on interrupting the cascade. Download it, share it with someone facing their first prenatal appointment, their induction date, their cesarean recommendation. The cascade works because women don’t see it coming. This book makes it visible.

Download the free PDF here

Support Independent Research

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.

[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]

Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com

New Biology Clinic

For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com