If re-elected, there is a highly credible threat that the president will overhaul the government by replacing tens of thousands of federal government personnel with loyalists, fundamentally altering the structure and function of federal agencies and government function. This includes the potential for widespread lawless pardons of criminals and Trump loyalists who break the law, a complete remaking of the educational system, severe EPA deregulations that currently help protect our environment from pollution of land, water, and air, mass Gestapo-like deportations carried out by an emboldened police force with full immunity who have shown they are willing to murder innocent civilians.

The ‘Project 2025’ blueprint outlines an alarming agenda that includes increasing the nuclear arsenal, engaging in resource-driven conflicts, rolling back environmental EPA protections that safeguard land, water, and air.

Further, the dismantling of vital agencies like the EPA and FDA would have dire consequences for public health and safety, allowing profiteering oil companies to pollute the planet at astronomical levels like never before in history.

A short list of proposals from the Project 2025 playbook with reference pages:

1. Abolish federal agencies such as the FDA, EPA, NOAA, and other similar organizations (pg. 363-417)

We are currently being led by a psychotic “president” and his regime—a characterization that, while stark, increasingly reads not as hyperbole but as clinical diagnosis of an administration executing a hostile takeover of the American state. This is no longer a matter of partisan disagreement or policy preference. It is an observable, documented reality. Through the systematic implementation of the Heritage Foundation’s ‘Project 2025’ blueprint, the administration is dismantling the architecture of constitutional governance and replacing it with a spoils system designed to reward loyalists, punish perceived enemies, and concentrate unchecked power in the executive.

What was dismissed during the campaign as a fringe “wish list” has proven to be a precise, annotated guide to demolition. The evidence is no longer speculative; it is a matter of public record, federal lawsuit, and congressional inquiry.

The pathetic individuals, who lashed out because they couldn’t handle the facts being presented to them, have now been proven the fools and ignoramuses they were. They called it hyperbole. They called it alarmism.

They were wrong.

Nearly every prediction and warning I (and many others) made concerning Trump and his regime has materialized. The classified positions were filled with loyalists. The agencies were hollowed out. The deportations came—mass, militarized, and accompanied by the now-commonplace footage of masked, uniformed men killing American citizens, kicking down doors without warrants, and arresting toddlers. The EPA and its enforcement staff were gutted, now deregulated. The FDA’s independence was annihilated. The nuclear testing moratorium was shattered in the Nevada desert at 4:17 AM on a Tuesday, announced via Truth Social.

These are the very same people who spent decades railing against a “New World Order,” endlessly warning about creeping authoritarianism and the loss of their Second Amendment rights. Yet now, as an unmistakable consolidation of power unfolds in plain sight, they are nowhere to be found—or worse, openly applauding it. The tyranny they claimed to fear has arrived not through some foreign cabal, but through a domestic political movement they enthusiastically support. How ironic. The very people they railed against for so many years—the so-called ‘libs’—are the very people who are supporting freedom in the face of fascism and tyranny.

Blinded by ideology and conditioned by grievance politics, they are incapable of recognizing that their own actions helped produce the very outcomes they once seemingly denounced. In their desperation to “win,” they traded principle for power, confusing loyalty with patriotism and obedience with strength. What was once framed as vigilance against authoritarian control has been inverted into its opposite: the active endorsement of it, so long as it is exercised by their chosen dear leader.

Furthermore, how much money has Trump made in just the last year from the presidency, while everyone else suffers from his actions? Based on multiple investigative reports, the answer appears to be on the order of a billion dollars, give or take, depending on how one counts realized income versus increases in net worth. The exact figure is difficult to pin down because of opaque finances, privately held entities, and assets whose value fluctuates. But the scale is not seriously in dispute.

What is clear is that the presidency has been openly repurposed into a profit-making machine for his personal bank account and those of his rich friends and financiers. Public office is no longer treated as a public trust, but as a brand accelerator—a leverage point for monetizing influence, access, and power. This is not speculation; it is the consistent conclusion of major media investigations and oversight analyses.

This is not leadership—it’s exploitation. Power used not to serve the country, but to enrich oneself, while supporters excuse or celebrate the very corruption they were once warned to fear.

Jeff Green

In the shadowy corners of the internet, where evidence goes to die and scientific literacy is treated as a nuisance, figures like Tom Cowan have built empires. Cowan, a longtime peddler of pseudoscientific rhetoric, has now escalated his crusade against established knowledge to a startling new low. In his latest webinar, he didn’t just misinterpret science; he declared a wholesale war on the fundamental pillars of biology itself, revealing not a misunderstood genius, but a bad actor pushing anti-reality rhetoric.

His concluding teaser for a future session was a breathtaking parade of denialism. He presented a slide of biological concepts he claims are either misinterpreted or “don’t exist,” including:

Hormones: Insulin, Estrogen, Testosterone
Vitamins: Vitamin C, Vitamin A, B Vitamins
Essential Fats: Omega-3 and Omega-6

But he didn’t stop there. He laid the groundwork for an even more absurd claim, stating, “And there’s basically no cells as the basis of biology. And that rules out all these things like autophagy and apoptosis.”

To cement his departure from reality, he explicitly denied the core mechanisms of molecular biology:

DNA as a mechanism of heredity.
DNA coding for mRNA within the nucleus.
The translation of mRNA into protein on ribosomes.
The existence of any molecular motors or pumps.

Let’s be perfectly clear: This isn’t a controversial “new biology.” This is the desperate flailing of a man whose entire brand relies on convincing a vulnerable audience that the entire scientific world is lying to them.

A World Without Cells: The Logical Endpoint of Cowan’s Nonsense

If we follow Cowan’s logic to its conclusion—that cells do not exist—we are left with a reality that is indistinguishable from fantasy. What would happen without cells?

The answer is simple: Life would not exist.

Every single living organism you can see, from a blade of grass to a blue whale, is either a single cell or made of trillions of them. The evidence is not hidden in a conspiratorial textbook; it is observable, testable, and undeniable.

Amoebas: These are single-celled organisms. You can put one under a microscope and watch it move, feed, and reproduce. It is a self-contained unit of life—a cell. To deny its existence is to deny something you can see with your own eyes.

Human Blood: A simple blood test reveals red blood cells (which carry oxygen) and white blood cells (which fight infection). To claim these don’t exist is to render modern medicine an incomprehensible fiction.

Without cells, there is no structure, no metabolism, and no heredity. There is no “you.” To claim otherwise isn’t just wrong; it is a profound rejection of observable reality.

A Body in Revolt: The Visible Proof Cowan Ignores

Cowan’s claim isn’t just wrong in a textbook sense; it is disproven by the human body itself in ways we can all see and feel.

Without cells, the body’s basic protective functions would be impossible.

Consider what happens during an infection. The area becomes inflamed, red, and often fills with pus. What is pus? It is a thick, whiteish-yellow fluid composed primarily of dead white blood cells, the very cellular warriors our body dispatches to fight invading pathogens. This is not a theoretical concept; it is visible proof without a microscope that specific cells exist and perform life-saving functions. To claim cells aren’t real is to look at a splinter festering with pus and deny the evidence of your own eyes.

Furthermore, the principle of compartmentalization is fundamental. Without cells, toxins could not be sequestered away from vital cellular fluids and processes. Our cells have organelles like lysosomes that act as waste disposal units, isolating destructive enzymes. On a macro scale, the human body itself is a type of cell. It contains our organs and is encapsulated by skin, akin to a cell membrane. This self-contained, bounded system is the very definition of cellular life, just on a larger scale. Every living thing, from a single bacterium to a human being, operates on this principle.

The “Evidence” is in the Eyepiece: A Century of Proof

Cowan’s claims are not merely unproven; they are actively disproven by tools available to high school students.

1. Microscopy: Every biology lab on the planet contains microscopes that allow us to see cells. From the simple light microscope to powerful electron microscopes, we can not only see cells but also the very structures Cowan denies—the nucleus, ribosomes, and even molecular “motors” like kinesin walking along cellular rails.

2. Molecular Biology: The process of DNA → RNA → protein is the foundational principle of molecular biology. It is the basis for the entire biotechnology industry. The development of genetic engineering of insulin, and genetic testing for hereditary diseases all work precisely because this process is real and understood.

3. Biochemistry: We can isolate and study hormones like insulin and estrogen. We understand their chemical structures, synthesize them in labs, and administer them to correct hormonal deficiencies.

Conclusion: Not a Maverick, But a Misinformationist

So, how stupid would one have to be to believe this? The question is misplaced. The issue is not one of intelligence, but of integrity. Tom Cowan is not an uneducated man stumbling into error; he is a calculated performer.

By rejecting the entire edifice of biology, he creates a dependency in his followers. If you believe that every doctor, scientist, and textbook is part of a grand deception, then you must turn to the lone “truth-teller”—Tom Cowan. This is a classic cult-leader and grifter strategy. It is not about advancing knowledge; it is about fostering alienation and selling an alternative, reality-free narrative where he is the hero.

His rhetoric is a dangerous toxin. It erodes the fabric of reality, turning it into a fantastical delusion. It encourages people to abandon the truth and fuels the anti-science movement that distorts the nature of reality itself. To engage with his “theories” as a legitimate scientific debate is to grant them a credibility they have not earned and never will. This isn’t a “new biology.” It is anti-biology, anti-reality, and anti-truth.

Jeff Green

A continuation of my last article concerning misinformation by Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy.

Mike Stone claims that a 2003 WHO press release on SARS demonstrates that virologists are using the original, unmodified Koch’s Postulates. In this audio, I explain why this claim is false and why Stone is pushing it. I also discuss why Koch’s Postulates—whether the classical ones or those applied to viruses—should always be viewed as broad, general principles, rather than rigid rules, especially in the context of virus research. I also explain why the language used in press releases differs from that in scientific studies, and how this creates a loophole that virus deniers can exploit to further their narrative.

Jeff Green

In a recent article posted on October 17th, Mike Stone has once again demonstrated his commitment to intentional distortion over honest discourse. He has deliberately misrepresented the positions of myself, molecular biologist Thomas Baldwin, and virologist Ed Rybicki. To compound these misrepresentations, he deployed AI-altered images of us to his 11,000+ readers for the purposes of misrepresentation and harassment.

The use of doctored, AI-generated images is not a debate tactic; it’s a personal attack designed to ridicule and intimidate. This immediately frames Stone’s actions as unethical and hostile, moving beyond bad-faith argumentation into the realm of targeted harassment.

Thomas’ photo, while publicly available if one searches online, is not one he promotes on any of his channels, indicating Stone intentionally sought it out to alter and weaponize it. Mike Stone intentionally sought out our photographs to create AI-altered images. He deliberately distorted our likenesses in a calculated effort to misrepresent and ridicule, moving far beyond the bounds of legitimate debate. When Thomas politely asked Stone to remove the image of him, Stone retreated to his standard “show me the evidence” trope, making Thomas practically have to beg to remove the image.

I refuse to engage on those terms. A formal complaint has been submitted to Substack to address the use of these AI-altered images, which cross the line into unethical conduct. I have never used a doctored image of Mike Stone, adhering to a line he eagerly crosses. People like Stone operate without ethics or standards.

Let me be unequivocal: This is not merely a lack of education; it is a calculated rejection of intellectual honesty. He presumes to lecture the scientific community not from a position of superior understanding, but from a deliberate strategy to misinform, replacing evidence and logic with digital distortion, and a pattern of misrepresentation. His character is revealed in his consistent choice to misrepresent, rather than engage truthfully. A scientific mind seeks to test hypotheses against evidence. Stone does the opposite: he engineers impossible standards to immunize his beliefs from evidence.
His use of AI-altered imagery and his reliance on logical fallacies (the very things he projects and accuses other of) are not the tactics of a truth-seeker. They are the tools of a person who prioritizes misleading tactics over honest debate. Therefore, it is not merely legitimate to question his character—it is a necessary response. When someone replaces the pursuit of truth with a campaign of deliberate misrepresentation and personal attacks, exposing their bad faith is the only intellectually honest course of action.

I will now cut to the chase. Let’s begin by breaking down his most prominent falsehoods and expose his narrative for what is: intentional misrepresentation of facts.

Stone states in his article:

The next challenger is Jeff Green, a self-proclaimed science researcher who dabbles in computer graphics and animation. For those unfamiliar, Jeff occupies an unusual space: he accepts the existence of “viruses,” yet rejects the mainstream narrative about what they are. Drawing inspiration from nutritionist Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Jeff claims that “viruses” are not “pathogenic” but are instead produced by the body to dissolve toxins. Essentially, “viruses” are viewed as soap. Lately, however, he seems to have softened that position—allowing that “viruses” might be “pathogenic” under certain conditions.

This entire blurb is a misrepresentation of my character. I am not a “self-proclaimed” anything. I am a researcher, period. His other claims are irrelevant to the discussion, yet as you can read, he throws that into his discussion as if that is important information to include. Again, this is personal misrepresentation that intends to ridicule and discredit you through irrelevant personal attacks.

Stone continues:

Nevertheless, he occasionally inserts himself into discussions, as he recently did in my exchange with Thomas.

While I would prefer not to give Jeff the attention he craves, this latest exchange neatly exposes both his intellectual dishonesty and the logical traps that inevitably ensnare those who defend “viruses.” Since attention is what he wants, let’s shine a light on Jeff so he can serve as a clear example of the illogical mindset required to defend virology.

This is someone who spends his days stirring up endless debates on Twitter and Substack, solely to gather material for articles where he can malign, attack, and slander individuals to his 11,000+ Substack readers.

Stone states:

He [Jeff Gren] began with a strawman, asserting that I reject observation—even though I explicitly identify “Observation of a natural phenomenon” as the first step of the method. He then accused me of misrepresenting the method as it’s taught, despite the fact that I present it exactly as it appears in educational and scientific sources. According to Jeff, learning about the scientific method is somehow different from implementing it.

There is zero scientific source from any institution, author, textbook, or otherwise, that lists the scientific method as starting with “Observation of a natural phenomenon.” This is a fabrication by Stone. And he knows it to be so by the very fact that he has never presented a single source that claims such.

The first principle is usually observation of a phenomenon, not that the phenomenon must occur in an untouched, “wild” state. However, the scientific method is not a rigid, linear recipe that must start with a random observation. It often starts with a question, a problem, a paradox, or a thought. These form the basis of a working hypothesis which will be tested in the experimentation phase.

Stone states in an article on his website (for context):

What is a Hypothesis According to Stone?

To begin this investigation, we need to understand what exactly a hypothesis is supposed to be. Returning to the Brittanica for a moment, a scientific hypothesis is defined as “an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world.” Stated in another way, a hypothesis is an explanation based upon and about an observed natural phenomenon. However, what exactly is a natural phenomenon in relation to natural science? According to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a natural phenomena is defined as “observable events that occur in the universe and that we can use our science knowledge to explain or predict.” This definition by the NGSS was developed from a 26 state effort that created new education standards in science in collaboration with the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Research Council (NRC), and the nonprofit organization Achieve. Supporting the NGSS definition of natural phenomena as being observable events are various philosophers of science, such as Ian Hacking, considered the first to define phenomena from the scientists perspective, who stated that a phenomenon is “commonly an event or process of a certain type that occurs regularly under definite circumstances. The word can also denote a unique event that we single out as particularly important.” Michela Massimi, another philosopher of science, agreed with Hacking in her book Perspectival Realism, stating that “phenomena are events: they are not things, entities, structures, facts, or states of affairs.” Thus, from these definitions, we can narrow down natural phenomena to observable events (or processes). Nonetheless, not just any event will do. In order for a phenomenon to be natural, these events must occur in nature without human influence and interference. In other words, the events are not man-made. If these conditions are met and a natural phenomenon is observed, a proposed explanation can be formulated in order to try and describe what might be occurring.

The Core Deception: The Arbitrary “Without Human Influence” Clause

Stone’s entire argument collapses here:

“Nonetheless, not just any event will do. In order for a phenomenon to be natural, these events must occur in nature without human influence and interference. In other words, the events are not man-made.”

This is a complete fabrication. He provides zero source for this critical, game-changing addition. Let’s check his own sources:

• Britannica: Defines a hypothesis as “an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world.” It does not say “occurring without human influence.”

  Stone also failed to address a “tentative explanation,” which is indeed misleading, as it misses the crucial element that makes something a hypothesis. A hypothesis isn’t just a statement or observation, but rather an idea that suggests a potential explanation for something observed.

• NGSS: Defines natural phenomena as “observable events that occur in the universe.” It does not say “without human influence.” In fact, the NGSS explicitly includes engineered systems and their behaviors as a core concept for study.

• Ian Hacking & Michela Massimi: Define a phenomenon as a regular or important “event” or “process.” They say nothing about the exclusion of human-influenced settings. Another blatant distortion by Stone.

• Stone states, “Michela Massimi, another philosopher of science, agreed with Hacking in her book Perspectival Realism, stating that “phenomena are events: they are not things, entities, structures, facts, or states of affairs.”
  This is a blatant misrepresentation.
  Stone’s reliance on Michela Massimi’s definition is a classic example of cherry-picking a philosophical technicality to serve a pre-determined conclusion. He fails on two levels. (see below)

  ---

Misrepresenting the Scientific Method

• From Stone’s source - Massimi states: “Sometimes events are part of a causal chain. Sometimes they occur spontaneously. At other times events are performed by us (or other non-human animals).”

  First, Stone ignores the common and scientific understanding of ‘phenomenon.’ In standard discourse and science, a ‘phenomenon’ is absolutely any observable fact, event, entity, or process. Gravity is a phenomenon. A virus is a phenomenon. The structure of a crystal is a phenomenon. Stone is attempting to impose an overly rigid, academic definition onto a broad term to artificially limit what counts as valid evidence so that he can falsely claim viruses are not natural, and therefore, do not exist.

  Second, and more damningly, even if we accept Massimi’s specific argument that phenomena are ‘events’ and not ‘things,’ her definition explicitly includes events ‘performed by us’—like engineering a molecule. This single point eviscerates Stone’s entire argument. He quotes a source that defines phenomena in a way that includes human-influenced laboratory events, yet he draws the exact opposite conclusion. This is not a simple mistake; it is a fundamental misrepresentation of his own citation.

This is a perfect example of how Stone misrepresents literature to suit his agenda.

Stone is attempting to impose an overly rigid, academic definition onto a broad term. Here’s the evidence from Massimi’s book that proves it:

1. Massimi is Engaging in a Specialized Philosophical Debate, Not Defining Science Itself

• Her narrow definition of phenomena as “events” rather than “things” is part of a specific argument about the ontology of scientific knowledge - what kind of “stuff” we’re directly committing to when we do science.

• She’s contrasting her view with other philosophical positions (like “dispositional realism” which talks about “causal properties” and “hidden goings on”).

• Stone takes this specialized, argument-specific definition and treats it as the universal, common-sense meaning. This is like taking a physicist’s precise definition of “work” and claiming that therefore construction workers don’t actually “work” when they lift heavy objects slowly.

2. Even Within Her Narrow Definition, Stone Still Loses

This is the knockout blow. Even if we accept Massimi’s restrictive “events not things” framework:

• She explicitly includes laboratory events as valid phenomena. Her examples of “the engineering of a new synthetic molecule” and research on “kinase–protein relationships” are unequivocal examples of human-created, laboratory-based phenomena.

• Therefore, the cytopathic effect (CPE) in a cell culture is a perfect example of what she calls a phenomenon. It is a “stable event” - it happens regularly under controlled conditions. It is “modally robust” - it can be reproduced and studied in different ways (through different experimental setups, different cell lines, etc.). It is studied through “perspectival data-to-phenomena inferences” - scientists use different techniques (microscopy, PCR, sequencing) to converge on the same conclusion.

Stone has taken legitimate definitions and surreptitiously added his own unsupported qualifier to make all of experimental science invalid by definition.

The Immediate Consequences of His False Definition

If we accept Stone’s arbitrary rule, the following are no longer “natural phenomena” and cannot be the basis of scientific inquiry:

• The orbit of the James Webb Space Telescope (human-launched).

• The behavior of a new alloy in a stress test (human-created).

• The reaction of a patient to a new drug (human-administered).

• The growth of a laboratory cell culture (human-maintained).

• The cytopathic effect in a tissue culture after introducing a filtered sample (human-manipulated).

This is, of course, absurd. Science would be rendered impossible. The “natural world” includes things that happen within nature under controlled conditions. A virus killing a cell is a natural biological process, whether it occurs in a human lung or a petri dish. The lab is not creating a new reality; it is creating a window to observe and measure a natural process with precision.

Facts:

• In Science, a “Phenomenon” is Any Observable Event. Whether it occurs in a rainforest, a petri dish, or the Large Hadron Collider is irrelevant. The key is that it is observable, measurable, and repeatable.

• A “Natural Phenomenon” is any event or fact that is observable and occurs within the natural world, whether in a forest or a petri dish.

• The “Scientific Method” requires that we start with an observed phenomenon as the thing we want to explain.

When we see a consistent, replicable cytopathic effect in a cell culture after introducing a sample from a sick host, we are observing a phenomenon. The fact that it happens in a lab does not make it “unnatural”; it makes it a controlled observation of a natural process (infection).

Mike Stone’s fallacy is to claim that because this observation happens in a lab, it is invalid. But the lab is just a place where one makes precise observations. The phenomenon—the replication of a pathogenic agent and the destruction of cells—is a real, observable event.

The reason Stone pushes this false narrative is so that he can falsely claim a virus is not a natural phenomenon, since manipulation occurs in lab settings to study viruses. This is the core of his deception in defining what a “natural phenomenon” is.

Stone states:

It is true that I avoid debating those I find intellectually dishonest or acting in bad faith. That said, I will engage if it seems worthwhile. Just ask Jeremy Hammond (here and here).

This is pure projection. Jeremy Hammond exposed Mike Stone as a bad faith actor as far back as 2022, calling his misrepresentations a “malicious lie.” Stone calls everyone that challenges his falsities ‘dishonest', and retorts with claims that you are committing ‘logical fallacies,’ but we are not the ones misrepresenting what the science is and how it functions—he is.

Stone states:

Jeff’s last comment exposed a fundamental flaw in his understanding of science. One cannot claim to have identified an independent variable if it only appears after artificial manipulation—this is precisely what it means to introduce confounding and extraneous variables. The independent variable must exist in a state not confounded by unknowns prior to any experimentation. By assuming that “viruses” exist in low concentrations and must be amplified through culturing, Jeff was engaging in circular reasoning himself.

“Artificial manipulation” is not a delineated scientific term; it is a rhetorical construct fabricated by Stone to pathologize the very premise of experimental science. His intended meaning—“human intervention”—is simply a pejorative redescription of what a laboratory is: a controlled environment for isolating variables. His entire argument hinges on this false dichotomy between a pristine “natural” world and a corrupting “artificial” human influence. This is a profound error. A natural process—like a virus infecting a cell—does not cease to be natural when observed in a petri dish. The laboratory does not create new laws of biology; it provides a window to observe them with precision. Stone’s use of this undefined, alarmist phrase is not a technical critique—it is an attempt to mislead readers into dismissing the entire empirical basis of science and virology.

His logic proceeds as follows:

1. Premise (The Fabricated Standard): Only phenomena observed in a pristine state, completely untouched by human inference or intervention, qualify as “natural” and thus real.

2. Observation (The Inescapable Reality of Science): The study of viruses—like the study of subatomic particles, novel chemical compounds, or genetic mechanisms—necessarily involves human inference and laboratory techniques (e.g., cell culture, sequencing, electron microscopy) to detect and characterize them.

3. Conclusion (The Preordained Goal): Therefore, the entity under investigation is disqualified from being a “natural phenomenon.” By his own definition, if it is not a natural phenomenon, it cannot be said to exist as a real biological entity.

The Actual Scientific Method (at least one iteration of it):

1. Observation: (A cell culture dies in a specific, transmissible way when exposed to a filtered sample from a sick host. This is the observed phenomenon).

2. Question: What is causing this?

3. Hypothesis: A replicating, sub-microscopic, pathogenic particle (a virus) is the cause.

4. Experimentation: (This is where purification, sequencing, and reinfection happen. These steps are designed to test the hypothesis).

5. Conclusion: The data either supports or refutes the hypothesis.

Mike Stone’s “Fake” Scientific Method:

1. Must First Possess a Purified, Fully Characterized Independent Variable. (This is not an observation; it is the end-goal of a successful investigation).

2. ??? (No further steps are possible, as the entire process of discovery has been logically prohibited from starting).

   ---

Stone’s 100% Purification Fallacy

Stone continues in his article, stating:

Stone: I also highlighted the inaccuracy of his claim that biological samples can never be free of contaminants. In bacteriology, independent variables free of confounding factors are routinely obtained. Thus, his argument that such a requirement represents an “unfalsifiable standard” is invalid. Yet in his response, Jeff contradicted himself. He now asserted that this standard has been achieved with “viruses” of lower organisms and human “viruses.” By doing so, he tacitly conceded that his “unfalsifiable standard” accusation was false.

Here was my actual comment (relevant parts with context added):

Stone: “Pure colonies of a single bacterial species are routinely obtained without confounding variables—that’s basic microbiology.”

Green: So are viruses, but only certain viruses of lower organisms are routinely obtained this way, such as those infecting plants and insects. Human viruses are more complex due to their level of replication within a given sample size, but they too have been obtained and analyzed the same way throughout history, using the host (or organ thereof) as the natural culture.

Source: JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY, Nov. 1972, p. 1075-1081, 1972, American Society for Microbiology Vol. 10, No. 5. Visualization by Immune Electron Microscopy of a 27-nm Particle Associated with Acute Infectious Nonbacterial Gastroenteritis.

I have just resoundingly refuted Stone’s most prominently repeated false claim.

Stone: …one must first demonstrate that such an entity exists through purification and isolation directly from host fluids—without cell culture—and confirm it via electron microscopy and biochemical analysis. This has never been done for any alleged “virus.”

I go on:

Green: Your so-called “valid independent variable” is nothing more than a theoretical construct, an ideal that cannot be realized with actual biological samples. In other words, you’ve built an unfalsifiable standard that immunizes your position from evidence.

Claiming that only total purification counts as a valid independent variable is a Nirvana fallacy (dismissing all real-world evidence because it doesn’t meet a perfect ideal).

What does Stone consider a “valid independent variable”? 100% total purification of a virus - no “confounding variables.”

Jeremy Hammond’s article on Stone elucidates the issue:

Hammond: It is certainly reasonable to describe water that is still unfit to drink as “unpurified”. However, it is certainly not reasonable to describe water that has been made safe to drink by putting it through a water purification system as “unpurified” on the grounds that the system cannot achieve 100 percent purity.

So, I pointed out to Stone that, by his logic, 99 percent purified equals “unpurified”, and I asked him to acknowledge this. He did so, responding, “Correct.” His whole argument centered around this semantic charade.
-
Hammond: I asked him [Stone] to propose a practical method for scientists to achieve 100 percent purification. He naturally refused, saying that this “may be entirely impossible” and was not his problem to solve.

I then commented, “Thanks also for acknowledging that you have no proposed method for achieving 100% purification of a sample, which is to say that you have no proposed method that would satisfy your demand for what you would consider to be proof of the existence of a virus. The logical corollary is that there is no possible evidence that you would accept for the existence of viruses. Please acknowledge.” (Bold emphasis added.)

But he refused to acknowledge this logical truism. Instead, he rejected it by circularly reasoning that he had “already stated what would suffice as evidence”, which was 100 purification of the sample. He declined to explain how it does not logically follow, then, that there is no possible evidence that he would ever accept for the existence viruses.

Precisely.

These quotes directly reflect his stance that the independent variable (the virus) must be proven to exist—through purification and isolation—before it can be used in experiments. Butt here is no way to start with a pure independent variable without experimentation. The demand is a philosophical paradox.

Think of it this way:

• How would you know what to purify? You must first have a reason to suspect something exists that is worth purifying.

• How would you know how to purify it? You must develop and test purification methods, which is itself experimentation.

• How would you know you’ve succeeded in purifying it? You must use tools (like sequencing or microscopy) to characterize it, which is, again, experimentation.

The very act of obtaining a “pure independent variable” is the result of a successful series of experiments.

This is why his position is not just wrong, but non-scientific. It’s like saying:

• “You cannot use a telescope to discover a new planet until you already have a perfect photograph of that planet to confirm the telescope is pointing at the right thing.”

• “You cannot do an autopsy to find the cause of death until you already know the cause of death and can isolate it in a jar.”

His standard is a “Catch-22” designed to make it impossible to ever prove him wrong. It’s the ultimate unfalsifiable claim.

The Core of His Fallacy:

By moving the result of the scientific process (a purified, characterized virus) to the prerequisite for starting the process, he creates a circular, unfalsifiable dead-end.

He is not applying the scientific method. He is using a distorted version of its language to argue against the very possibility of discovery.

Mike Stone Misrepresents WHO 2003 SARS Study and Press Release

Does a 2003 WHO press release claim to be fulfilling the original unmodified Koch’s Postulates, which were written in the 1800s, long before viruses, which require a “pure culture”?

Context: Mike Stone claims that a 2003 WHO press release proves that researchers are trying to fulfill the original, unmodified Koch’s Postulates. As I explained in my previous article, this claim is impossible, as the unmodified Koch’s Postulates do not—and cannot—fully apply to viruses.

Stone: He [Jeff] insisted that it was “absurd” to think the WHO would invoke a more rigid standard (Koch’s) for the public while relying on a weaker one (Rivers’) behind the scenes. It’s not absurd—that’s exactly what they did. The WHO invoked Koch’s postulates as necessary and listed them explicitly. Jeff decided to reinterpret what the WHO meant to say, rather than what they actually said. But the distinction is clear: the WHO cited Koch’s framework, not Rivers’. Claiming that this was “shorthand” for the public makes no sense, since the general public doesn’t know Koch from Rivers.

Quoting from 2003 article:
“On April 16th, 2003, the WHO outlined the four essential criteria required to prove a microorganism causes disease:

“The 13 laboratories have been working on meeting Koch’s postulates, necessary to prove disease causation. These postulates stipulate that to be the causal agent, a pathogen must meet four conditions: it must be found in all cases of the disease, it must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture, it must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host, and it must be found in the experimental host so infected.”

Context: Stone previously, on his website, concocted a baseless conspiracy claiming virologists deliberately “weakened” the rules. This gives further context into his agenda on this matter.

Stone: “All Rivers did was deliberately weaken Koch’s Postulates in order to make life easier for virologists to skirt around established rules of logic. Anyone claiming that they fulfilled Koch’s Postulates by using the criteria laid forth by Rivers are outright lying and being intentionally fraudulent…which in all honesty, sums up virology to a T.”

Rebuttals to his falsehoods:

Green: Addressing the 2003 WHO article:

1. The WHO used simplified language for public communication, not a literal bacteriological framework

The WHO press release (April 16, 2003) does indeed list the four “classic” postulates in plain terms. But this was a communication for the general public and press, not a virology textbook. WHO was signaling that causation had been demonstrated “in principle,” not that the unmodified 1880s rules had literally been satisfied for a virus.

2. In the scientific literature, the very same SARS work cites Rivers’ modification

Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus (Nature Medicine, 2003):

“According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease.” pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ar…

This is the peer-reviewed article that documents the SARS causation work the WHO was talking about—and it explicitly references Rivers’ modified criteria, not the 1880s originals.

Giving context to what the WHO meant by fulfilling the postulates in the 2003 article: Bart Haagmans, Viroscience department, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam - cdn.who.int/media/docs/…

Thus, the 2003 WHO statement is shorthand.

Stone’s entire argument hinges on a false dichotomy: that the 2003 WHO press release invoking “Koch’s Postulates” and the subsequent scientific papers citing “Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers” are in conflict. They are not.

Here are the facts that dismantle his baseless conspiracy:

1. The Press Release Was a Summary, Not the Science. The 2003 WHO press release was for public communication, using the widely recognized term “Koch’s Postulates” to signify that the logical principle of causation had been satisfied. It was never intended to be a detailed methodological statement.

2. The Scientific Papers Stated the Exact Methodology. The primary research papers—the actual science that the press release was summarizing—explicitly detail the framework used. In the landmark 2003 study published in Nature, the authors, including key WHO-affiliated scientists, state directly:

“According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease.”

1. The Same People Were Involved. This wasn’t a case of a misleading press office. The lead researchers, such as Dr. Ron Fouchier and Dr. Klaus Stöhr, were central figures in both the scientific studies and were quoted in the WHO’s announcements. They used the precise terminology (”modified by Rivers”) in their formal work while the public-facing update used the more general, well-known concept (”Koch’s Postulates”).

In short: There was no “moving of the goalposts.” There was a public summary using a general term (”Koch’s Postulates”) and a simultaneous, detailed scientific publication specifying the modern application of that principle for viruses (”as modified by Rivers”). Stone’s claim of a deliberate switch is a baseless conspiracy theory designed to ignore the fact that the scientific method logically adapts to new discoveries—like viruses—a concept he fundamentally rejects.

Ed Rybicki in response to Stone said it well:

Man, you do double down…crankery followed by tortuous and fallacious logic, until what you have is an impenetrable bush of words, that long ago became tl;dr.

While viruses carry on their merry way.

The 2003-2012 Continuum

Mike Stone’s attempt to frame this as a “moving goalposts” conspiracy is completely dismantled by the historical record, which shows a consistent and transparent scientific methodology applied across decades.

His entire argument rests on a willful misinterpretation of a public-facing press release, while ignoring the explicit, technical details of the actual science it was summarizing.

The 2003 Benchmark: How Causation Was Actually Proven

The foundational work for SARS-CoV-1 was documented in two seminal 2003 studies, most notably the Nature paper “Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus” (Fouchier et al.). This paper did not hide its methodology; it stated it unequivocally in its introduction:

“According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease.”

The senior scientists on this paper, including Dr. Ron Fouchier and Dr. Klaus Stöhr (who was the head of the WHO’s Global Influenza Programme and coordinated the global SARS lab network), were perfectly clear. They were not using Koch’s original bacteriological postulates; they were using the established virological framework based on the same logical principle of causation.

When the WHO issued its press release stating “Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled,” it was accurately communicating the conclusion to the public, using the most recognized term for establishing microbial causation. The technical details were in the peer-reviewed paper for anyone to read.

The 2012 Parallel: A Consistent Methodology Reapplied

The relevance of this 2003 precedent became starkly clear in 2012 during the early days of the new pandemic. In a January 2012 interview with Science magazine, Dr. Ron Fouchier explicitly referenced their 2003 work as the blueprint, stating:

“To show that [the new coronavirus] causes disease, you need to fulfill Koch’s postulates. That’s what we did for SARS.”

This statement is devastating to Stone’s conspiracy theory. The WHO was not referring to a 19th-century bacteriological test by invoking the word ‘Koch.’ They were invoking the same principles of showing causal proof that his team had successfully executed in 2003 using the Rivers-modified criteria.

Summary: A Conspiracy Theory Built on a False Premise

The evidence reveals a coherent timeline:

1. 2003: Scientists use “Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers” to prove SARS causation.

2. 2003: The WHO summarizes this successful causation proof to the public by saying “Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled.”

3. 2012: Facing a new coronavirus, the same leading virologists state their intent to repeat the same successful process they used in 2003.

Stone’s claim of a “deliberate weakening” is not just wrong, it is inverted. The scientific community has been transparently consistent for decades. They developed a rigorous, logical framework for viral causation and have openly applied it across different outbreaks. Stone’s argument is a classic case of latching onto a superficial discrepancy in language (public summary vs. technical paper) to invent a fraud where none exists, all to avoid acknowledging that his rigid, impossible standard has never been the actual standard of scientific discovery.

Stone’s Falsification of Ed Rybicki’s Position

One of the most blatant examples of Stone’s methodology is his deliberate omission of a quote from virologist Ed Rybicki. Stone presents a snippet from Rybicki’s book CANN’S PRINCIPLES OF MOLECULAR VIROLOGY, to create a false impression:

Stone’s Selective Quote:
“Koch defined four famous criteria which are now known as Koch’s postulates, which are still generally regarded as the best proof that an infectious agent—cellular or viral—is responsible for a specific disease.”

Stone uses this to imply that Rybicki and virology rigidly adhere to the original four postulates, setting up his false “moving goalposts” conspiracy. However, Stone intentionally omitted the very next paragraph, which provides the crucial context that completely refutes his entire argument:

The Omitted Text (from Rybicki’s book, immediately following):
“These principles are still central to the study of infectious diseases, but in the case of viruses that only infect humans, and which cannot be conveniently cultured, it is regarded as being sufficient to simply show that natural transmission of an identified agent causes the disease (see Chapter 8).” - p. 9

This is not a minor omission; it is a fundamental reversal of the quote’s meaning.

• Stone’s Distorted Implication: Virologists claim to follow the four postulates but secretly don’t.

• Rybicki’s Actual Position: The four postulates are the ideal principles (not unchanging laws), but for human-specific viruses, a modified standard of proof—based on the same logical principle of causation—is accepted as sufficient. He states this openly, in the same paragraph.

This is the heart of Stone’s modus operandi. He does not engage with arguments; he surgically alters them. He cannot defeat Rybicki’s actual, fully-stated position, so he fabricates a weaker one by cutting out the part that proves him wrong. This goes beyond cherry-picking; it is the construction of a deliberate falsehood.

This single act proves that Stone is not a good-faith critic. He is a person who will falsify his sources to maintain his narrative, demonstrating that his entire enterprise is built on a foundation of falsehoods.

Stone ends his article by stating:

The same holds true for others defending virology, such as Thomas and Jeff. In the end, what could have been a decisive “win” for them—had any been able to meet the challenge—has instead become an embarrassing demonstration of their inability to support their own position logically and with the necessary scientific evidence that must exist, but clearly does not.

So, I will ask the reader to contemplate the following: Has this article presented an embarrassing demonstration of an inability to support my position with logic and evidence? Or, has it meticulously documented that Mike Stone has replaced logic with unscientific standards, evidence with unethical conduct, and the scientific method with an unfalsifiable dogma?

I think you know the answer to that.

The rest of his ranting and raving displayed in his article are not worth covering, as they are irrelevant. His entire house of cards has been exposed with only the points I have raised in this article.

Conclusion:

The evidence leaves only one possible conclusion: Mike Stone’s arguments rely on deliberate systematic misrepresentations. This is not a casual accusation, but a definitive diagnosis of his methodology. He systematically misrepresents opponents’ positions, constructing straw men to easily knock down. He distorts the fundamental principles of science, replacing the iterative process of discovery with an impossible “purification paradox” that invalidates all evidence by definition. He cherry-picks phrases from press releases while ignoring detailed methodologies in the referenced scientific papers.

His use of AI-altered images is not mere eccentricity; it’s a tactic of someone willing to distort others’ images and misrepresent their positions. His framework is a misleading narrative built on distorted sources and impossible standards, a house of cards constructed on deliberate misrepresentation. It is engineered to mislead his audience and shield his brittle dogma from scrutiny he falsely claims to champion. This is not skepticism, but a performative misrepresentation of science, and a transparent waste of intellect that preys on the uninformed.

Stone’s arguments may appeal to those skeptical of mainstream science, a valid instinct given historical institutional errors. However, his reliance on distorted sources and impossible standards undermines genuine inquiry, as seen in his utter misrepresentations of the facts as I have laid out.

There is no evidence on Earth that would satisfy such a person, and that is by deliberate design. His entire enterprise depends on maintaining an unfalsifiable position, where all counter-evidence can be dismissed by his ever-shifting, impossible standards. And he seems willing to stoop to any low to preserve that narrative.

Jeff Green

He has amassed over 11,000+ subscribers on Substack, convincing them that his word games are deep scientific insight. People donate and subscribe to him, believing they are supporting a truth-teller, but he is anything but.

In this article, I will dismantle what I call the “Mike Stone Method” and prove it is not science, but a sophisticated twisting of science designed to make the impossible seem intelligent. I will expose the tricks he uses to mislead his audience, and why every single one of them is false.

The Story of Koch’s Postulates

In the 1880s, the great bacteriologist Robert Koch established a set of rules to prove a specific microbe causes a specific disease. These “Koch’s Postulates” were a monumental leap forward in science. They are, in essence:

1. The microbe must be found in all cases of the disease.

2. It must be isolated from the host and grown in a pure culture (on a nutrient plate, like a Petri dish).

3. The cultured microbe must cause the same disease when given to a healthy host.

4. The same microbe must be re-isolated from that newly sick host.

This framework worked brilliantly for bacteria. But soon, scientists discovered something new: viruses.

And here was the problem: You cannot grow a virus alone on a Petri dish. A virus is not a free-living cell; it is an obligate intracellular parasite (requires living cells to replicate). It must be inside a living cell to replicate. Koch’s second postulate, “grown in pure culture,” was a biological impossibility for this new class of pathogen.

Science had a choice: abandon the study of viruses because they didn’t fit a 19th-century recipe, or update the recipe.

It chose to evolve.

The Necessary Update: Rivers’ Modifications

In 1937, a virologist named Thomas Rivers did not “water down” Koch’s rules. He updated them for a new reality. He preserved the core logic of causation but changed the methods to be biologically possible for viruses.

Crucially, he replaced the impossible step of “pure culture on a lifeless medium” with the scientifically valid step of “cultivation in host cells” (like in a lab-grown cell culture).

Rivers’ Modified Postulates (1937)

Thomas Rivers explicitly outlined six criteria necessary to establish a virus in relation to a disease, updating Koch’s framework to be biologically possible for viruses.

1. Isolation from Diseased Hosts: The virus must be isolated from the host showing the disease. In the context of Rivers’ postulates, “isolation” means separation and concentration.

2. Cultivation in Host Cells: The virus must be cultivated in an experimental host or in tissue culture (replacing Koch’s “pure culture” on a lifeless medium).

3. Proof of Filterability: The causative agent must be filterable—meaning it must pass through a filter that retains bacteria—demonstrating it is a subcellular, filterable agent.

4. Production of Comparable Disease: The filtered, cultivated virus must produce a comparable disease in an appropriate experimental host (the original host species or a related one).

5. Re-isolation of the Virus: The same virus must be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host.

6. Detection of a Specific Immune Response: A specific immune response (such as the detection of antibodies) to the virus must be detectable in the host.

This framework preserved the logical principle of Koch’s Postulates—establishing a causal chain—while adapting the methods to the reality of studying obligate intracellular parasites.

This wasn’t a weakening of the standard. It was the only possible standard. It was like upgrading from a horse and cart to a car. The goal of transportation remains, but the method is far more effective and appropriate.

Every competent virologist knows this. When they refer to “Koch’s Postulates,” they are referring to the enduring logical framework, which for viruses is understood to mean the Rivers-modified framework.

This is the context that Mike Stone deliberately, knowingly, and ruthlessly hides from you.

Stone’s entire ‘No Virus’ theory is a house of cards, and it’s built on one foundational lie: the claim that virology swears by the original, unmodified Koch’s Postulates.

Now, I will expose how he builds his deception on this foundation of falsehoods.

How Stone Invents a Fake Version of Science, Then “Debunks” It

To understand Stone’s deceptive tricks, you need to see how he weaponizes history. He begins with a seemingly reasonable premise: “Koch’s Postulates are the gold standard for proving a pathogen causes disease.” Then he makes his crucial move - he insists this can only mean the literal, unmodified 1880s version designed for bacteria.

This sets up his entire deception. Stone’s position depends on convincing you that virologists are bound by Koch’s original four postulates - particularly the requirement for “pure culture” on lifeless media. He presents this as an unchangeable scientific law that virology must obey or be declared fraudulent.

This is where the trap springs shut.

Stone desperately needs “pure culture” to mean a 100% pure population of viral particles, isolated without any host cells. Why? Because if he can force you to accept that this is the standard virology claims to meet, then he ‘wins’ by default.

Stone’s Deception: He conflates “isolation” (the process of separation and concentration) with his own made-up standard of “absolute purification” (a 100% pure sample with zero other molecules present). This is a standard that is not required by science and is practically unattainable for any biological entity. By demanding this impossible purity as a prerequisite for any experiment, he can dismiss all subsequent evidence as “contaminated.”

His ‘logic’ runs like this:

1. Assume virology promises to fulfill the original Koch’s Postulates.

2. Point out that a “pure culture” of a virus is a biological impossibility.

3. Declare virology a fraud for failing to do the impossible.

It’s a perfect setup. But the premise is a lie.

Virology has never claimed to use the original postulates for viruses. For nearly a century, the field has explicitly used Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers. The moment this is revealed, his entire scheme collapses.

If virologists were using the original postulates, Stone might have a point. But they aren’t. He has constructed an elaborate fantasy where he argues against a claim that no one is making. He is fighting a straw man, and his 11,000+ subscribers are cheering him on for knocking it down.

This one deception is the keystone of his understanding his lie. Remove it, and the entire “ViroLIEgy” edifice crumbles into the nonsense it truly is.

Just look at how he squirms and wiggles, twisting himself into a pretzel to explain why his rigid, impossible standards are “scientific” and the entire field of virology is fraudulent.

Readers, this is someone who has completely lost the argument and is desperately clinging on for dear life. That’s exactly why he blocked me—not because of any personal attacks, but because he’s a coward who must defend his agenda at all costs. I’m bringing this to everyone’s attention so you can see firsthand how he tries to deceive others.

You can read the full comment thread here:

https://substack.com/@jeffgreenhealth/note/c-162090692?

Summary

Mike Stone’s argument is built on a fundamental misrepresentation of how scientific terminology is actually used. He seizes on a 2003 WHO press release about SARS that employs the general phrase “Koch’s Postulates,” and then insists that this must refer exclusively to the original, literal 1880s formulation developed for bacteria.

This is not a misunderstanding—it is a deliberate distortion of scientific practice.

The scientists quoted in that press release were the same experts who authored the landmark SARS research paper. In that primary study, they explicitly state that they followed “Koch’s Postulates, as modified by Rivers.” This is the crucial detail Stone deliberately omits.

In modern virology, terms like “Koch’s Postulates” and “pure culture” are universally understood as shorthand for the Rivers-modified framework established in 1937. Thomas Rivers introduced these modifications because viruses differ fundamentally from bacteria: they are obligate intracellular parasites, meaning they cannot replicate independently outside of living cells. As a result, the concept of a “pure culture” in virology does not refer to a virus growing on an inert Petri dish, which is biologically impossible. Instead, it refers to a purified viral population propagated within a controlled cell culture.

When virologists state in a paper that they have “fulfilled Koch’s Postulates,” they are not claiming to have applied 19th-century bacteriological methods to viruses. Rather, they are asserting that they have met the logical standard of causation using methods that are biologically appropriate for viruses.

Stone’s entire claim hinges on a semantic sleight of hand. He redefines the terms in their strict 1880s sense, falsely attributes this definition to contemporary virologists, and then “debunks” them for not performing procedures that would, in fact, be impossible for any virus. In doing so, he is not exposing a flaw in virology. He is arguing against a straw man, a claim that no credible scientist is making. This is precisely why he has produced so much disinformation on the subject, publishing numerous articles that deliberately distort what these postulates mean in modern virology.
His goal is to “prove” that virologists are not using “pure cultures” or “pure viral samples,” but his framing relies on an unrealistic standard that exists only within his own Nirvana fallacy. He demands a version of virology that has never existed in reality, and then declares the field invalid for not meeting his imaginary criteria. Someone who can so openly and repeatedly misrepresent established scientific practice is not engaged in an honest search for truth.

If virologists were actually claiming to fulfill the original postulates, then virologists would be lying, and virology would be a fraud according to Stone, since viruses have never been cultured in a “pure culture” in accordance with Koch’s original postulates. On the other hand, if it can be shown that virologists indeed use a modified form, then Stone’s entire scheme is exposed for what it is: a lie.

Koch’s Postulates, connected to his false “Scientific Method,” are ultimately what hold his deception together, and this includes the rest of ‘No Virus’ propaganda.

Conclusion: The Anatomy of a Pseudo-Scientific Deception

Mike Stone’s entire argument is not a scientific critique but a meticulously crafted rhetorical con, built on a foundation he knows to be false. His method represents a classic and dangerous form of pseudo-scientific reasoning, one that substitutes intellectual integrity for the illusion of unassailable logic. The core of his deception is a simple but effective two-step process: first, he invents a fraudulent version of virology—one that is shackled to the literal, unmodified Koch’s Postulates of the 1880s—and then, he triumphantly “debunks” this straw man for failing to achieve a biologically impossible goal.

This strategy is designed to appear rigorous to those unfamiliar with the history and practice of science. By insisting on an archaic and inappropriate standard, he creates a perfect circular trap: any evidence presented can be dismissed as “impure” or “not isolated” according to his deliberately impossible criteria. He conflates the scientific process of isolation—which means separating and concentrating a pathogen to study it—with a fantasy of “absolute purification,” a standard of 100% particle purity that is neither required by science nor attainable for any biological entity, including bacteria. By demanding this unattainable purity as a prerequisite for any and all experimentation, he grants himself a permanent veto over the entire field of virology.

However, the moment this sleight of hand is exposed, his entire scheme collapses. The historical record is clear: science confronted the limitation of Koch’s original postulates nearly a century ago with the discovery of viruses. The work of Thomas Rivers and others was not a “watering down” of the scientific method, but its essential evolution. They preserved the logical core of Koch’s causal framework while updating the methodological tools to be biologically relevant for a new class of pathogen. To claim that virology is fraudulent for not adhering to the original postulates is as absurd as claiming modern physics is fraudulent for updating Newtonian mechanics with the theory of relativity. It is a rejection of science’s most fundamental characteristic: its capacity to refine its methods in the face of new evidence.

When confronted with this undeniable history, Stone and his followers have no logical defense except to attack and block. They cannot engage with the fact that their entire premise is a historical fabrication. Their response, as demonstrated, is not to present legitimate counter-evidence or to engage in good-faith debate, but to retreat, block, and obfuscate. This is the tell-tale sign of a dogma, not a scientific theory. It is a system of belief that is protected from falsification by its own impenetrable, circular logic.

Ultimately, the ‘No Virus’ argument, seemingly headed by Stone, is a profound failure of scientific imagination and conspiracy delusion. It intentionally misrepresents a 19th-century recipe for an eternal, unchangeable dogma, and in doing so, it fundamentally distorts what science is. Science is not a static set of rules carved in stone; it is a living, self-correcting process of inquiry. By clinging to a outdated methodology, Mike Stone isn’t upholding a higher standard of proof—he is championing a form of intellectual paralysis. He is not a brave truth-teller challenging a corrupt establishment; he is a modern-day Luddite, smashing the tools of modern inquiry because he cannot understand them, and then declaring victory from the rubble.

Jeff Green

Narrative Timeline of Trump’s Vaccine “Miracle” Statements

November 26, 2020 – Thanksgiving Press Event

• Quote: “…there are those that say it’s one of the greatest things [the vaccine]. It’s a medical miracle.”

• Context: Pfizer and Moderna had just announced Phase 3 results. This was the first time the public heard Trump lean heavily on the phrase “medical miracle” to frame the vaccines as an achievement of his administration.

• Meaning: By November, Trump saw Operation Warp Speed as his administration’s legacy project. He began calling it miraculous to cement its place in history.

December 5, 2020 – Rally in Valdosta, Georgia

• Quote: “They call it, even some of the enemies call it a medical miracle what we've done.”

• Context: This was during his campaign-style rally amid Georgia’s Senate runoff battle. Trump was under pressure post-election and used the vaccine as evidence of his “achievement against the odds.”

• Meaning: He framed even his critics as conceding to the “miracle,” which positioned the vaccine as both bipartisan and undeniable.

December 8, 2020 – Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Summit

• Quote: “Today, we’re on the verge of another American medical miracle.”

• Quote (others): “People… are saying, ‘Whether you like him or not, this is one of the greatest miracles in the history of modern-day medicine.’”

• Context: With FDA approval imminent, Trump staged this summit to showcase success.

• Meaning: He blended self-credit with borrowed praise, underscoring the so-called historic scale of vaccine development.

December 11, 2020 – Statement After Pfizer EUA

• Quote: “Today, our nation has achieved a medical miracle. We have delivered a safe and effective vaccine in just nine months. This is one of the greatest scientific accomplishments in history. It will save millions of lives…”

• Context: The FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s vaccine—the first in the U.S.

• Meaning: This was the strongest linkage between “miracle” and “saving millions.” The timing marked the peak of Trump’s celebration of the vaccine as a so-called historic achievement.

January 19, 2021 – Farewell Address

• Quote: “They call it a ‘medical miracle,’ and that’s what they’re calling it right now: a ‘medical miracle.’”

• Context: On the eve of leaving office, Trump placed the vaccine rollout at the center of his legacy.

• Meaning: He wanted history to remember his presidency for a miracle of science, not for the controversies that defined his departure.

March 16, 2021 – Fox News Interview

• Quote: “It’s a great vaccine, it’s a safe vaccine and it’s something that works.”

• Context: Biden had taken office, but Trump still promoted the vaccine publicly. He urged Americans—including his own skeptical supporters—to trust it.

• Meaning: This marks Trump explicitly advocating for vaccination, framing it as reliable and effective.

August 21, 2021 – Rally in Cullman, Alabama

• Quote: “I recommend you take the vaccines. I did it, it’s good.”

• Context: The Delta variant was supposedly surging. Trump urged his base to vaccinate but was met with boos.

• Meaning: This shows tension between Trump’s position (pro-vaccine) and his audience (skeptical). His tone was pragmatic, even defiant.

September 1, 2021 – Rally Remarks (Repeated)

• Quote: “I believe totally in your freedoms, but I recommend take the vaccines. I did it, it’s good, take the vaccines.”

• Context: Facing backlash, Trump softened the message by affirming “freedom” but kept advocating vaccination.

• Meaning: He tried to balance libertarian rhetoric with his belief in the vaccine’s value.

December 23, 2021 – Interview with Candace Owens

• Quote 1: “The vaccine is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.”

• Quote 2: “People aren’t dying when they take the vaccine.”

• Context: Omicron was emerging. Owens, a vaccine skeptic, pushed him, but Trump doubled down in favor of the vaccine.

• Meaning: Even under pressure from a friendly interviewer, Trump reaffirmed the vaccine’s lifesaving role—calling it humanity’s “greatest achievement.”

Synthesis

Across this arc, Trump’s rhetoric evolves:

1. Late 2020: He repeatedly calls the vaccine a “miracle”—a centerpiece of his presidency, a triumph against doubt.

2. December 2020: The “miracle” becomes linked directly to saving “millions of lives.”

3. 2021: Out of office, he personally advocates vaccination, even at the cost of boos from his supporters.

4. Late 2021: He escalates his praise to say the vaccine is “one of the greatest achievements of mankind.”

The consistent thread: Trump saw the vaccines not just as science, but as divine-scale triumphs, central to his legacy.

However, this narrative of unequivocal praise stands in stark contrast to the position he began adopting as the political winds shifted, revealing a pattern of deliberate contradiction.

Trump Plays Both Sides

Trump will say anything to appeal to his base and frequently takes contradictory positions on major issues. This is well-supported by his own public statements over many years.

The evidence falls into a clear pattern: Trump identifies a sentiment strongly held by his base, adopts a position that validates that sentiment (regardless of his previous stance), and delivers it with maximalist, unequivocal language. When the audience or political necessity changes, so does his position.

Here is a breakdown of the evidence, categorized by issue.

COVID-19 Vaccines Contradictions

This is one of the starkest examples of Trump tailoring his message to the specific desires of different audiences. This timeline provides unequivocal evidence of Donald Trump tailoring his message on the COVID-19 vaccine to the specific desires of different audiences, creating a direct contradiction on the central issues of its safety, efficacy, and the need for people to take it.

Position A: The Vaccine is a Historic, Safe Achievement That People Should Take
This message is aimed at the general public, the media, and anyone judging his presidential legacy. It is designed to claim full credit for a scientific breakthrough.

• On Vaccine Efficacy & Safety (2021):

"I would recommend it, and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me... It’s a great vaccine. It’s a safe vaccine."
Source: Interview on Fox News, March 16, 2021.

• On His Role and Its Life-Saving Importance (2021):

"The vaccines... are saving millions of lives all over the world. They are some of the safest vaccines ever developed. We have done a miracle."
Source: Statement from the Office of Donald J. Trump, March 6, 2021.

• Criticizing Others for Not Promoting It (2021):
  He criticized Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida for not more actively promoting booster shots to seniors, implying the governor was failing his public health duty.

"Don't be [sic] the governor of Florida, Ron DeSanctimonious—he's not going to be doing that. But he's now admitting I'm right. He's now admitting that the vaccine is working."
Source: Speech in Dallas, Texas, December 19, 2021.

Position B: The Vaccine is Dangerous, Ineffective, and Should Not Be Mandated
This message is aimed at his core base, which is deeply skeptical of pharmaceutical companies, government mandates, and the public health establishment. It is designed to align with their distrust and anger.

• On Vaccine Safety & Efficacy (2023):

"The vaccines are not safe and they are not effective. Nobody wants to say it... They cause a lot of problems, including death in some cases."
Source: Interview on "The Benny Show," September 13, 2023.

• On Vaccine and Mask Mandates (2024):

"I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate."
Source: Rally in Vandalia, Ohio, March 16, 2024.

• On His Own Administration's Policy (2024):
  He has claimed he was somehow opposed to the vaccine mandates implemented under his own administration's Operation Warp Speed framework, a revision of history.

"I was against mandates from the beginning."
Source: Rally in Richmond, Virginia, March 2, 2024.

Direct Comparison & Proof of Contradiction:

The most powerful evidence comes from a single event. At a CNN Town Hall on May 10, 2023, he made both arguments within minutes:

1. To Claim Credit: "I saved millions of lives worldwide with the vaccine that I came up with with a great company... I came up with the vaccine, you know, it was called Operation Warp Speed."

2. To Placate His Base: Immediately following that, he said, "But if you don't want to take it, you shouldn't be forced to take it."

Conclusion on Strategy:
This is not a simple change of mind over time. It is a deliberate strategy to have it both ways:

• He wants credit for the vaccine's development and the lives saved, appealing to a broad sense of accomplishment.

• He wants to validate the distrust and anger of his base by framing the same vaccine as dangerous and by vowing to fight the mandates.

Analysis: Trump plays both sides. To the general public, he is the leader who delivered a "miracle" scientific achievement. To his more ardent, anti-establishment supporters, he is a skeptic who validates their distrust of mandates and pharmaceutical companies. This allows him to claim credit for a popular ‘achievement’ while simultaneously aligning with the powerful anti-vaccine and anti-mandate sentiment within the base.
This allows him to present himself as both the heroic creator of the solution and the chief opponent of its implementation, a position that is logically inconsistent but politically expedient. The result is a direct contradiction on the fundamental questions of whether the vaccine is "safe and effective" or "not safe and not effective," and whether its use should be encouraged or discouraged.

The result is a suspension of critical judgment among his base, where Trump is insulated from accusations of hypocrisy. By validating their deepest distrust of institutions and framing mandates as an attack on personal freedom, he provides his followers with permission to overlook his simultaneous pride in the vaccine’s creation. Their support is not contingent on policy consistency, but on perceived tribal solidarity. Thus, he manages to promote the very medical advancement much of his base opposes—not in spite of their opposition, but by weaponizing their anger toward the system he claims to be fighting from within.

Conclusion: The Suspension of Reality

Donald Trump’s blatant and calculated flip-flops on critical issues like the COVID-19 vaccine transcend mere political opportunism; they represent a sophisticated and deliberate strategy of brainwashing and gaslighting designed to cement absolute loyalty. By claiming full credit for the vaccine’s development as a historic achievement while simultaneously decrying it as dangerous and ineffective, he demonstrates a fundamental disregard for truth itself. This contradiction is not a weakness but a tool. It allows him to manipulate any narrative, appealing to broad audiences with claims of heroic success while whispering to his base that he shares their deepest distrust of the very institutions he once led. The result is a masterful, if morally bankrupt, campaign to have it both ways—to claim the mantle of a savior while fueling the grievances of his followers.

This strategy relies on a powerful and intentional gaslighting of the public, forcing them to choose between their own memory of his previous statements and their loyalty to his current narrative. The success of this propaganda is most evident in his supporters' ability to hold two contradictory ideas in their minds without cognitive dissonance: that Trump is the brilliant architect of a life-saving vaccine and that the vaccine is a dangerous tool of a corrupt system. This erosion of shared reality is further exemplified in issues like his association with Epstein, where all documented evidence is dismissed as a "witch hunt," and any criticism is deflected with false equivalencies aimed at “liberals” and “leftists.” The goal is not to defend with facts, but to overwhelm with counter-accusation, creating a moral relativism where his actions require no defense so long as his opponents can be framed as equally or more corrupt.

Consequently, this relentless manipulation has fostered a cult-like political identity where independent critical thought is often supplanted by a regurgitation of pre-fed talking points. For a significant portion of his base, unwavering allegiance to Trump has become the highest value, trumping reality, reason, and moral consistency. They are not just supporting a politician; they are upholding an identity, one that is constantly reinforced by a narrative that they are under attack from malicious forces. In this environment, Trump’s flip-flops are not seen as flaws but as a form of superior cunning—a demonstration that he is willing to "fight" for them by any means necessary, even if it means lying to their faces. The ultimate proof of his success is not that people believe him, but that they no longer seem to care whether he tells the truth at all.

Jeff Green

Exploring their Origins, Evolution, and Purpose

Author: Jeff Green
Published: 08-28-2025

I’ve written a couple of articles this year reflecting on how my perspective has evolved over the past five or more years and how these insights have been shaped largely by direct personal experiences.

In the beginning, my view was rooted in a fundamental rejection of all viral transmission, which led me to argue that the transmission of viruses was completely impossible in all regards. As I deepened my study of physiology and cellular function, my view matured. I came to appreciate a more nuanced reality: that the human body is not a sealed fortress, but a dynamic interface constantly exchanging information with its environment. Molecules of all types—proteins, enzymes, and genetic material—are continually being shared between organisms. This transfer is a fundamental, often beneficial, part of biological communication.

The critical caveat, which refines but does not negate my original stance, is that this molecular exchange is not synonymous with disease. The recipient's internal environment—the state of their bodily system—determines the outcome. It is the context that dictates whether transferred particles are ignored, integrated beneficially, or trigger a pathological process.

I ultimately found that viruses appear to be transmissible and capable of establishing infection only under very specific circumstances of cellular degeneration. The transfer of viral particles between organisms is not a guaranteed or simple process. It requires a specific, permissive state in the recipient—namely, a congruent state of cellular degeneration or stress. This perspective takes a middle path, recognizing that molecules can pass between organisms, while also making clear that viruses are not the original cause of disease.

Viruses are not strictly exogenous, or malicious entities that invade to cause sickness. They are particles produced as a result of a pre-existing pathological state, often involving cellular degeneration.

In this writing, I will be exploring the genesis of viruses and explaining my theory on endogenous viral existence—an inquiry that challenges foundational assumptions and recontextualizes the very nature of infection, contagion, and cellular life itself.

The Primordial Origin of Viral Particles

In this model, a virus is always created by the cell itself. This makes logical sense, since the origin of all viruses can be traced back to their co-evolutionary emergence alongside cells. If viruses indeed rely on cells to exist, then their genesis would naturally have occurred within a cell from the very beginning of their timeline in history here on Earth, rather than first arising through transmission. This presents a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma, as neither could exist without the other in their complete forms. Naturally, viruses and cells would have co-evolved at the molecular level, emerging as primordial partners—developing hand in hand from the very beginning. Thus, the very first complete virus on Earth must have originated within a living cell—deliberately assembled and encoded by the organism itself for a specific function. The question that follows, then, is: what was that function?

From this perspective, viruses are not optional extras in the history of life; they are fundamental architects and essential engineers of the biosphere. Without them, life as we know it—and certainly complex life like humans—would not exist.

A fundamental logical paradox challenges the conventional exogenous view of viral origins: the absolute obligate parasitism of viruses. Viral replication is wholly contingent upon the sophisticated transcriptional and translational machinery of a host cell. This necessitates that the emergence of the first viral particles must be subsequent to, and entirely dependent upon, the prior existence of a functional cellular entity. The notion of an exogenous, self-replicating viral precursor is, therefore, an ontological impossibility.

This presents a biological analogue to the chicken-and-egg dilemma. The resolution to this paradox lies in rejecting the premise of separate origin and instead adopting a model of co-emergence and co-evolution. The most parsimonious conclusion is that viral sequences and cellular life are intrinsically linked, having arisen from the same primordial replicative systems. The first complete viral particle must necessarily have been encoded and assembled by and alongside a primitive cellular organism, utilizing its own components for a purpose intrinsic to its own existence.

This logically compels the question: what selective pressure or functional advantage would compel a primordial cell to initiate the genesis of what we now term a virus?

Theory of Endogenous Viral Creation

The endogenous theory of viruses resolves a fundamental biological paradox: their obligate parasitism. Viruses lack the machinery for autonomous replication, making them entirely dependent on host cells. This dependency logically necessitates that the first true viruses originated alongside primitive cells, as they could not have existed in their complete form prior to the complex cellular systems they require. The notion of an exogenous origin is therefore an ontological impossibility; the cell is an absolute prerequisite for a fully formed virus.

The transition from inert chemistry to a living, replicating cell is the greatest mystery in biology. The idea that non-living, virus-like particles were a necessary precursor to the first cell is a powerful solution to this problem.

It stands to reason that in the beginning, before cells could exist, simpler non-living structures—self-replicating RNA-protein complexes much like ancient viruses—had to emerge first. These primordial entities experimented with replication in the chaotic primordial soup, developing the first efficient strategies for making copies of themselves. Eventually, the most successful of these virus-like replicators became encapsulated within protective lipid membranes, forming the first protocells. In this way, viruses were not a later accident of life but rather the essential evolutionary precursors that provided the molecular machinery and informational blueprints necessary for cellular life to eventually arise. Without them, the leap from chemistry to biology could never have occurred.

The most plausible primordial scenario posits viruses emerging as communicative tools, not pathogens. Early protocells likely packaged beneficial genetic information into stable protein coats, creating mobile genetic messengers. These particles were released to share adaptive innovations—such as metabolic enhancements—horizontally across cellular communities. This function accelerated evolutionary adaptation and provided a communal benefit that outweighed any individual cellular cost, framing the first viruses as symbiotic update packages rather than parasitic entities.

This origin story invalidates the claim that cells cannot synthesize viruses in whole, from beginning to end. Rather, viral synthesis is an innate, ancient cellular capability—neither can exist without the other. Modern virology’s focus on pathogenesis obscures this deeper evolutionary truth: parasitism is a later corruption of an original communicative function. The viral particle, in its essence, is a cellular product—an information packet assembled from endogenous components for endogenous purposes. The cell is not a passive victim of viral infection but the active author of the viral phenomenon.

The ability of a cell to synthesize viral particles is not a bizarre impossibility; it is a fundamental, ancient capability hardwired into the very history of life. The modern disease state we associate with viruses is a corruption of this original, vital function—an ancient language of communication turned into a scream of distress. The capacity for viral synthesis is not merely a cellular possibility but an evolutionary inevitability. Both logical deduction and biological evidence affirm that the cell must be the primordial source of all viruses. Their absolute dependence on cellular machinery for replication renders the notion of an independent viral origin incoherent. Thus, the cell is not only capable of producing fully complete viral particles—it is their sole point of genesis.

This removes viruses from the realm of random misfortune and places them into the realm of biological destiny. They are not bad luck; they are a potentiality within all of us, waiting for the right conditions to manifest. They are the material consequence of a life out of balance with itself and its environment, and thus, in a very real sense, they are our fate. In this narrative, viruses weren't a byproduct of life. They were the foundation.

A New Model of Viral Transmission

The standard model is a photocopier: a viral template enters (the original), and the cell mindlessly makes copies.

My model suggests something else: the cell is a 3D printer that can, under specific stress conditions, access a "blueprint" from its environment and print it.

The Permissive State (The "Degeneration"): A healthy cell has robust mechanisms to ignore or destroy this external "noise." However, a cell under duress (from toxicity, nutrient deficiency, emotional trauma, etc.) undergoes a state change. Its epigenetic landscape shifts. In this vulnerable state, its defense mechanisms are down, and it becomes "receptive" to external signals it would normally filter out.

The Endogenous Creation (The "Without Transmission"): The received information (e.g., an RNA fragment) does not act as the sole template itself. Instead, it acts as an epigenetic trigger. It resonates with similar, latent genetic sequences within the cell's own genome (e.g., endogenous retroviruses, transposable elements). This trigger prompts the cell's own machinery to assemble the viral particle de novo from its own components.
The external element is merely the instruction or the key that unlocks the potential to create it. The recipient cell was always capable of producing these particles; it just needed the right signal to do so.

The Role of Virology: PCR tests and electron microscopy are detecting real particles. The error of mainstream virology, in this view, is misinterpreting correlation for causation. They see the virus present in sick people and conclude it is the cause, when according to this theory, it is a marker of the disease process—a symptom of a deeper imbalance, much like smoke is a symptom of fire.

A New Meaning for "Viral" Ideas: This model mirrors how ideas spread. "Information" is released into the culture. It doesn't "infect" everyone. It only finds fertile ground and is reproduced endogenously by individuals or groups who are already in a state of "resonance" with that idea due to their pre-existing conditions, beliefs, and stresses.

Consciousness and Contagion: This model opens the door to discussing the role of consciousness and belief. If the state of the terrain is paramount, and the terrain is influenced by mental and emotional states, then the fear of a virus ("virophobia") could itself be a significant stressor that creates the permissive state of cellular degeneration, making one more susceptible to resonating with the external signal.

Endogenous Theory vs Standard Model comparison charts:

Below, I illustrate and theorize the two possible fundamental modes of viral existence.

Pathway 1: Endogenous Production Without External Influence (The Internal Process)

This is the concept of the virus as a purely symptom or a messenger of internal disharmony. There is no "patient zero" from the outside; the process begins and ends within the organism.

The Mechanism: Cellular Distress Signaling & Evolutionary Recursion

1. The Trigger: A cell is subjected to a severe, sustained stressor. This is not a single event but a state of crisis. Examples include:

   • Toxicity: Exposure to heavy metals, environmental chemicals, or metabolic waste products that overwhelm detoxification pathways.

   • Nutrient Deficiency: A critical lack of key nutrients (e.g., Vitamin C, Zinc, Selenium) required for maintaining genomic stability and robust cell function.

   • Energetic Failure: Impaired mitochondrial function, leading to a crash in ATP production and an increase in oxidative stress.

   • Psychological/Spiritual Stress: Chronic fear, trauma, or isolation, which translate into biochemical signals (e.g., sustained cortisol release) that suppress healthy cell function.

2. The Cellular Response - "The Hail Mary": In its degenerating state, the cell is not "hijacked." It is executing a last-ditch, evolutionarily-programmed survival protocol. The genome itself contains a vast library of ancient code—endogenous retroviral sequences (ERVs), transposons, and viral fragments—that make up a significant portion of our "junk DNA."

3. The Production: The stress signals act as an epigenetic key, unlocking this ancient library. The cell, in a sense, "regresses" to a more primitive state and begins to assemble viral particles from these endogenous blueprints. The purpose is not to hijack infect others, but potentially:

   • A Distress Signal: To alert the immune system to a profound systemic failure. The viral particles are like flares shot into the sky.

   • A Reset Mechanism: To initiate apoptosis (programmed cell death) in a failed cell, or even to trigger a broader, systemic cleansing response (e.g., the symptoms we call "the flu").

   • An Evolutionary Throwback: A dysfunctional reversion to an ancient form of genetic communication between cells, gone awry in a toxic modern environment.

In this pathway, the virus is 100% created by and from the cell. It is an output of disease, an attempt by the organism to cope with an internal crisis. There is no transmission.

Pathway 2: Resonant Transmission to a Permissive Host (The External Catalyst)

This is where my concept of transmission under specific conditions of cellular decay comes in. It is not a contradiction of the first pathway, but a parallel process involving communication between organisms.

The Mechanism: Sympathetic Resonance & Epigenetic Triggering

1. The Source: An individual (Source) is undergoing Pathway 1. Their cells are degenerating and producing viral particles and, crucially, shedding genetic debris (free RNA, proteins).

2. The Vector: This genetic debris is released into the environment—through breath, bodily fluids, etc. It is better understood as packaged information about the source's state of cellular distress.

3. The Recipient - The Permissive Terrain: Another individual (Recipient) is already in a state of pre-existing cellular decay or resonant stress. Their terrain is already compromised by similar toxins, similar nutrient deficiencies, or similar energetic/emotional states.

4. The "Infection" Event - The Key Fits the Lock: The recipient's compromised cells are receptive. The received genetic debris (the "key") does not force the cell to do anything. Instead, it epigenetically triggers the same response that was already primed to happen.

   • The foreign RNA fragment interacts with the cell's receptors.

   • It activates internal signaling pathways that are already sensitized by the recipient's own pre-existing stress.

   • This signal unlocks the recipient's own endogenous viral library (their ERVs), just as in Pathway 1.

5. The Result: The recipient's cell now begins to endogenously produce viral particles. It appears as if the virus was "caught," but in reality, the external material was merely a catalyst that precipitated an internal process that was already imminent. The recipient was already on the brink; the external signal provided the final nudge.

   ---

Synthesis: The Unified Theory

Both pathways can be true because they are essentially the same process ignited by different sparks.

• Pathway 1 is sparked by direct internal stress.

• Pathway 2 is sparked by external information that confirms an existing internal stress.

The core, non-negotiable principle is that the viral particles are always created by the host cell itself. The outside world cannot force a healthy cell to create something against its will. It can only provide a signal that a compromised cell is programmed to interpret and act upon.

This theory adequately explains:

• Why "asymptomatic spread" is a misnomer: If the source isn't sick (i.e., their cells aren't in distress), they aren't producing significant amounts of the "information" package to transmit.

• The role of overall health: A robust terrain is not about "fighting off" invaders; it's about maintaining cellular integrity so that neither internal stressors nor external signals can trigger the degenerative viral production program.

The Blueprint is Already Within Us

A significant portion (an estimated 5-8%) of the human genome is composed of ERVs. These are ancient viral sequences that infected our ancestors' germ cells millions of years ago and were permanently incorporated into the DNA. They are passed down from generation to generation like any other gene. While most are mutated and inactive, many retain complete or partial sequences that code for viral proteins and even whole viral particles.

The primary challenge is that the genetic blueprint for a specific coronavirus (like SARS-CoV-2) is not found in the human genome as ERVs are. Our DNA does not contain a pre-made code for the spike protein or the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase unique to coronaviruses.

My theory that human cells could endogenously produce a virus as complex as a coronavirus pushes the boundaries of conventional biology. Unlike retroviruses, whose blueprints exist within our DNA as ERVs, the precise genetic code for a coronavirus is supposedly not natively present in the human genome. Therefore, this concept requires a move away from the idea of executing a stored program and toward a model of chaotic, improvisational assembly under conditions of extreme cellular distress. This process, which we might term "improvisational virogenesis," would represent a catastrophic failure of the cell's normal regulatory functions, not a programmed event.

The greatest challenge for this theory is explaining how the same supposedly specific 30,000-base-pair RNA sequence of a virus like SARS-CoV-2 could appear in millions of individuals worldwide.

The Cell as the Authority: Viral Particles as Complex Enzymes of Cleansing

The cell is a biochemical factory par excellence. It produces incredibly complex molecular machines—enzymes—on demand to manage its metabolism and respond to its environment. If a cell can produce cytochrome P450 enzymes to detoxify chemicals or caspases to execute programmed cell death, the conceptual leap to it producing a complex nucleoprotein particle is not vast. Viewing a virus not as a "living" entity but as a structured, complex enzyme or tool created by the cell for a specific purpose is a profound shift.

This tool's function is not to infect others indiscriminately but to manage a critical internal crisis: toxicity-induced cellular decay.

The Mechanism: Toxicity → Decay → Viral Enzyme Production → Cleansing

1. The Priming Phase: Cellular Toxicity
The lung cell exists in a toxic milieu. The toxins are myriad: airborne pollutants, volatile organic compounds, mycotoxins, metals from environmental exposure, or the specific toxins in cigarette smoke. This toxic burden overwhelms the cell's detoxification pathways, leading to a buildup of damage.

2. The Trigger: Point of Critical Decay
The cell does not simply die passively. It has fail-safes. When toxicity reaches a critical threshold and the cell's function is severely compromised, it recognizes a state of irreparable decay. This is the trigger. The cell shifts from a state of "trying to survive" to "managing its own demise for the greater good of the organism."

3. The Production: Assembling the Tool
In this state of crisis, the cell's innate intelligence is activated. It accesses its genomic library, which includes endogenous retroviral sequences and other latent code. The cell has all the available tools to produce viruses. Driven by the specific type of toxic insult, it transcribes and translates the components for a specific nucleoprotein tool.

4. The Function: Indirect Systemic Cleansing via Apoptosis
The release of these viral-enzyme particles has two key functions:

• Autocrine Effect (On the cell itself): The production and release of these particles is part of the cell's own suicide pathway. It is the point of no return that ensures the cell will undergo apoptosis—clean, programmed cell death that avoids inflammation (necrosis).

• Paracrine Effect (On the environment): The released particles act as systemic messengers. They communicate the specific nature of the crisis to the immune system, directing it to the sites of greatest toxicity. They may also signal other compromised cells to initiate their own cleansing apoptosis protocols. This creates the systemic effect we perceive as "viral illness"—fever, fatigue, mucus production—which are all aspects of a coordinated detoxification and repair process.

Why the "Susceptibility" to Infection Proves the Theory

It has been noted in many studies now that toxic lungs (from smokers, etc.) are more susceptible to viral infection. The conventional view is that the toxicity "weakens the defenses," allowing an external virus to invade.
My theory provides a more accurate explanation: The toxic lung is not being invaded more; it is producing more. The higher the toxic load, the more cells reach that critical point of decay and trigger the production of a particular virus. Thus, more toxicity leads to more viral production, and therefore more illness symptoms.

The "spread" through a population is not the linear transmission of a pathogen, but the statistical probability that more people in the same environment are reaching similar levels of internal toxicity, thus manifesting the same "symptom" (viral particle production) at the same time. Each virus carries with it its own specific set of symptoms, and this is why symptoms are so common among so many different people.

A Shift from Causation to Correlation

This theory ultimately forces a complete reframing of what we observe. The supposedly consistent SARS-CoV-2 RNA sequence is not sole proof of a spreading pathogen, but rather the most reliable biomarker of a specific, novel, and widespread state of human cellular decay. Such epidemics and pandemics appear throughout human history as signs of decay among the populace. In this case, coronavirus outbreaks coincide with an ever-increasing burden of industrial pollution being breathed in all over the Earth.

The sequence is consistent because the underlying cause—the specific stressor disrupting human biochemistry in this precise way—is consistent and global. My theory argues that science has mistaken the body's uniform reaction to a toxin (producing a specific particle) for an external actor (a virus) causing disease. The "pandemic," in this view, would be a mass poisoning or mass-energetic disturbance event, with the "virus" being the symptom, not the cause. This explains the mostly “identical” genome while completely inverting the conventional understanding of causality.

This theory explains why risk factors are almost exclusively comorbidities linked to toxicity and metabolic decay (obesity, diabetes, age, respiratory disease). It explains why attempts to fight a virus directly are often ineffective or have side effects—they are interfering with a deeply intelligent, adaptive cleansing process orchestrated by the body itself.

The goal of medicine, therefore, should not be to kill a phantom external pathogen without reason, but to reduce the toxic load and support the bodily system so that cells never need to activate this drastic cleansing protocol in the first place.

The Illusion of Lineage: Public health tracks "variants of concern" (Alpha, Delta, Omicron) as if they are evolving lineages of an external virus. In the endogenous model, these are not evolving lineages. They are different "recipes" or "flavors" of cellular breakdown.

The "Omicron variant" might represent the specific pattern of RNA transcripts produced when cells are under distress from a new or different combination of toxins (e.g., a new environmental pollutant, a specific drug, or a shift in population-level metabolic health).

The "variants" are not the virus getting "smarter"; they are a biomarker showing that the nature of the cellular distress in the population is changing and evolving, for better or worse.

The End of "Patient Zero": The search for a first patient with a perfect viral sequence becomes meaningless. There is no "index case" of an invading virus. There is only a statistical threshold where enough people in a region reach a critical level of a near identical toxic stress that their cells begin producing similar enough particles to be detected and grouped together by sequencing software.

Explaining Geographical Variation: Different regions have different toxic burdens—different air quality, diets, water contaminants, and medical practices. We would therefore expect cells in different regions to produce different "families" of viral sequences, which is exactly what we observe.

This reframing is not a minor adjustment; it is a fundamental revolution in our understanding of health and disease.

Redefining the "Lock and Key" Mechanism

The conventional model states:

• Key: Viral spike protein.

• Lock: Human ACE2 receptor (in the case of SARS-CoV-2).

• Result: The key fits the lock, allowing the virus to enter and infect the cell.

The endogenous theory offers a more sophisticated interpretation:

• The "Lock" is a Marker of Cellular Distress. The appearance of certain receptors, like ACE2, on the cell surface is not a passive state. It is upregulated (increased) when the cell is under inflammatory or oxidative stress. A cell showing a lot of ACE2 receptors is a cell that is already in a compromised, distressed state. It is "unlocking" itself.

• The "Key" is a Signal of Shared Distress. The "spike protein" is not a malicious invention of a virus. It is a protein that can bind to ACE2 because it is, in essence, a mirror image or a complementary signal of that distress. It is the body's own molecule, and its purpose is communication.

Therefore, the "lock and key" mechanism is not about invasion. It is about targeted communication between compromised systems.

The standard model states:

1. Origin: The particle is assembled from components manufactured under the direct instruction of an invading viral genome.

2. Purpose: Its purpose is to find a new host cell, inject its genome, and commandeer that cell's machinery to ‘selfishly’ replicate itself. It is an exogenous, parasitic entity.

The endogenous theory states:

The viral particle is assembled by a distressed cell from its own components. The RNA inside is a transcript of the cell's own genetically dysregulated state—order out of chaos. Its purpose is not parasitic replication, but communication.

This manifests through two pathways:
Pathway 1: Pure Endogenous Expression, where internal toxicity directly triggers the cell to create particles as a distress signal; and
Pathway 2: Resonant Triggered Expression, where an external particle from another host acts not as an invader, but as a catalytic message that prompts a similarly distressed cell to initiate its own identical production process.

In both pathways, the particle is a complex signaling molecule.

This model recasts the "lock and key" mechanism as a targeting system for communication, not invasion: a cell covered in ACE2 receptors is already in distress, and the "spike protein" is the key ensuring the message is only delivered to cells prepared to understand it. Therefore, what is transmitted is not an alien invader, but a physical packet of information that induces a receptive host to manifest its own biological response to a shared toxic burden. The virus is a symptom of the body's crisis management, and that symptom can become a signal that spreads the crisis pattern through resonance, not infection.

The mechanism of how triggering the same process in a new host can be visualized as follows:

Conclusion: The Virus as a Symptom of a Diseased State

The prevailing narrative of virology, built upon the foundation of germ theory, presents a world at war with external pathogenic invaders. This exploration has proposed a profound paradigm shift, moving from a model of exogenous infection to one of endogenous expression. The conclusion is not that viral particles do not exist or are not transmitted, but that their origin, nature, and role in disease have been fundamentally misunderstood.

The core of this theory places the cell—the ultimate authority of its own domain— at the center of the process. We have theorized that a cell driven to a state of critical decay by toxicity, nutrient deficiency, and other stressors can initiate a desperate adaptive response. In this state, its epigenetic controls fail, and its transcriptional machinery becomes chaotic. Drawing upon its own genomic library, which includes ancient endogenous viral sequences, it improvisationally assembles the particles we identify as viruses. These particles are not foreign invaders but complex, enzyme-dense tools created by the cell itself. Their purpose is not parasitic replication but systemic communication and (indirect) cleansing, often culminating in the programmed apoptosis of toxic cells (the byproduct of viral infection—which usually benefits the organism).

This framework elegantly reinterprets the phenomena of contagion and variant emergence. The "lock and key" mechanism is recast not as a tool for invasion, but as a sophisticated targeting system ensuring that these particles are only received by other cells in a congruent state of decay. What is transmitted is not a monolithic, indiscriminately hijacking pathogen, but a signal or catalytic instruction. Upon receipt, a predisposed host does not replicate an external genome exactly; it is triggered to execute its own internal process of breakdown, producing its own unique but highly related set of viral particles. The genomic variation observed in "variants of concern" is therefore not evidence of an evolving virus, but a biomarker of a shifting landscape of human cellular distress among billions of people.

Ultimately, this theory forces a monumental reframing of viral illness and its relationship with disease. A pandemic is not the indiscriminate spread of a virus, but the synchronized manifestation of a shared toxicological crisis manifesting across an entire population. The virus is not the direct cause of illness; it is the symptom—a messenger and a mechanic of a body attempting to purge itself of untenable poison. This understanding dissolves the myth of an invisible enemy and reveals the true adversary: the compromised health of our internal systems. The future of healthcare, therefore, must shift its focus from waging war on phantom pathogens to the urgent work of detoxification, nourishment, and the restoration of biological integrity, recognizing what the true cause of disease truly is.

Jeff Green

Quote: "The definition of a virus must include 'obligate intracellular parasite' – it must be infectious, replication competent and transmissible." – Mark Bailey

Response: This definition isn’t just outdated, it’s wrong. It excludes entire categories of viruses that have been thoroughly documented in the scientific literature. Hepatitis D isn’t replication competent without a helper virus, yet it’s undeniably a virus. Endogenous retroviruses are inherited through our genome, not transmitted between people, but they’re still viruses. Lab-engineered particles, defective virions, and giant viruses like Mimivirus all defy this narrow criteria, and all are classed as viruses. You don’t get to redefine the field just to suit your argument. Virology has evolved, and definitions must reflect reality, not personal bias.

The “No Virus” crowd often insists on the definition of a virus as an obligate intracellular parasite, yet they simultaneously claim that if a virus isn’t pathogenic, it isn’t a virus. But the term parasite in this context refers to biological dependency, not necessarily pathogenicity.

Quote: "Bacteriophages and giant 'viruses' can be properly isolated but don’t seem to be parasitic as was originally thought – as per Dr Stefan Lanka’s work."

Response: This claim misrepresents the biology of these viruses. Bacteriophages are textbook examples of obligate intracellular parasites—they infect bacteria, replicate using the host’s machinery, and often destroy the host in the process. They are viruses. Giant viruses like Mimivirus also replicate inside amoebae and cannot function independently, fitting the parasitic model despite their complexity.

Furthermore, putting “viruses” in quotation marks is not an argument, it’s merely a tactic to dismiss the existence of viruses. It’s used to cast doubt without evidence, to suggest that bacteriophages and giant viruses don’t truly qualify as viruses, despite meeting every accepted scientific criterion.

Quote: "The word ‘virus’ derives from poison so to use the term for other purposes (e.g. a 'messenger' particle) would seem incorrect to me – virus should be reserved for the strict definition. I’m yet to see evidence of any virus in this sense." – Mark Bailey

Response: This definition of virus as ‘poison’ arose around 55 BC, thus 2,080 years ago. In Classical Latin, virus was a common noun used by writers like Cicero (c. 55 BC) and Virgil to describe poisonous or noxious substances, such as snake venom, putrid fluids, or slimy secretions. So, virus was understood and used to mean “poison” in ordinary Roman language, not defined in a scientific taxonomy.

Therefore, while it’s true that the word “virus” originally meant “poison” in Latin, modern science doesn't rely on etymology to define biological entities. Scientific terminology evolves with understanding, and today the term “virus” refers to a broad category of submicroscopic agents that replicate only inside living cells—not to a toxin. Furthermore, dismissing messenger-like roles ignores discoveries like exosome-mediated viral communication and viral-like particles used in gene therapy. Clinging to the word’s ancient root over its modern, evidence-based definition is linguistically rigid and scientifically unhelpful.
The “No Virus” movement insists on the ancient Latin meaning of virus as “poison” not for scientific accuracy, but as a rhetorical device. By leaning on this outdated definition, they use linguistic ‘gotchas’ to cast doubt on modern virology, implying that the term virus was misleadingly redefined to fit a flawed medical model. This strategy avoids engaging with biological evidence and instead appeals to laypeople by making science seem like a language trick.

The claim that “if a virus isn’t pathogenic, it can’t be called a virus” is fundamentally incorrect. Pathogenicity is not part of the core scientific definition of a virus. A virus is defined by its structure and behavior: a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside host cells. Whether it causes disease or not is secondary. By that logic, a harmless strain of E. coli wouldn’t be a bacterium, or a benign tumor wouldn’t be called a tumor. Scientific classification is based on what something is, not just what it does. To say “no pathology = not a virus” is to reject basic virology.

Conclusion

The assertion by the "No Virus" movement that viruses do not exist is, frankly, one of the most baseless and scientifically untenable claims ever put forward. Viruses are ubiquitous in nature, intricately woven into the fabric of all ecosystems. Without them, the adaptive capacity of living organisms would be severely impaired, leading to their quick demise. Indeed, a substantial body of evidence now supports the hypothesis that viruses played a fundamental role in the origin of life itself, functioning as genetic catalysts and agents of horizontal gene transfer.

Viruses can be understood not merely as pathogenic agents but as cellular survival mechanisms shaped through deep evolutionary processes. Far from being solely destructive, viruses often act as mediators of genetic exchange, stress response, and adaptation. Some viral elements are embedded within host genomes and perform regulatory functions essential for development, immune modulation, and cellular repair. In this light, viruses are not external invaders but deeply integrated biological entities that have co-evolved with cellular life to serve, in many cases, as vectors of adaptation and survival under changing environmental pressures. That is why modern science is moving away from the once-held dogmatic view of viruses as the actual cause of disease. Modern science now understands, through their study, that viruses are a result of disease. The “No Virus” movement, in all its posturing, should understand the byproducts of disease and how extensively disease manifests and is detoxified from the body.

To deny the existence of viruses is logically equivalent to denying the existence of enzymes, proteins, or DNA, all of which are integral components of viral architecture. Viruses are not metaphysical constructs; they are assemblies of biological macromolecules. The rejection of their existence is not only scientifically indefensible but intellectually incoherent.

The "No Virus" movement has shown virtually no growth in its understanding over the past five years. That alone should speak volumes about where its priorities truly lie. In contrast, many researchers and independent thinkers have significantly deepened their knowledge during this time, continually reassessing assumptions in light of new data and perspectives. Yet the “No Virus” narrative remains frozen, repeating the same narrow talking points without any meaningful evolution, even after ample evidence and counterarguments have been presented by myself and many others. This intellectual stagnation reveals that their commitment is not to discovery or truth, but to the maintenance of a fixed ideological position for whatever agenda they have.

Jeff Green

Tim writes:

The quote you have sourced doesn’t appear insane, it appears logical, measured and precise.

Let’s look at the opposing argument to evaluate your insanity accusation.

A virologist would have you believe that a biological entity that has no life force has the ability to enter a cell, disassemble itself, take over a cell’s machinery to copy itself, then it magically assembles itself back together in a precise manner to make a copy of its original form. When asked how it does this, a virologist will say they don’t know for sure, but they know it happens because they can observe CPE?

If I hypothesised that when a dead tree is blown into a swimming pool by the wind, it detaches all its branches and uses the pool pump to magically make a copy of all its branches and its trunk, then the new branches and trunk assemble themselves to make a perfect copy of its original form and then jumps out of the pool (somehow) so it can be blown into other pools - oh and by the way, you can’t observe this directly because the trees are invisible but they must exist because of all the bark on the ground - you would think I was insane.

But you believe this is perfectly logical…

Mike Stone is an exceptional researcher, and your attempt to smear him has been a complete failure. You should make yourself familiar with his peer review of “scientific” findings. It shouldn’t take long for you to reevaluate your position.

Ok, let’s address your claims directly.

The suggestion that viruses are self-replicating entities is fundamentally incorrect (i.e. copy itself, reassemble itself). The entire process of viral replication is host-dependent. Viruses lack the intrinsic cellular machinery necessary for autonomous replication; instead, they require the molecular infrastructure of living host cells. A virus merely carries genetic material, while the host cell performs the biological processes required for replication. This explains why cells—not inanimate objects such as a pool pump—are capable of supporting viral propagation.

The claim that Stone's position is logical reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both virology and the scientific process. Assertions that virologists “do not know” how viruses operate are unsupported and should be substantiated with credible sources. In fact, the mechanisms by which viruses enter host cells and utilize cellular machinery to translate and replicate viral proteins are well characterized. These processes have been directly observed using electron microscopy (EM), among many other established methodologies. Moreover, viral replication is only one of several objectives of cell culture experiments, which also serve critical roles in isolating, identifying, and characterizing viruses.

Below is how the scientific methodology would more accurately appear in virology research:

1. Observe a clinical or environmental phenomenon (it is not required to be natural as Stone mandates)

2. Formulate research questions and working hypotheses
     ○ Identify suspected pathogen or unknown agent
     ○ Determine target population or biological system
     ○ Define measurable outcomes (e.g., cytopathic effect, immune response)

3. Collect and process biological samples
     ○ Use appropriate biosafety and collection protocols
     ○ Prepare for downstream analysis (e.g., filtration, centrifugation)

4. Attempt isolation and characterization
     ○ Inoculate cell cultures
     ○ Observe for viral replication, cytopathic effect (CPE), etc.
     ○ Use controls to distinguish specific effects from background noise

5. Detect and analyze viral components
     ○ Perform PCR, sequencing, electron microscopy (EM), or immunostaining
     ○ Compare findings with known viral databases

6. Test hypotheses using multiple lines of evidence
     ○ Reproduce findings across different samples and conditions
     ○ Rule out confounding variables
     ○ Evaluate consistency, specificity, and causal plausibility

7. Peer review, publication, and further replication
     ○ Submit findings for external evaluation
     ○ Encourage independent verification

8. Refine or revise understanding based on results
     ○ Accept, modify, or reject original hypothesis
     ○ Design new experiments based on emerging data
   

How this differs from Stone’s version:
Stone’s outline assumes all variables—including the independent variable—must be fully known and isolated before experimentation begins. However, in real-world virology, the independent variable (e.g., a suspected virus) is often hypothesized, not pre-identified. Stone falsely claims this is ‘assumption’, and yet, an assumption is something you take as true without proof, whereas a hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable statement or educated guess about how things work. The actual identity and role of the virus are discovered through the process, not assumed from the start. Additionally, Stone omits critical steps like sample collection, peer review, replication, and the use of converging lines of evidence—elements that are essential in empirical science, especially in complex biological fields like virology.

Stone’s argument inverts scientific methodology by requiring conclusive identification of a virus prior to any experimental investigation—a demand that is contrary to the epistemology of empirical science that he touts so strongly. Scientific inquiry begins with observation and proceeds through experimentation to establish understanding. If researchers already possessed definitive answers in advance, with ultimate proof of a virus, experimentation would be rendered unnecessary. Stone’s insistence on the presence of a clearly defined independent variable (IV) before initiating research reflects an ignorance of how discovery-based sciences, such as virology, operate. These fields often involve the observation and documentation of phenomena prior to the identification or manipulation of specific variables.

Identification of a virus happens through experimental procedures, not before them. Techniques like isolation and purification are themselves experiments used to detect, separate, and study the virus, typically involving cell cultures, filtration, imaging, and sequencing. You don't need to "prove" the virus exists before these methods; instead, these methods are how you test for its existence. Demanding prior proof misunderstands how science works because discovery happens through experimentation, not before it. It’s like demanding a photograph of a planet before pointing a telescope at the sky; the tools aren’t assumptions, they’re how you look.

Furthermore, Stone maintains that viruses must be discovered in “pure form” directly from bodily fluids. While viral particles can indeed be detected in such fluids, they are not found in a chemically pure state due to the presence of complex host-derived material. Consequently, scientists employ validated techniques such as cell culture, ultracentrifugation, and filtration to isolate and characterize viruses. Stone's wholesale rejection of these established methodologies, branding them as “pseudoscientific” without substantiating evidence, creates a paradoxical position: he demands scientific proof while simultaneously disqualifying the tools used to generate it.

This line of reasoning establishes an unattainable standard, one in which no empirical evidence can ever suffice. By denying the legitimacy of core methodologies such as EM imaging, PCR amplification, genomic sequencing, immunological assays, and viral culture, Stone effectively disengages from the scientific enterprise and instead proposes a self-referential framework that redefines evidence to exclude all existing forms of it.

According to Stone, a virus can only be proven to exist if it is first completely purified from a sick human, without using cell cultures, indirect detection, or mixed samples, and then shown to cause disease through natural transmission. However, this standard collapses under scrutiny. Purification is an experimental procedure, yet he demands it occur only after proof of existence, which assumes the conclusion before investigation begins. This creates a circular standard in which discovery cannot start until it is already complete. It is like requiring microscopic entities to be verified by the naked eye before permitting the use of a microscope. But since viruses cannot be observed without experimental tools, insisting on proof beforehand blocks access to the very methods needed to find them. Thus, a paradox arises. The logic imposes a condition that renders the scientific process unworkable—exactly the position in which Stone and the “No Virus” group want the reader to remain: stuck, confused, and unable to proceed.

Adding further contradiction, Stone also dismisses electron microscopy, claiming it harms the sample and reduces the process to “point and declare” pseudoscience. But electron microscopy is one of the few tools capable of directly visualizing viral particles with high resolution. Rejecting it means rejecting not just an experimental method, but observation itself. By disqualifying even direct visualization as unscientific, Stone effectively bars every path that could lead to confirmation. In this framework, there is no acceptable way to look, no valid tool to see, and no method that does not beg the very question he refuses to let be asked.

The paradox deepens:

If you cannot begin without first knowing, and you cannot know without first beginning, then knowledge itself becomes impossible.
Stone’s position forms what philosophers and scientists would call an epistemological paradox: it demands proof before inquiry while rejecting the very tools that produce that proof. If knowledge requires evidence before investigation, and investigation is only allowed after that evidence is shown, then knowledge becomes inaccessible. It’s a logical trap—one where discovery is prohibited until the discovery is already made. Thus, Stone’s logic leads us to a place where all inquiry is disqualified before it starts.
He demands scientific certainty while simultaneously denying the legitimacy of all scientific instruments. He wants absolute proof, but bars the only roads that could produce it. This is philosophical sleight of hand that ensures the answer must always be “nothing exists,” because no way of showing otherwise is ever good enough. The tools are rejected, the methods are declared flawed, and the results are preemptively invalidated. In such a system, the absence of evidence isn’t the result of a lack of investigation—rather, it’s the product of a worldview designed to make investigation impossible.

Finally, it is important to clarify that there is no universally fixed or singular “scientific method.” The linear, stepwise model often taught in early education is a didactic simplification. In practice, scientific methodology is adaptive, iterative, and rooted in the accumulation and convergence of diverse lines of evidence. Neither Stone nor his supporters have cited any credible academic source that invalidates the use of cell culture, nor have they produced a peer-reviewed framework defining the rigid methodological criteria they espouse. Instead, these claims appear to be based on deliberate fabrication.

Conclusion

Stone purports to advocate for scientific rigor, yet his position rests not on empirical inquiry, but on rhetorical maneuvering, categorical dismissal of evidence, and a conspicuous absence of scholarly substantiation. His argument is paradoxical: he demands scientific proof, then categorically rejects the very methodologies through which such proof is obtained. That’s why I used the ‘insanity.’

His emphasis on discovering viruses in a so-called “pure form” reflects a philosophical idealism divorced from the practical realities of molecular biology and reality itself. The biological world is complex, dynamic, and context-dependent. Purity, in the absolutist sense he demands, is neither attainable nor necessary for scientific validity. Virology, like all biological sciences, proceeds through the convergence of reproducible results and cross-disciplinary methodologies—not the abstract absolutes of philosophical essentialism espoused by denialists like Stone.

In the end, Stone is not redefining science, he is retreating from it. His framework does not expand the frontiers of understanding whatsoever; it replaces methodological engagement with contrarian posturing. The only thing he has successfully isolated is himself—from real science and from the standards of intellectual accountability that define credible scientific discourse.

Jeff Green

Mike Stone (source):

Jeff Green

https://rumble.com/v6vbd8f-webinar-from-june-25th-2025.html

Rebuttal:

Hi Jeff,

Yeadon et al. are pushing hard on his Telegram channel to counter the existence of the virus—primarily, that there is no scientific evidence for its existence.

I find it interesting that this is being highlighted at the same time as your article and in the context of what ploys they may use to vitiate any reasoned, contrary views.

Their tactic is, of course, premised on a weak foundation: a lack of appreciation for what may constitute the scientific method when applied to different areas of study.

Thank you for continuing in your mission to bring enlightenment to many whom we know are being deliberately misled.

Kind regards,
Ted

Thanks, Ted.

As you may know, Yeadon and his so-called “moderator” previously banned me from their Substack page—not for being rude, hostile, or trolling, but simply for presenting evidence that challenges their narrative. I brought up legitimate, well-sourced scientific support for the existence of viruses, and that alone was enough to get me removed. That’s telling. It’s one thing to ban someone who’s being disruptive or attacking others—something I, unfortunately, experience often enough here on my own page. But it’s something else entirely to silence someone offering coherent, respectful, evidence-based contributions. That’s censorship dressed up as gatekeeping, and it shows a lack of intellectual integrity.

What’s also interesting is the larger trend I’ve been observing: individuals with medical backgrounds—some even with impressive credentials—leaving the traditional healthcare world and pivoting into the conspiracy space. And let’s be honest, it’s rarely out of genuine scientific curiosity. More often, it seems to be about capitalizing on the distrust people have in institutions, or tapping into niche fame (and financial gain) by becoming an "insider gone rogue."

Ironically, it wasn’t that long ago that medical credentials were met with suspicion in the alternative health world. A person with “MD” after their name was often assumed to be too indoctrinated to think outside the box. But now, those same credentials are being flaunted as badges of honor—so long as the individual turns against the very field they once worked in. The shift is more about signaling than substance. And the reality is, medical credentials don’t automatically make someone an expert in broader questions of health, disease, or nutrition. Time and again, I’ve heard medical professionals express views that completely misunderstand—or outright contradict—the fundamentals of human biology and health. Some are better informed than others, of course. But a license to prescribe drugs does not equal a deep understanding of the body or the principles of science.

I listen to everyone—regardless of title or background—but I don’t just absorb information uncritically. I compare what I hear to what I’ve already learned and tested myself. I’ve built up a body of knowledge over years of research, reflection, and dialogue with people who genuinely care about truth. That becomes my filter.

Unfortunately, people like Yeadon routinely fail even the most basic tests of scientific reasoning. They start with a conclusion and work backward, cherry-picking data to support a belief they’re already committed to. That’s not science. That’s ideology. It takes a certain kind of mind—curious, methodical, and humble—to really engage with science. And sadly, that’s becoming rarer in the world today.

What we often observe in cases like Yeadon’s is a departure from these principles in favor of ideologically driven narratives that are more about persuasion than investigation. Such individuals may begin with a predetermined conclusion and then work retroactively to assemble a selective body of claims that support that conclusion, often disregarding context, mischaracterizing opposing views, or outright dismissing the validity of established scientific consensus.

In this respect, it becomes evident that a scientific education does not necessarily equate to scientific thinking. The latter is a rarer and more demanding intellectual virtue—one that calls for consistency, skepticism, and above all, fidelity to the process of inquiry itself.

Take, for example, Yeadon’s assertion that viruses have never been shown to exist. This claim is not only scientifically indefensible, but also deeply contradictory in light of his professional history. Yeadon worked within the pharmaceutical industry, including a position at Pfizer, where he was directly involved in developing products that presuppose the existence of viruses. It is difficult to reconcile this prior engagement with virology-dependent models with his current public position denying the existence of viruses altogether.

A similar trajectory can be seen in the case of Stefan Lanka. Earlier in his career, Lanka authored studies that clearly referenced viruses and their role in disease. He has since abandoned that position, now claiming that viruses do not exist at all. Such a radical shift would require a well-developed theoretical framework to justify it, yet no such framework has been produced.

Where are their respective books? Where are the comprehensive studies or theoretical writings that lay out their theories in detail? They do not exist. We see no robust body of written work that explains their alternative views with scientific rigor. Where is the science—empirical or even theoretical—that supports their claims? At most, Lanka has produced a few short writings in magazines, but these lack substance, depth, and methodological clarity. His reasoning remains vague and underdeveloped, offering little more than rhetorical assertions rather than coherent hypotheses.

Those who attempt to overturn the foundational principles of virology bear the burden of presenting a clear, structured, and evidence-based argument. To date, this has not occurred. This absence of scientific rigor is precisely why theories like my own are often attacked by these same individuals—because I confront the complex, multifactorial nature of health and disease, a level of nuance they are either unwilling or unqualified to engage with intellectually.

They often default to simplistic claims, such as “toxicity causes disease.” But this assertion, while superficially appealing, lacks substance unless it is accompanied by specific details: What kind of toxicity? How does it initiate or propagate disease within the body? By what mechanisms does the body detoxify itself, and could viral particles be part of that process—either as agents or byproducts of detoxification? These are the critical questions that demand serious inquiry.

Instead of addressing such complexities, they dismiss the entire virological and scientific frameworks outright. In doing so, they relieve themselves of the intellectual labor required to explore these mechanisms. It is far easier to reject everything and then monetize that rejection, presenting themselves as authoritative voices atop a platform of contrarianism. But authority without substance is hollow. Their model not only fails to account for biological intricacy—it ultimately undermines any meaningful progress toward understanding human health.

Conclusion

As I have stated before: the entire ‘no-virus’ theory collapses with a single misstep. One such fatal flaw lies in their failure to grasp the evolutionary logic of biological systems. Consider this: enzymes are universally acknowledged to exist, have been repeatedly demonstrated through empirical science, and are known to be produced by cells. If these enzyme-based mechanisms are real—and they undeniably are—then it follows logically and biologically that particles such as viruses, which incorporate enzyme-based machinery, would also emerge as a natural consequence of evolutionary processes.

In essence, viral particles are not anomalies; they are the culmination of a long evolutionary trajectory. They represent a kind of molecular destiny—an inevitable outgrowth of the dynamics of cellular and enzymatic evolution. Once the existence of the cell is accepted, and once the functionality of enzymes is affirmed, then the existence of viruses becomes not only plausible but necessary. They cannot not exist. To reject viruses while accepting the cell and enzymatic function is to embrace a contradiction.

This basic yet profound logic is precisely what individuals like Yeadon fail to comprehend. Their framework lacks internal consistency, and more importantly, it detaches itself from the deeper mechanisms that underlie biological evolution. This failure to engage with first principles is why their views will never meaningfully contribute to a deeper understanding of health, nutrition, or humanity's complex relationship with disease. Truth requires coherence and depth—qualities glaringly absent in their narrative.


Jeff Green