A Response to Stone and His Followers

Exposing the Mike Stone Paradox

Quote by Mike Stone (source)

Mike Stone - Twitter (source)

---

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.

Fabricated “scientific method” often cited by Mike Stone which has no source in academic science literature; fabrication in the sense that it presents a rigid, oversimplified, and distorted view of how science, especially discovery-based fields like virology, actually works.

Stone reverses the process: It assumes you already know the independent variable (the cause) before experimentation, which is not how discovery science operates. In virology, the identity of the virus is what’s being investigated, not a known input.

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.

Demanding “prior proof” before isolation is a category error; you can’t prove something exists before you study it.

Stone is using logical terminology to build a gate that science doesn't walk through, because in empirical fields, discovery happens through the very processes he’s rejecting.

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

---