Quote: "The definition of a virus must include 'obligate intracellular parasite' – it must be infectious, replication competent and transmissible." – Mark Bailey
I'm amused by their insistence on abiding strictly by dictionary definitions! I looked up bacteriophage in the dictionary and it says "a virus that parasitizes a bacterium by infecting it and reproducing inside it." I wonder if they keep several dictionaries around so they can select the definition that best suits their purpose?
Actually, yes, they do. In my experience, they go to great lengths to twist definitions to fit their agenda. They also rely on papers from the 1800s while ignoring over a century of scientific evidence. So, in that regard, they’re definitely not being honest.
That’s precisely why they cling to the most basic definition of ‘isolation’ when discussing microbiology, using it as a tool to oversimplify and distort complex processes to fit their narrative.
It's funny how we were just talking about no-virus carefully selecting definitions to support their agenda. Tom Cowan, in his July 9 webinar, talked about the importance of definitions but said pro-virus people use words (such as isolation) in meaningless ways. He finally mentioned Jeff's name, the exact sentence being "I decided that this Jeff Green is a moron. ... You can go to his writing and pretty much confirm that that's true." Cowan says that calling Jeff a moron would be insulting, but in the spirit of flexibility and creativity he is changing the definition of moron to "someone whose last name is a color". So "Jeff Green is a moron" takes on an entirely different meaning.
Notice how, once he used my name on his webinar the first time, a flood of No Virus trolls soon began to swarm my Substack, leaving their half-baked comments. They had no choice but to crawl out of the woodwork to ‘defend the faith.’
Tom Cowan appeared on his webinar and, in my opinion, misrepresented my article by falsely claiming it lacked references, mischaracterized who I am, and presented these distortions as fact to his audience. If that’s not moronic behavior, I don’t know what is.
This is someone who cannot cite a single scientific reference to support his claim that the scientific method is a rigid set of rules. On its face, it is entirely his own fabrication. Moreover, I must pose a genuine threat to these individuals—otherwise, why bother addressing me at all? Perhaps it’s because they know others are listening, and I have the ability to sway minds with logic and reason—qualities that individuals like Tom consistently fail to demonstrate.
As the Baileys and many others have written and lectured, there's no scientific evidence. Virology theories are full of contradictions. In one of the debates I read a virologist admitted that under electron microscopes (which are not direct pictures and no have capability of video or showing movement so we can't observe a process) exosomes are indistinguishable from viruses. Some virologists still say viruses are alive, a contradiction to basic biology. The "discovery" (there was no discovery) of the tobacco mosaic virus doesn't fit any definition of science - it was a theory. Direct observation IS sensory observation - inference is theory . Censorship by Google is critically important to understanding all topics - they admitted to censoring doctors and scientists going against the government's covid narrative. What I read about the editor of The Lancet is quoted in various books (inaccuracies means bad science). Your bio says you have an interest in history and politics, so I assume you're aware of the Rockefeller monopolizing medical education since the start of the 20th century.
Your comment illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of viruses. Viruses that are difficult to distinguish from exosomes are, in all cases, enveloped viruses. In contrast, unenveloped viruses exhibit distinctive morphology that allows them to be clearly differentiated from other particles in biological fluids. While electron microscopy does not capture real-time motion, it is nonetheless possible to observe viral structures and key stages of viral replication. Importantly, direct visualization of viral processes in real time is not a prerequisite for scientific validation.
"As the Baileys and many others have written and lectured, there's no scientific evidence. Virology theories are full of contradictions."
In the article, I highlighted multiple instances where Mark Bailey made inaccurate claims. I ask: what do you consider valid scientific evidence? What criteria or standards would you require to be met in order to accept, beyond a reasonable doubt, that viruses exist? Specify and list, in order, the rules or proof you deem necessary.
**𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬: 𝐃𝐨 𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭. Google, Lancet, Rockefeller, are all irrelevant to that central question.
Science is a discipline, created to elucidate our understanding of natural phenomena.
Understanding why people get sick is indeed an honourable venture, and should be encouraged.
You however, have systematically brought this venture into disrepute, due to the reification fallacy you choose not to acknowledge. The science you rely on as irrefutable evidence is easily refuted under serious peer review.
Based on flawed logic, you no longer believe that viruses cause disease, so your “discovery” of viruses appears to be meaningless.
According to your fluid interpretation of viruses, it wouldn’t surprise me if a new study would have you believe human cells are viruses?
Further, you constantly accuse people of that which you are guilty, but don’t have the courage to step back from your dogmatic vision.
Again, it’s unclear what you look to get out of your critical quest upon those with a reasonable accusation that there is insufficient evidence that viruses exist. If you seriously believe you are correct, you should ask yourself how beneficial your views could be for humanity (in my view, there is no difference in practical terms between your beliefs and a no virus position).
If however you are merely attempting to obfuscate the field to such an extent in order to reduce the pressure on virologists to conduct themselves in an ethical manner, you should question your morals.
Cite a single authoritative definition of ‘virus’—from molecular biology, microbiology, or any peer-reviewed virology text—where the definition includes ‘causes disease’ as an essential property. The claim that a virus must cause disease in order to be classified as a virus is unfounded. Most definitions focus on structure (nucleic acid in a protein coat), replication via host machinery, and inability to reproduce independently. Pathogenicity is a contingent property, not a definitional one.
The claim that viruses must "cause disease" to be valid entities is a category error. It's akin to saying “bacteria are not real unless they cause food poisoning.”
You falsely accuse me of reification, yet your side constantly reifies the idea of "proof" into a rigid philosophical demand that no biological field can satisfy, while demanding impossibly pure standards for evidence that you don't apply to your own claims. What I’m doing is exactly what science is meant to do: examine assumptions, clarify definitions, and resist groupthink.
No Virus is a false claim that undermines our entire understanding of biology and disease. Viruses are fundamental to life on Earth; denying them distorts reality. And if my words threaten the “No Virus” community, it’s because they challenge an unexamined believe. You show up to defend a fragile narrative and expect me to back down. I’m here to question, expose, and clarify—not to placate.
The Virology Control Studies Project — by Jamie Andrews
Hint: 'Tim' is a "No Virus" agitator.
I maintain a specific policy on my Substack: your claims must be supported by some form evidence. You have repeatedly failed to do that. As such, you are now banned.
"entire categories of viruses that have been thoroughly documented in the scientific literature". Depends on what literature you read. Virology is a theory, not science. There's no physical observation of viruses, especially no observation of processes - so it's not science. Theories are supposed to be debated. It's not easy to get the truth - we know Google is political (i.e. censoring doctors and scientists not conforming to the political explanations of "covid"), and the editor of The Lancet stated 50% of everything in the journal is bad science.
Your comment is incoherent and presents a non sequitur. Virology is a scientific discipline supported by extensive evidence, not merely speculative, and not merely theory. If you claim otherwise, provide citations. Direct observation in science often involves inference through instruments and experiments, so demanding only direct sensory observation misunderstands scientific methodology—provide sources for that claim as well. The fact that theories are debated is fundamental to science and not controversial. References to Google are irrelevant in this context. Regarding The Lancet, the editor stated that some published studies may contain inaccuracies, not that entire scientific fields lack validity.
I'm amused by their insistence on abiding strictly by dictionary definitions! I looked up bacteriophage in the dictionary and it says "a virus that parasitizes a bacterium by infecting it and reproducing inside it." I wonder if they keep several dictionaries around so they can select the definition that best suits their purpose?
Actually, yes, they do. In my experience, they go to great lengths to twist definitions to fit their agenda. They also rely on papers from the 1800s while ignoring over a century of scientific evidence. So, in that regard, they’re definitely not being honest.
That’s precisely why they cling to the most basic definition of ‘isolation’ when discussing microbiology, using it as a tool to oversimplify and distort complex processes to fit their narrative.
It's funny how we were just talking about no-virus carefully selecting definitions to support their agenda. Tom Cowan, in his July 9 webinar, talked about the importance of definitions but said pro-virus people use words (such as isolation) in meaningless ways. He finally mentioned Jeff's name, the exact sentence being "I decided that this Jeff Green is a moron. ... You can go to his writing and pretty much confirm that that's true." Cowan says that calling Jeff a moron would be insulting, but in the spirit of flexibility and creativity he is changing the definition of moron to "someone whose last name is a color". So "Jeff Green is a moron" takes on an entirely different meaning.
Here's one of his latest Twitter posts: https://x.com/JeffGreenHealth/status/1943093074281824563
And I posted the reference that he claims doesn't exist.
Notice how, once he used my name on his webinar the first time, a flood of No Virus trolls soon began to swarm my Substack, leaving their half-baked comments. They had no choice but to crawl out of the woodwork to ‘defend the faith.’
Tom Cowan appeared on his webinar and, in my opinion, misrepresented my article by falsely claiming it lacked references, mischaracterized who I am, and presented these distortions as fact to his audience. If that’s not moronic behavior, I don’t know what is.
This is someone who cannot cite a single scientific reference to support his claim that the scientific method is a rigid set of rules. On its face, it is entirely his own fabrication. Moreover, I must pose a genuine threat to these individuals—otherwise, why bother addressing me at all? Perhaps it’s because they know others are listening, and I have the ability to sway minds with logic and reason—qualities that individuals like Tom consistently fail to demonstrate.
As the Baileys and many others have written and lectured, there's no scientific evidence. Virology theories are full of contradictions. In one of the debates I read a virologist admitted that under electron microscopes (which are not direct pictures and no have capability of video or showing movement so we can't observe a process) exosomes are indistinguishable from viruses. Some virologists still say viruses are alive, a contradiction to basic biology. The "discovery" (there was no discovery) of the tobacco mosaic virus doesn't fit any definition of science - it was a theory. Direct observation IS sensory observation - inference is theory . Censorship by Google is critically important to understanding all topics - they admitted to censoring doctors and scientists going against the government's covid narrative. What I read about the editor of The Lancet is quoted in various books (inaccuracies means bad science). Your bio says you have an interest in history and politics, so I assume you're aware of the Rockefeller monopolizing medical education since the start of the 20th century.
Your comment illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of viruses. Viruses that are difficult to distinguish from exosomes are, in all cases, enveloped viruses. In contrast, unenveloped viruses exhibit distinctive morphology that allows them to be clearly differentiated from other particles in biological fluids. While electron microscopy does not capture real-time motion, it is nonetheless possible to observe viral structures and key stages of viral replication. Importantly, direct visualization of viral processes in real time is not a prerequisite for scientific validation.
-----------------------------------------------------
"As the Baileys and many others have written and lectured, there's no scientific evidence. Virology theories are full of contradictions."
In the article, I highlighted multiple instances where Mark Bailey made inaccurate claims. I ask: what do you consider valid scientific evidence? What criteria or standards would you require to be met in order to accept, beyond a reasonable doubt, that viruses exist? Specify and list, in order, the rules or proof you deem necessary.
**𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬: 𝐃𝐨 𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭. Google, Lancet, Rockefeller, are all irrelevant to that central question.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to achieve?
Science is a discipline, created to elucidate our understanding of natural phenomena.
Understanding why people get sick is indeed an honourable venture, and should be encouraged.
You however, have systematically brought this venture into disrepute, due to the reification fallacy you choose not to acknowledge. The science you rely on as irrefutable evidence is easily refuted under serious peer review.
Based on flawed logic, you no longer believe that viruses cause disease, so your “discovery” of viruses appears to be meaningless.
According to your fluid interpretation of viruses, it wouldn’t surprise me if a new study would have you believe human cells are viruses?
Further, you constantly accuse people of that which you are guilty, but don’t have the courage to step back from your dogmatic vision.
Again, it’s unclear what you look to get out of your critical quest upon those with a reasonable accusation that there is insufficient evidence that viruses exist. If you seriously believe you are correct, you should ask yourself how beneficial your views could be for humanity (in my view, there is no difference in practical terms between your beliefs and a no virus position).
If however you are merely attempting to obfuscate the field to such an extent in order to reduce the pressure on virologists to conduct themselves in an ethical manner, you should question your morals.
Cite a single authoritative definition of ‘virus’—from molecular biology, microbiology, or any peer-reviewed virology text—where the definition includes ‘causes disease’ as an essential property. The claim that a virus must cause disease in order to be classified as a virus is unfounded. Most definitions focus on structure (nucleic acid in a protein coat), replication via host machinery, and inability to reproduce independently. Pathogenicity is a contingent property, not a definitional one.
The claim that viruses must "cause disease" to be valid entities is a category error. It's akin to saying “bacteria are not real unless they cause food poisoning.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Principles of Virology (Flint et al., 4th ed., 2015)
“A virus is an infectious, obligate intracellular parasite comprising genetic material surrounded by a protein coat, and sometimes an envelope.”
Pathogenicity is acknowledged as a possible effect, but not an essential property.
-----------------------------------------------------
International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV)
“Viruses are defined by the presence of a nucleic acid genome enclosed in a capsid and their dependence on a host for replication.”
Again: structure, genome, replication mechanism—not disease.
-----------------------------------------------------
You falsely accuse me of reification, yet your side constantly reifies the idea of "proof" into a rigid philosophical demand that no biological field can satisfy, while demanding impossibly pure standards for evidence that you don't apply to your own claims. What I’m doing is exactly what science is meant to do: examine assumptions, clarify definitions, and resist groupthink.
No Virus is a false claim that undermines our entire understanding of biology and disease. Viruses are fundamental to life on Earth; denying them distorts reality. And if my words threaten the “No Virus” community, it’s because they challenge an unexamined believe. You show up to defend a fragile narrative and expect me to back down. I’m here to question, expose, and clarify—not to placate.
Your Substack subscriptions:
Dr Sam Bailey — by Dr. Sam Bailey
ViroLIEgy Newsletter — by Mike Stone
The Virology Control Studies Project — by Jamie Andrews
Hint: 'Tim' is a "No Virus" agitator.
I maintain a specific policy on my Substack: your claims must be supported by some form evidence. You have repeatedly failed to do that. As such, you are now banned.
"entire categories of viruses that have been thoroughly documented in the scientific literature". Depends on what literature you read. Virology is a theory, not science. There's no physical observation of viruses, especially no observation of processes - so it's not science. Theories are supposed to be debated. It's not easy to get the truth - we know Google is political (i.e. censoring doctors and scientists not conforming to the political explanations of "covid"), and the editor of The Lancet stated 50% of everything in the journal is bad science.
Your comment is incoherent and presents a non sequitur. Virology is a scientific discipline supported by extensive evidence, not merely speculative, and not merely theory. If you claim otherwise, provide citations. Direct observation in science often involves inference through instruments and experiments, so demanding only direct sensory observation misunderstands scientific methodology—provide sources for that claim as well. The fact that theories are debated is fundamental to science and not controversial. References to Google are irrelevant in this context. Regarding The Lancet, the editor stated that some published studies may contain inaccuracies, not that entire scientific fields lack validity.