The “No Virus” Delusion

Written by Jeff Green - 07/18/2022

The “No Virus” Delusion

Written by Jeff Green
July 18th, 2022

---

In recent days, I stumbled upon my name being mentioned on a blog, which led me to investigate the blog further. That blog is https://viroliegy.com/, and it is run by Mike Stone.

Mike Stone has since been involved with those like Andrew Kaufman, and others, presumably for his claims that those in the 'Terrain Theory' would like their audience to latch onto, which are absurd claims of 'non-existence' of many bodily agents. Modern 'Terrain Theory' is a bastardization of Terrain Theory as originally proposed, which was established before viruses were discovered. Stone's latest ideation is that exosomes (vesicles) do not exist and are an "escape clause" for virology in case viruses do not work out. For those unaware, Stone also claims viruses are not real. In fact, he doesn't believe much of anything is real that is, in fact, proven to be real. Because of this, he has been welcomed with open arms by what I call the 'Kaufman Gang' who adopt every New Age pseudoscience imaginable, whether true or not.

I decided to challenge Stone's views on his own blog and was met with denial, deflection, and outright attacks by Stone himself, as he was unwilling to admit even one error on his part. I would not let his absurd claims stand, and by the end of the comment thread I had completely disproven his claims on isolation and that exosomes and viruses are not real.
He refused to concede to any of the evidence provided, and simply changed the goalposts each time he was confronted with substantial evidence. This seems to be the typical stance of those 'deconstructing' modern science. They lose focus of the overall picture of the body and health. They pretend to know the complexities of science, whilst claiming it is all a deception without knowing if it truly is or isn't. At this stage, it would be hard not to think that Mr. Stone is actively engaged in deception himself, especially when you read through the comment thread below.

Article in question:

https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/02/mission-control-the-exosome-escape-clause/

My comments start here: https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/02/mission-control-the-exosome-escape-clause/#comment-3780

The claims of the above posting by Stone are to claim that exosomes are not real, but are merely cellular debris. He also claims that exosomes (vesicles) are an "escape clause" for virology. He cites many different studies to try to prove his point, unsuccessfully. It appears part of his mission is to bombard and bamboozle his audience with massive amounts of information in an attempt to prove his stance. In most cases, he completely misreads and misunderstands the studies themselves, including the terminology used. To those who read my journal on 'New Alternative Health', you will know that I showed Kaufman making similar grievous mistakes when quoting from a study concerning 'SARS-CoV-2' in which he claimed human samples were not used (they were).

The comment below is addressed to Stone directly but was not posted to his blog since I decided he was not open to any further evidence due to his attacks and because he had already denied the clear evidence which proved his misreadings of the studies he was referencing.

You will gain context by first reading my comments in the thread link above.

“
1. You suggest that all viruses are indistinguishable from exosomes.
2. That the studies in your references do not pertain to exosomes containing viral parts.
3. That viruses and exosomes do not exist.
4. That viruses and exosomes are the same particles.

Exosomes are only "indistinguishable" if they are defective viruses, or, enveloped viruses, or non-enveloped viruses that have somehow gained a membrane. And, is "almost impossible" to separate if defective viruses are in exosomes.

The studies you referenced both pertain to 'enveloped' viruses and 'defective' viruses; vesicles that contain viral parts. The differences between exosomes and defective viruses is purely semantic. Defective viruses are not actually viruses, they are vesicles. You are using the word virus literally in the term 'defective virus'. The studies are very clear in this regard.

Read carefully: The reason defective viruses are indistinguishable from EVs is because they are both vesicles. They are viruses that did not fully form—thus are 'non-infectious'. The same "indistinguishable" relation is sometimes true for enveloped viruses since they contain a membrane. Both viruses and vesicles are formed in the cytoplasm; viruses partly so, since they begin in the nucleus.  

Referenced Study States: “There are many aspects in which EVs resemble viruses, in particular retroviruses.”

Retroviruses are enveloped. Keyword: “in particular”. Not all viruses—but retroviruses. So, when the study writes "viruses", what viruses? Not all viruses. You are seeing the word "virus" and running with it.

The study already tells you what viruses are being studied in the opening paragraph.

Referenced Study States: “Physical and chemical characteristics of many EVs, as well as their biogenesis pathways, resemble those of retroviruses.”

The same use of terms permeates both studies.

In conclusion, your claim that all viruses appear as exosomes is false. Non-enveloped 'infectious' viruses do not appear like vesicles UNLESS they appear in vesicles themselves, which is not always the case (the study does note this possibility with hepatitis virus). As such, this leaves room for viruses to appear, not as exosomes, but as non-enveloped viruses that are clearly distinguishable from everything else.

If you are trying to support a claim that all viruses are indistinguishable from exosomes, you failed. If ALL viruses are not indistinguishable from exosomes, that suggests there are many non-enveloped viruses that do not resemble exosomes. And since there are many such viruses, researchers can easily distinguish them, thus proving the existence of the virus. All it takes is proof for one virus, and your entire claim falls like a row of dominos. That is exactly the trap you laid for yourself.

To have it your way, all viruses in existence would have to be indistinguishable from exosomes to prove a virus cannot be observed or somehow does not exist, and this is why you are patently incorrect. This is largely what your "viruses do not exist" claim hangs upon.

This is also why Lanka has disproven himself in this regard since he claims bacteriophages, a large type of bacterial virus, exists, but other viruses do not. As such, he admitted viruses exist. And since all cells produce life, and there are many multiple types of animal cells, the likelihood that cells can only ever produce one type of viral protein (bacteriophage) is absurd, since cells are able to produce multiple types of proteins. And the reason Kaufman and Cowan are wrong is the same reason you are wrong.”

In the end, Stone would have his audience believe that isolation, all forms of microscopy (except optical microscopy) is a fraud. That exosomes are a fraud and an “escape clause” for virology. That viruses are not real and cannot be isolated, sequenced, and their parts determined. That isolation and CPE (cytopathic effects) are one and the same (they are not). That DNA and RNA do not exist... and on and on the absurdities flow. Folks, this is deceptive information, possibly outright disinformation that Stone and many in the 'Kaufman Gang' are engaged in.

---

Now, with the help of the Kaufman Gang, a new 'virus challenge' has been propositioned to virologists to 'prove' to Stone and the Gang that viruses exist. This challenge has been signed by all the major 'Terrain Theory' players, of which Stone is a part (Lanka not included). Of course, you cannot prove something that does not exist in the first place, which Stone has already firmly entrenched his ego and 'non-belief' into. Thus, the entire 'challenge' is a farce and an exercise in egotistic chest-beating that will go nowhere (likely as intended)—but it may very well help gin up drama for the high-level 'Terrain Theory' players and increase their profits.

What does this so-called 'challenge' entail? You may read the challenge here:

https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/15/the-no-virus-challenge/

I address the challenge head-on in the below comment:

Addressing Stone and the “No Virus Challenge”:

“In your previous posts, I already showed why you, Kaufman, and Cowan, among others, are wrong in your usage of the word 'isolation'. To add to this, you are not even reading the studies accurately that you use to 'prove' your stance. In your two latest posts, you entirely mischaracterized whole studies as claiming things they did not say (especially in regard to the purification of exosomes) which you falsely characterized as "impossible". I had previously noted such blatant errors, but you would not concede, and instead denied, deflected, and gaslighted.

Further, you have already made it abundantly clear that you will NOT accept any evidence that goes against your obviously incorrect theory, or rather, lack thereof. The same can be said of Kaufman, Cowan, and most of the other signatories of this 'challenge'.

Virologists will tell you clearly why you are mistaken, just as I have. And whatever they present for proof, you will certainly not accept. Any results will then be fully twisted to support claims of virus 'non-existence' to those less aware of the complexities, and many will repost and disseminate it as some fact, setting the stage for public humiliation.

Why should researchers trust these samples? I wouldn't. And who will monitor it? Kaufman, Cowan, you? If so, anyone with half a brain can already predict the end result. You cannot simply send in many different samples to 5 labs, blindfold them, and tell them to send in their results with no knowledge of the samples themselves. Sample types dictate isolation methods. You also need someone to interpret and understand the results, which you have already shown you cannot do by your past utter misreading of studies, nor can Kaufman or Cowan. For example, I have already proved how Kaufman left out vital parts of at least one major study where he claimed human samples were not used (they were).

Further, the challenge is also discredited out of the gate by putting "isolation" in quotes as if isolation is not real or possible to begin with. This clearly indicates you, and others, would never believe isolation occurred anyway. Therefore, this is a 'gotcha' challenge that has no legs to stand on and has a foundation grounded in poor faith.

It's also interesting to note that everything this challenge asks has already been fulfilled in major studies concerning how individual viruses were isolated and supposed CPE effects described. However, these are two separate branches.

Of course, you and those concocting this challenge are combining isolation and CPE to get your way. By doing so, you can claim isolation itself is not occurring because CPE is caused by cell decay or something else—and the latter (CPE) is far more open to interpretation than the former (isolation). By tying them both together, you falsely get to claim viruses (or exosomes, or anything else) are not isolated, and therefore not real. To add to the silliness of it all, the signatories (the 'Kaufman Gang', of which you are a part) already firmly believe viruses do not exist anyway.

You have claimed viruses do not exist. That means they cannot be isolated. They also cannot be contagious or non-contagious. Nor can they contain a genome. You even state indirectly that the animal cell itself, which the virus comes from, is a scam, including DNA, RNA, etc—such baseless claims are beyond absurd and are a dead end. You also state electron microscopy is a scam, but the challenge language requests that micrographs be provided. Contradictory, yes?
In an egotistic display, you have ruled out most of science but then request that these same sciences, by using the same technologies you claim are a scam, should be used in order to try to prove there is no virus.

To add to this, you can NOT logically explain the classic symptoms of viral illnesses, nor their biological causes and effects, or, the ways, reasons, and modes of breakdown which bring it to bear in the body. To do so would be to run head-on with the undeniable discovery that viral-like entities exist, which would outright disprove almost everything you claim.”

---

Jeff Green
July 18th, 2022
https://virusesarenotcontagious.com/