The 'No-Virus' Scam

For over three years, a group of grifters has been trying to convince a significant part of the public that viruses are not real, and have been making quite a bit of money fooling gullible people in doing so. Whenever I, or anyone else, try to debate with them, they respond by viciously lashing out with personal attacks and constantly shift their arguments, ignoring the scientific evidence presented.

Unfortunately, these people are trying to present their false ideas as legitimate scientific theories by creating the aura of authority. They believe that they have valid arguments and have gained widespread attention by presenting themselves as a united group of people who all believe in this same false theory. Unforunately, for almost all people, virology is a significantly complex subject to grasp and understand. The same is true for many of the topics I discuss surrounding the biology of the human body, and understanding the mechanisms and roles of how the body functions. That is why I try to speak as clearly as possible, even when dealing with complex subjects. Because of this reality, the ‘No-Virus’ cult has easily misled people who are ignorant of these complex subjects by wooing them with the complexities, and hiding behind the technical terms that most do not understand. However, it should also be stated that many in the ‘No-Virus’ cult themselves do not even understand these complex subjects, and thus the perpetuation of falsehoods abound.

Many of their arguments are based on ridiculous and nonsensical conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. However, they try to make these arguments sound legitimate by constructing long and convoluted explanations about the most basic science of virology. Mike Stone is highly guilty of such behavior.

For example, in an article by Mike Stone, titled “ViroLIEgy 101: The Scientific Method”, Stone goes on a longwinded multipage diatribe attempting to claim that the scientific method is a defined set of rules, and not what they actually are—a varied set of principles that change in accordance with the subject of study.

Stone writes:

Over the course of the last few years, others and I have been engaged in discussions with all kinds of people who defend germ “theory” and virology, from the everyday layman to actual scientists and virologists. One of the most stunning and alarming takeaways from many of these conversations is the outright confusion over the scientific method, a logic-based procedure that has characterized natural science since at least the 17th century and has been around for much longer. When it is brought up in these exchanges as a means to challenge the pseudoscientific (i.e. fake science) evidence presented by virologists, there is a decidedly mixed reaction. Some virologists and microbiologists, who agree that the scientific method exists while claiming that they adhere to it, demonstrate that they simply do not understand the scientific method…

The constant claim of 'fake science' is misleading. Most scientific findings can be verified by multiple researchers. If the many virologists of the world assert the existence of viruses, why can't Stone and the 'No-Virus' cult hive-mind trust their collective expertise and give credit where credit is due, especailly in the face of abundant evidence? For one, they deny the evidence exists. Also, perhaps it's because they are predominantly paranoid individuals with an agenda to promote a specific narrative. But alas, they have painted a picture that claims there exists no evidence that viruses exist in the first place. Therefore, they position themselves as the ‘winners’ in any scenario. They simply claim that the available evidence is ‘fake science’, and their audience let them off scot-free.
And yet, when it comes to applying science to their own products, they do not hold them to nearly the same standard, such as selling a $1,000 shower head that promises to ‘restructure water’. Laughable. It is sad that so many people take them seriously.

Furthermore, Stone himself openly identifies as a flat-earther, as he admitted in his Reddit posts using the username 'Misto1481' (also see). In his posts, he displays the exact same behavior in claming the earth is flat, that he currently does in arguing that viruses do not exist. When presented with factual information, he merely twists and turns it to adhere to his cognitive bias, instead of learning new information and admitting he is wrong.
His lack of logical reasoning and connection to reality discredits him, and those who believe in such absurdities should not be regarded seriously in important scientific discussions. Understanding the outer world is crucial to comprehend biology; one does not exclude the other. And this is eactly why ‘No-Virus’ uses him—he is a willing dupe.

This person has never applied or studied anything using science in their entire life because doing so would reveal that the scientific method is a multifaceted set of principles that adapt to the subject of study.

In a previous article from last year, I defined the scientific method and what it truly is, according to the collective minds of scientists around the world.

The Scientific Method Defined:

"But first, a potential misunderstanding needs to be avoided. The scientific method “is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,” rather than being seen for what it truly is, “a highly variable and creative process” (AAAS 2000:18). The claim here is that science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow."

cont.

“…it merits mention that the thesis proposed here accords with the official position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The AAAS is the world’s largest scientific society, the umbrella organization for almost 300 scientific organizations and publisher of the prestigious journal Science. Accordingly, the AAAS position bids fair as an expression of the mainstream opinion.”

- ‘Scientific Method in Practice' - Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. 2003 - Cornell University - p.3-5

Yet, Stone goes on to state in his article that:

Some claim that there is no one method used by scientists, arguing that the steps that I regularly outline are my own creation or definition that I apparently pulled out of thin air.

Stone proceeds with his usual multipage diatribe, cherry-picking historical instances of the scientific method dating back hundreds of years before the existence of modern biology or virology. However, he fails to acknowledge that knowledge influences the application and basic steps of the scientific method. His audacious 'armchair expert' tone persists throughout, which could be effective if he had a legitimate point grounded in tangible realities. Yet, he falls far short of this. Instead, he compiles information to create an illusion of intelligence, twisting and engaging in mental gymnastics to argue against the variability of the scientific method.

His notion of the 'scientific method' is indeed conjured out of thin air, no different than the many other unsubstantiated claims found in the ranks of the ‘No-Virus’ cult.

Stone continues by writing:

Even some who are on the “no virus” side do not believe in and outright deny the existence of the scientific method, claiming that it is a scam by doctors who “promote a made-up definition of science based on the so-called ‘Scientific Method’” in order to con the public.

With so much confusion over what the scientific method is as well as whether or not it actually exists, I figured that it was as good a time as any to dive into the history of the establishment of the scientific method.

No one with any understanding of science has ever or would ever say this, and it is a false and made up claim on behalf of Stone. Stone merely presents one half-baked two page article written by a conspiray theorist claiming the scientific method is a ‘scam’. The scientific method exists and is applied in all areas of science. You cannot conclude things without undertaking the scientific method in whole or in part. It cannot be done. The claim is laughable and shows how Stone places false notions into his writing to make it falsely appear as if there is widespread doubt, when there is none.

The reason the ‘No-Virus’ cult must claim that the scientific method is not being followed by virologists is so they can falsely claim that virology is a fraud—all according to their own strict definition of the ‘scientific method’, of course. If they can falsely assert and then convince their audience that virology does not follow the scientific method, then it can be claimed virology is ‘fake science’, and virology in totality is therefore a fraud, thereby perpetuaing their grifting ways of selling high-priced snake-oil products to their gullible audience members. But Stone is merely a lapdog for the higher-players in this group, doing the legwork of selling their agenda.

Stone goes on:

In order to properly discuss the scientific method, it is beneficial to define what exactly science is first. The word “science” actually stems from the Latin word scientia which translates to “knowledge.” Ironically for virology, it is said that the original notion in the Latin verb was most likely “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,” which is something that virologists have a major problem doing, to the point where they literally changed the definition of “isolation.” 

Stone then goes into his false claim that ‘isolation’ has been changed for virology, as if this is somwhow unacceptable. He admits right here that he actually doesn’t even understand the scientific method.
Let me explain.
If the scientific method is a set of principles, as I proved above, that means the scientific method adapts to the subject of study. To claim otherwise is folly. The definition of ‘isolation’ changes all throughout the various branches of science. For example, to isolate a person is to place them alone in a room, etc. To isolate a minute bio-organic particle, is of course not the same type of isolation. Thus, each branch of science has a different application of the scientific method, and this cannot be denied. To claim otherwise just displays his pure ignorance with regard to the intracacies of science itself. Virology merely adopted its own intricate version of what is considered ‘isolation’ in accordance with the reality of life and the laws of nature. But Stone, a flat-earther, does not believe in these intrinsic unchanging laws anyway.

It is laughable that someone like Stone has the audacity to claim virology is not following the scientific method, when he himself believes the Earth is a flat plane, which is totally impossible and is easily proven otherwise with simple measurements, by using the scientific method of obervation, which is a key factor in the scientific method.

Yet, here Stone states that:

Regardless, while science may mean knowledge, knowing something in and of itself is not science. One can know that the sky is blue, but just knowing this fact does not constitute scientific knowledge.

Wait, I throught Stone said that ‘observation’ is the first step in the scientific method? Yet here, he claims observing something isn’t science. This is completely false. Observation is part of science. Knowing something is part of science, because afterall, science is knowledge. To be able to know something and rationalize it, means you are applying intellect. If you are applying intellect, you are applying the scientific method, and thus partaking in the process of science. He later states in his article that “There Is No Science Without The Scientific Method”. Well, if there is no science without the scientific method, there can be no science without first coming to know something through observation.

Stone concludes his article by stating, in part:

Had these scientists and virologists understood and adhered to the scientific method, we wouldn’t have a situation where most published scientific research findings are false, and we wouldn’t be stuck in a reproducibility and replication crisis with no end in sight. Had the scientific method been followed, the repeatedly disproven and falsified germ hypothesis would have never been elevated to a “scientific theory,” and the entire field of virology would have remained within the realm of fantasy and pure imagination right where it belongs.

Which findings and published research is false? None are listed by Stone. I must therefore presume that he is referring to all studies in science itself, especially virology. Furthermore, and more importantly, is the level of human error that humans are prone to, which Stone does not even address. Germ Theory is only true, just as pathogenicty is only true, in the sense that observation in static environments shows us that bacteria will infect unhealthy cells, and that viruses will do likewise. This is a truism of these entities. But in the human body, replete with its many regulatory agents and modes of excretion in a free-flowing, fluidic body, the results are quite different. Obvously, viruses and bacteria must infect cells in order to thrive. This is a given. This part of Germ Theory is obviosuly something mankind would have easily concluded in his initial stages of research and knowledge. Due to the complexity of testing and seeing such entities in a full human body, the idea of Germ Theory and pathogenicty persist, whereas research is now catching up to alternative ideas of disease, which are far more likely to be true than past assumptions based on limited evidence. Stone is living in the ancient stone age.

---

Conclusion:

The 'No-Virus' cult's repeated false claims, lacking any credible evidence, undermine the foundations of scientific inquiry. While the scientific method provides a structured approach to conducting research and drawing conclusions, it is not a rigid set of rules that must be followed in a predetermined order. Instead, it offers a framework that scientists adapt and modify based on the specific subject of study.

In reality, scientific practice is characterized by its inherent complexity and the constant need for revision and refinement. Throughout the course of a study, researchers often encounter new information, unexpected results, or alternative hypotheses that require them to reassess their approach and revise their methods. This iterative process of questioning, testing, and refining is an essential aspect of scientific inquiry.

Individuals such as Mike Stone, Christine Massey, Thomas Cowan, and other members of the 'No-Virus' cult who propagate the misconception that the scientific method is a rigid set of rules display a lack a deep understanding of real scientific research. After all, Christine Massey claimed in a debate that she doesn’t even know where proteins come from. Their claims disregard the dynamic nature of scientific investigation and the iterative nature of knowledge generation. Many of those claims are geared toward a specific agenda of perpetuaing their narrative that viruses do not exist. ‘No-Virus’ has zero credibility.

By misrepresenting the scientific method as a fixed and inflexible set of rules, these individuals undermine the credibility of scientific research and hinder public understanding of the scientific process. Genuine scientific inquiry embraces the inherent uncertainties, revisitations, and advancements that occur throughout the pursuit of knowledge.

Jeff Green