Why the 'No-Virus' Movement Fails at Science and Logic

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