Intro to ViroLIEgy
When I first set out to create ViroLIEgy.com, my goal—beyond providing a place to share and preserve my research—was to build a one-stop site where people could easily access information on the fraud of virology. As I began publishing articles and structuring the site, I aimed to categorize topics in a way that made navigation simple and intuitive. While this approach was effective, something essential was missing—something beyond organization. The site needed a reader-friendly introduction that clearly laid out the key components of the "No Virus" argument.
I have Dr. Mark Bailey to thank for pointing out this oversight. In early 2022, he suggested that I create an introductory piece to guide newcomers through the fundamental issues with virology. It was a brilliant suggestion, and since its publication in April 2022, this introduction has served as a critical resource for those unfamiliar with the topic.
Initially, my focus was strictly on virology, and the introduction reflected that. I addressed how virology fails as a science, highlighting issues such as:
The lack of purification and isolation of the particles claimed to be “viruses”
The pseudoscientific nature of cell culture experiments
The importance of satisfying Koch’s Postulates
The reliance on indirect evidence (e.g., cell cultures, electron microscopy images, “antibodies,” and genomes)
However, as I delved deeper into the origins of virology, it became increasingly clear that the very concept of a "virus" arose from the failure of germ “theory” to identify bacterial culprits for disease. To fully grasp the argument against virology, one must first understand the fundamental flaws in germ “theory”—the shaky foundation from which virology emerged.
Over the past three years, I have dedicated significant time to investigating the roots of both germ “theory” and virology, while also refining what constitutes scientific evidence and what would be necessary to meet those standards. Given this deeper understanding, I believe it is essential to update the Introduction to ViroLIEgy page to better reflect the current state of the argument.
This update will not only refine and expand upon the original sections but will also provide:
A clearer connection between the failures of germ “theory” and the rise of virology.
More links to relevant research and resources.
A presentation that is more accessible and compelling for those new to the subject.
While I do not claim to speak for everyone who supports this position, this revised introduction represents what I believe are the most critical and well-supported arguments. My hope is that it will serve as a clear, digestible, and persuasive entry point for those seeking to understand—or challenge—virology.
The History of ViroLIEgy
To truly understand the flaws in virology, one must begin with the origins of germ “theory”—a concept that, despite widespread acceptance, was never scientifically validated as a proper theory should be. Popularized by Louis Pasteur, a French chemist driven more by ambition than objectivity, germ “theory” emerged in the mid-to-late 19th century. Prior to Pasteur, disease was commonly explained by the miasma theory, which held that illnesses like cholera and the plague were caused by “bad air” or foul vapors from decaying matter. Backed by Napoleon III’s government and borrowing heavily from the work of others, Pasteur rejected this idea and proposed his own: that invisible microbes—specifically bacteria and fungi—were the cause of disease and could spread from person to person.
This narrative proved politically and economically useful. Germ “theory” offered a simple, external cause of illness—one that conveniently sidestepped deeper systemic issues like poor sanitation, malnutrition, and overcrowded living conditions. By shifting the focus to microbial “invaders,” governments could deflect responsibility while appearing proactive. For industrialists, it opened lucrative markets for antiseptics, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines. Military planners, too, saw potential in a model of disease that could be “controlled” or weaponized. These overlapping interests aligned to elevate Pasteur’s work, securing him the scientific prestige and financial reward he desired—despite the fact that his methods often fell short of scientific rigor.
Indeed, Pasteur’s success was built more on manipulation than merit. As The Economist noted in 1995, he misrepresented his findings to “marginalize opponents and to gain public confidence, private sponsorship, and scientific prestige.” That same year, The New York Times reported that Pasteur had “lied about his research, stole ideas from a competitor, and was deceitful in ways that would now be regarded as scientific misconduct.” His experiments on chicken cholera, anthrax, and rabies consistently failed to meet the standards of his time. Rather than revise his conclusions, Pasteur selectively manipulated results to fit his assumptions—an approach that would become a hallmark of virology.
Ironically, germ “theory” gained further traction through one of Pasteur’s fiercest critics: German bacteriologist Robert Koch. The two were often at odds, with Koch accusing Pasteur of sloppy methods, including the use of impure materials and inappropriate test animals. Yet Koch, too, fell into many of the same methodological traps. In an effort to bring logic and structure to microbial causation, he introduced what came to be known as Koch’s Postulates—a set of criteria meant to prove a microbe causes disease (discussed further later). Though similar principles existed prior, Koch's formulation became the gold standard by which diseases like anthrax and tuberculosis were officially attributed to bacteria, transforming germ “theory” from hypothesis to supposed scientific truth.
In the decades that followed, countless diseases were declared to be microbial in origin based on dubious claims that Koch’s Postulates had been fulfilled. Even Koch himself failed to meet his own standards and presented findings that contradicted germ “theory.” His work with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae is a glaring example: it was declared the cause of cholera despite failing three of the four Postulates.
Notably, many respected critics throughout history—not fringe voices, but leaders in their fields—challenged the germ “theory,” pointing out that neither Pasteur, Koch, nor their followers ever produced rigorous, causal evidence that germs actually cause disease. French chemist Antoine Béchamp observed, “The public do not know whether this is true; they do not even know what a microbe is, but they take it on the word of the master.” Rudolf Virchow, one of the most esteemed physicians of the 19th century, rejected Pasteur’s hypothesis and maintained that disease originates from internal cellular breakdown—not invading microbes.
Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing, concluded from her experience with smallpox patients that disease was not “caught” from others but developed internally. Renowned medical scholar Dr. Charles Creighton—considered the most learned British medical author of his time—rejected both germ “theory” and vaccination, a stance he held until his death in 1927.
Similar skepticism came from D.D. Palmer, founder of chiropractic, and his son B.J. Palmer, who famously stated, “If the germ theory were true, no one would be alive to believe it.” Cancer researcher, surgeon, and medical writer Dr. Herbert Snow argued there had “never been anything approaching scientific proof of the causal association of micro-organisms with disease,” and that, in many cases, the evidence flatly contradicted such claims.
Dr. Walter Hadwen, once called “one of the most distinguished physicians in the world,” maintained that germs are the result, not the cause, of disease. “Nobody has yet been able to prove that there is a disease germ in existence,” he said. “In 25 percent of diseases supposed to be caused by these germs, you can’t find these germs at all.”
Some went beyond criticism. Physicians like Dr. Thomas Powell and Dr. John Bell Fraser ingested cultures of supposedly deadly germs—including diphtheria and typhoid—with no ill effects. Dr. Emmanuel Edward Klein, skeptical of Koch’s cholera claims, drank a wineglass of Vibrio cholerae and remained healthy. Max von Pettenkofer, a leading cholera expert, did the same and suffered no harm. These men weren’t merely theorizing—they were risking their lives to expose the fragility of a hypothesis masquerading as fact.
But their dissenting voices were ultimately marginalized. Germ “theory” provided a powerful narrative—one that served industrialists like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and Carnegies. By blaming disease on invisible, unprovable microbes, attention was diverted from unsanitary living conditions, environmental pollution, and toxic industrial byproducts. Disease was depoliticized, rebranded as an individual problem rather than a systemic failure.
These elites leveraged their immense wealth to take control of medicine, funding institutions, universities, and public health agencies that promoted the germ narrative. Simultaneously, they discredited and dismantled naturopathic, homeopathic, and holistic healing traditions that emphasized terrain theory and internal balance. What was presented as medical “progress” was, in reality, a carefully engineered paradigm shift—one that prioritized profit over public well-being.
As research continued, it became clear that the presence of bacteria alongside disease was not proof of causation. In his 1905 Nobel Prize presentation for Koch, Professor Count K.A.H. Mörner conceded that while there were “good grounds for supposing” microbial involvement in some diseases, the experimental findings were “very divergent.” Some researchers found bacteria; others did not. The same bacteria appeared in different diseases, and different bacteria appeared in the same disease. At times, bacterial presence varied dramatically in appearance, casting doubt on whether they were cause, effect, or irrelevant altogether.
More troubling still, disease was sometimes induced in experimental animals using inoculums devoid of any detectable bacteria. This presented researchers with a dilemma: admit that the disease might be caused by the experimental procedure itself—or propose an even smaller, invisible culprit.
Rather than confront the mounting contradictions, researchers invented the concept of a filterable “virus.” This idea wasn’t born from direct observation or rigorous experimentation, but from the need to salvage a failing theory. Invisible “pathogens” filled the gaps left by failed bacterial causation, allowing germ “theory” to persist in the absence of proof.
Thus, virology emerged—not as a science built on demonstrable causality, but as an extension of a collapsing hypothesis. It offered a convenient explanation for disease when neither bacteria nor environmental factors could be blamed. But its foundation, like that of germ “theory” itself, was built not on evidence—but on assumption, omission, and the manipulation of public belief.
Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the Government-Scam.com/Store.
Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s book “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.
Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” + Liberator flash drive + Larken Rose’s The Most Dangerous Superstition + Art of Liberty Foundation Stickers delivered anywhere in the world. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.