History and Development of the Fraud and Pseudoscience of Virology
See also: Stages of Virology and What Virologists Do and Refutation of Darwinian Virology. For good background reading with more detail refer to: The "Virus" Model. See also an excellent presentation on the pseudoscience of virology (PDF version).
Summary: The “pathogenic virus” is a fictional notion, is not required to explain disease and its causes, and was invented to address the inability of researchers to understand and explain biological reality regarding bacteria, their forms, functions and activities. In stressed conditions bacteria turn into spores or phages and when conditions are reversed or become favourable again, these spores or phages turn back into bacteria.
However, to explain these observations, the germ theorists claimed that the bacteria are being invaded and destroyed and they asserted that there must be an invisible “virus” that invades and kills the bacteria. This idea was based on a misinterpretation of observations. The notion of the “bacteriophage” was born (virus attacking and eating bacteria) and from here, it was simply claimed that, if this is what happens with bacteria (upon their misinterpretation) there must also be “viruses” (invisible particles) that invade human, animal and plant cells to cause disease, and they must be external agents of disease.
The concept of the virus was manufactured and based on models and has never been demonstrated empirically through the correct application of the scientific method. From here, the virus concept continued to change and evolve, based not on understanding of biological reality as it is, but on the basis of the type of technology and procedure used to maintain the initial misinterpretations. Today, the deception has evolved and entered into the arena of genomic sequence.
As for so-called “viral sequences” then given that genetic sequences (nucleic acids) could be extracted from the aforementioned bacteriophages, it was assumed that the invisible virus must have the same structure, which is enveloped genetic material, and this led to the modern gene-virus theory.
When we are presented with alleged genetic sequences of viruses, these sequences do not exist in physical reality and are simply created on computer from nucleic acids that come from a mixture of human cells, bacteria and the animal (monkey kidney) cells upon which they are cultured in the laboratory. The notion of the virus is an entirely made-up, fictional, explanatory layer and all genetic sequences are nothing but make-believe and self-deception. The so-called "virus" is manufactured in the laboratory and is defined into existence. It exists only in vitro (in the test tube) and in silico (on computer), but not in vivo (in real life, in the body, the cell).
In short, there is no science built upon the scientific method known as “Virology”, rather there is only sleight-of-hand laboratory tricks and sleight-of-tongue trickery masquerading as science, and which is in reality superstition and make believe clothed with layers of technical sophistication.
This fraud and pseudoscience has direct bearing upon affairs of Islāmic creed and completion of Tawḥīd as it relates to the matter of contagion and is also inseparable from issues of health and well-being. For this reason, those who dismiss this important issue and ignorantly dismiss it as part of a “conspiracy theory”, after knowledge of it reaches them, and they refuse to verify it (if they are in a position to do so), then they are harming the Muslims in their religion and worldly affairs by allowing this fraud and deception to perpetuate.
These are snippets from papers that helpt to piece together the historical development of Virology pseudoscience. Credit to Mike Stone, Viroliegy. This list of entries is not complete and will continue to be updated.
According to prominent virologist Thomas Rivers, no "viruses" have been ever found multiplying free in nature. Perhaps this is because no "virus" has ever been observed in nature. "No viruses have been found multiplying free in nature." Rivers, Thomas M. and Benison, Saul. 1967. Tom Rivers; Reflections on a Life in Medicine and Science: An Oral History Memoir Prepared by Saul Benison. Cambridge: MIT Press.
From a 2020 review of the history of early virology research, it is admitted that the evidence generated by virologists in the past was indirect evidence that would not be accepted as convincing by peer reviewers of modern scientific journals. Screenshot and Link to paper.
A 2014 article "Inventing Viruses" by William Summers provides some very revealing statements. According to Summers, the "virus" concept changes over time and is a product of the way virologists talk about them, inventing and reinventing the "virus" concept based on their "science."
Screenshot and Link to paper.
Summers spoke about the reformulation of the "virus" concept from disease-causing agents to a molecular assembly. He stated that this was not a story of the triumphant accumulation of knowledge, but rather one about a continual struggle to understand. Screenshot
The construction of the "virus" as a "living molecule" was debated, and there was little consensus. Joseph Beard considered the "virus" to be a fabric of concepts "woven of a plethora of woof with a paucity of warp." In other words, not a solid foundation in which to weave upon. Screenshot
Summers concluded that each generation of virologists will reinvent the concept of the "virus" based upon the "science" of their time. Screenshot
In the summary, he notes the "virus" concept is not stable and is an ongoing reformulation. It has evolved due to technology rather than scientific understanding. The answer as to what a "virus" is will depend upon the "scientific" discourse rather than any characteristics known.
Discussing classifying "viruses" into categories in 1971, something he felt "are creations of our mind" and a "result of an arbitrary grouping," Andre Lwoff lamented that there was no universal agreement, leading to battles raging in a war that cannot end.
Screenshot and Link to paper.
Andre Lwoff stated that the knowledge of "viruses" was cloudy in 1949. He studied lysogeny - bacteriophages produced without "infection." Environmental factors could induce phages from bacteria without phages present. No "viral invader" necessary.
Screenshot and Link to paper.
In his paper "When Did Virology Start?," biochemist and historian of science Ton van Helvoort wrote that the "virus" concept lacked clarity & certainty. Until the 1950s, they were considered just another form of bacteria & were not conceptually distinct.
Screenshot and Link to paper.
Andre Lwoff, the man credited with defining "viruses" for the modern age, warned that virology was losing its soul (as if it had one) as it turned towards genetic sequencing, and that the very concept of the "virus" was wavering at its foundations.
Screenshot and Link to paper.
Defenders of virology never want to look at the history and foundations of virology in order to defend it. Even though researchers said that they were studying "viruses" in the late 1800s, virology was not accepted as a "science" until the late 1950s. Before the 1950s, "viruses" were merely an incohesive concept. It wasn't until Andre Lwoff stated [in circular logic] "a virus is a virus" that a "cohesive" concept emerged and virology journals surfaced. In other words, virology did not exist before the 1950s.
Screenshot and Link to paper.
The bacteriophage was used as the model for human and animal "viruses." However, many considered the phage not to be a "virus" at all. In 1931, Nobel Prize immunologist Jules Bordet stated that the phage "virus" did not exist. The "virus" model is a lie.
Screenshot and Link to paper.
