The Virus Hoax

The Virus Theory has been around for more than a century. The pharmaceutical industry and in particular the vaccination industry is founded on the basis that virus exist and cause illness. This website exposes the hoax and the pseudoscience on this failed theory.

Scientific Proof

We all have been trained to accept science as the de facto method of knowing what is true from what is false. Science has a rulebook that must be followed in order to be considered science. This rulebook is known as the scientific method. What are the rules?

  1. Create a hypothesis - a question about an observation that can either be proved or disproved (known as falsifiable)

  2. Create experiments that are designed to prove or disprove the hypothesis

  3. Create controls that removes the variable being tested to ensure the experiments are valid

  4. The experiments are repeated by the authors to ensure random variables didn’t produce the result

  5. The experiments are reproducible by others to ensure there is no errors in the methodology (the more that can reproduce the results, the more confidence there is in the experimental design)

These are simple rules that are often included in most education systems around the world. But for virology, these rules have been skipped. Most virology papers do not include a hypothesis nor do they use valid controls. Virology results are not reproducible.

I have put forth the requests to health and science organisations asking for scientific proof for the existence of SARS-COV-2. ESR is the laboratory in New Zealand that is responsible for SARS-COV-2 testing and would be considered to be like the USA CDC. ESR has responded with the following:

If the records existed, they would have them and would have provided them. Notice that ESR also claimed they never performed any experiments to scientifically prove the existence. Later on you will see that they did claim to isolate SARS-COV-2. We can conclude that ESR’s isolation experiments are not scientific (no hypothesis and no valid controls). ESR like all other virologist have been cheating the rules for the past 150 years.

FOIA Template

Download a Template to send to your government organisation!

Proof of causation

It should be no surprise that if a science organisation cannot prove the existence of a virus, they would be unable to prove the particle causes disease. I have asked anyways as I want people to understand this on simple terms. ESR responded that they also do not have any records that scientifically proves SARS-COV-2 causes COVID-19!


Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

Since virology does not actually follow the scientific method, by definition, virology is a pseudoscience and fraudulent.

At this point, there isn’t much need to learn about virology. Their own virologist admit they are not doing science. My Freedom of Information and Official Information Responses have forced the virologist to admit they are not doing science.

Without scientific proof, there is no reason to believe the virologist. There is no reason to mask up, lock down, and drug up. Live your life normally and refuse any measures that are pseudoscientifically driven.

If you want to learn more about the virology pseudoscience & fraud, than carry on reading this page.

Virology Fraud



Isolation is a process of separating a ‘thing’ from everything else (See the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary definition of isolate). In the vast majority of scientific studies, isolation is defined as such. However, virologist misuse the word isolation/isolate to instead mean mixture. The process used in every scientific paper claiming to isolate a virus mixes a sample taken from a diseased person with Bovine Fetus Cells/genetic material and host cells like Monkey Kidney Cells and/or Human Lung Cancer Cells. They next top it off with antibiotics and antifungals. They will also often reduce the cell culture food using terms like ‘minimal nutrient solution’. They will then observe for a number of days to confirm cell deformation/death. They call this ‘isolation’. This is clearly scientific fraud.


Merriam-Webster defines purification as, “the act or an instance of purifying or of being purified”. When a thing is isolated, purification can be measured. In scientific papers, this is expressed as a percentage value. For instance, 99% pure oxygen was used in this experiment. No purity measurements are reported in any papers on SARS-COV-2.


Lets investigate a paper claiming Virus Isolation for SARS-COV-2 which has been used as a reference in papers that study SARS-COV-2. The title is “A Novel Coronavius from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019”.

This is a quote from the “Isolation of Virus” section

Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples were collected in sterile cups to which virus transport medium was added

This simple sentence seems harmless enough. But what is ‘virus transport medium’? I couldn’t find a reference in their scientific paper so I read the CDC’s recommendation for the composition.

  1. Hanks Balanced Salt Solution contains inorganic salts and glucose. This certainly is adding material to the mixture and already disqualifies the claim of ‘isolation’.

  2. Fetal bovine serum is the liquid fraction of clotted blood from fetal calves. This is adding genetic material from calves' fetus into the solution that is supposed to be isolated. This component disqualifies the claim of ‘isolation’.

  3. Gentamicin sulfate is an antibiotic. Antibiotics will certainly disturb the sample and will create a reaction. This antibiotic (as all antibiotics) has adverse side effects when given to humans. I will reiterate, isolation is the separation of a thing from everything else. Adding antibiotics is the opposite of the goal of isolation and this step disqualifies the claim of ‘isolation’.

  4. Amphotericin B is an antifungal which similar to antibiotics cause adverse effects in humans such as fever, shaking chills, vomiting, headache, etc. Adding additional antifungal chemicals into the mixture will cause reactions. Thus this step is also disqualified from the claim of ‘isolation’.

Its only AFTER the above ingredients were added to the sample that the paper does this:

Samples were then centrifuged to remove cellular debris.

No additional information is stated about their centrifugation. This is really the only step that is necessary for isolation. But they go further and do the following:

The supernatant was inoculated on human airway epithelial cells,13 which had been obtained from airway specimens resected from patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer and were confirmed to be special-pathogen-free by NGS.

So they decided to add what remained of the sample onto possibly lung cancer cells. Adding lung cancer cells into the mixture is another strike against the claim of ‘isolation’?

The papers calls the above process ‘isolation’. As I have shown, the above process is NOT isolation and instead a bastardised version of ‘culturing’ lung cancer cells.

Freedom of Information

Several scientifically minded people wanted to ask the organisations who claim the SARS-COV-2 virus is real and causes COVID-19 if they have any records of ‘real’ virus isolation. The answer that was returned in all requests was they do not hold such records. The power of Freedom of Information requests compels governments and public organisations to report the facts.

New Zealand Ministry of Health

The following is the response from New Zealand’s Ministry of Health.

The Ministry of Health went the extra mile and actually tried to find this information as they did not have it.

United States CDC

The following is the response from the United States of America’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Countries and Organisations

The following table contains the FOI/OIAs for the Isolation of SARS-COV-2. The countries represented are Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States of America.


SARS-COV-2 Isolation Responses


SARS-COV-2 Isolation Responses



New Zealand


The United Kingdom




Bio-statistician Christine Massey originally authored the Freedom Of Information Act requests for SARS-COV-2 and currently provides all FOIA/OIA’s -


There is debate regarding the functionality of exosomes due to the difficulties with studying such small particles. Some debate that exosomes are indistinguishable from dead cell debris. They also argue that there is no method of observing exosomes in motion and therefore the claims being made about exosomes have not been verified via the scientific method.

Both Antoine Bechamp and Louis Pasteur observed tiny particles in humans that were much smaller than cells. Antoine Bechamp observed these particles in both healthy and diseased people. He speculated these were naturally occurring in the human body. Louis Pasteur theorised the particles came from outside the body and were harmful causing disease. As described above, Virus Theory has never been proved and the theory is just a hoax at this point.

Some scientists have continued to study the theory proposed by Bechamp known as the Terrain Theory. About 30 years ago, those small particles finally received a scientific name: Exosomes. Today exosome research is a very exciting field with promises of using exosomes to help regrow hair and address other human issues.

Exosomes are nearly identical to virus except their purpose is to heal the body not destroy it.

Exosome And Virus Similarities





30nm to 150nm+

30nm to 150nm+

Has Spikes to bind with Receptors

Has Spikes to bind with Receptors

Single Stranded RNA

Single Stranded RNA

Buds out of Cells

Buds out of Cells

Manufactured inside the Cell

Manufactured inside the Cell

Exosome And Virus Differences





Removes Toxins

Considered a Toxin

Attaches to other cells to communicate

Attaches to other cells to infect

The origin is inside the body

The origin is outside the body

Transmissibility unknown


Exosomes are routinely isolated by scientist in order to study the unique characteristics. Here is an exert from a scientific paper entitled: A highly efficient method for isolating urinary exosomes.

Exosome purification methods
Urine samples of approximately 50 ml were collected from each individual in the morning (first urination of the day), afternoon (14:00-18:00) and evening (18:00-22:00). The workflows of the two methods for isolating exosomes from urine samples can be briefly summarized as follows: First, urine samples were centrifuged at 2,000 x g for 30 min at 4°C to remove the cells, cell debris, bacteria and the majority of Tamm-Horsfall protein (THP) (29-33). Next, the remaining macropolymers and THP were removed by further centrifugation for 60 min at 17,000 x g and 4°C. The supernatant was split into two fractions with the same volume, namely supernatant 1 (SN1) and SN2. In the UC method, SN1 was directly ultracentrifuged (Beckman L-80XP 70 Ti; Beckman Coulter, Inc. Brea, CA, USA) at 200,000 x g for 60 min at 4°C in order to collect exosome pellets. In comparison, in the OUF method, SN2 was passed through a 0.22-µm filter to remove proteins with diameters of >0.22 µm. The filtered solution was then centrifuged at 3,000 x g for 30 min at 4°C in the dialysis tube with a molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) membrane (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). In these two steps, SN2 was passed through two types of filter to excess interference from soluble protein and then concentrated to 1/50 of the original volume. Next, the concentrated supernatant (CSN) was incubated with ExoQuick-TC™ exosome precipitation solution (cat. no. EXOTC50A-1; System Biosciences, Palo Alto, CA, USA) for 30 min at 4°C. Subsequently, the mixture was spun at 15,279 x g for 2 min at 4°C to harvest the yellow pellets of exosomes (Figs. 1 and 2A).

Notice the scientist DO NOT add anything into the Urine samples such as ‘transport medium’. They just take the sample from the patients and then directly apply their several isolation techniques. This particular paper uses the most common isolation techniques for particles sized from 30nm to 160nm (could easily be applied to virus if virus were real).

Here is a list of the common isolation techniques:

  • Ultra Centrifugation

  • Ultra Filtration

  • Precipitation

  • Immunoaffinity

I have asked the University of Otago the same Isolation question but for human exosomes and I received 331 records! Please read more here -

Why do scientist studying exosomes ACTUALLY isolate their samples while virologist don’t? I think the answer is very simple. Scientist want to study exosomes and REQUIRE isolation to discover everything about exosomes. Virologist simply want to show cell death. They can ensure cell death by adding harmful chemicals like antibiotics and antifungals. They add additional genetic material so that when they amplify the RNA/DNA, they will generally find something ‘new’. They will NEVER be able to sequence the entire gnome through PCR. Instead, they find a few fragments, and then plug those into their virus simulation program. This will then guarantee them to produce some new virus strain.

New Zealand Immunisation Schedule

I was wondering about the viruses on immunisation schedules. So I submitted an Official Information Act request with the New Zealand Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health maintains an immunisation schedule. Certainly, they would have proof of virus if they are the organisation making the recommendations for all physicians to follow in New Zealand. I have asked for the Isolation of all viruses on the schedule and the response is they hold no such records. They asked that I ask ESR (as has been done with SARS-COV-2). I will do that but I also expect ESR also has no records.

ESR has officially responded with the following:

Australia’s CSIRO officially responded and also does not hold any records for the isolation of viruses listed on Australia’s Immunisation Schedule.


"Our way must be, never knowingly support lies" - Aleksander Solzhenitsyn