Questioning Traditional Beliefs About Virus Isolation

A challenge to the illusion of scientific certainty.

Questioning Traditional Beliefs About Virus Isolation

The mainstream scientific community asserts that viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, have been successfully isolated and identified using well-established laboratory techniques such as ultracentrifugation and electron microscopy. For example, Ogando et al. (2020) in Nature Communications claim to have purified SARS-CoV-2 directly from patient samples using ultracentrifugation, with electron microscopy images purportedly showing intact viral particles in the purified samples.

However, critics argue that these methods are fundamentally flawed and fail to provide definitive proof of viral isolation. Investigative journalist Jon Rappoport challenges the validity of such techniques, stating:

"From a patient who is thought to be ill because of a virus, a mucus sample is taken. It is spun at a high rate in a centrifuge. Researchers, knowing the nature of the patient’s illness (e.g., lung infection), have a good idea about what type of virus they’re looking for (e.g., corona). From prior experiments, they know where, in the centrifuge, coronaviruses are going to settle after being spun. From that stratum, they pluck a sample and put it under an electron microscope and photograph it."
(Rappoport, Dec 19, 2023)

He then argues that this process is fundamentally flawed because:

"These electron microscope photos showing buds/particles? There is no evidence they are viruses. There is only ‘evidence’ that the particles fit the researchers’ narrative about viruses. The particles could be anything. For instance, they could be debris excreted by the patient’s cells."
(Rappoport, Dec 19, 2023)

This article will play the devil’s advocate against traditional beliefs about virus isolation, exposing potential weaknesses in ultracentrifugation and electron microscopy as definitive proof of viral existence. By critically examining the assumptions underpinning these techniques, we will explore whether the prevailing methods genuinely prove the existence of pathogenic viruses or if they merely reinforce a pre-existing narrative.

1. The Assumption of Knowing Where Viruses Settle in the Centrifuge

Virologists claim that based on prior experiments, they can predict where in the density gradient different types of viruses will settle after ultracentrifugation. However, this assumes that the existence of viruses has already been definitively established, creating a circular reasoning problem. If prior experiments were based on the same methodological assumptions, then the entire approach is built on an unproven foundation. Without absolute proof that viruses behave in a consistent and predictable manner under centrifugation, any claim that a specific layer contains "purified virus" could simply be confirmation bias.

2. Electron Microscopy: Seeing Is Not Proving

A major flaw in relying on electron microscopy images of “intact viral particles” is that the mere presence of particle-like structures does not confirm that these are disease-causing viruses. Just because something looks like a virus does not mean it functions as one. These particles could be:

• Cellular debris—normal excretions from stressed cells that virologists misinterpret as viral entities.

• Extracellular vesicles or exosomes—which are naturally occurring particles produced by cells and may be mistaken for viruses.

• Contaminants from the sample preparation process—which could be artifacts created by the complex steps required for purification and imaging.

3. The Problem of Isolation: Are Viruses Truly Separated?

Virologists claim that ultracentrifugation “purifies” the virus, but this term is misleading if the resulting sample still contains other biological material. To truly claim that the virus has been isolated, nothing but viral particles should be present. However:

• The final sample still contains cellular debris and genetic material from the patient.

• No chemical or structural test is performed to confirm that what is seen under the microscope is an actual infectious agent rather than dead or inactive material.

• There is no demonstration that the isolated particles, when introduced into a healthy host, can independently reproduce the disease.

4. Circular Logic and Self-Fulfilling Criteria

The assumption that the particles found in electron microscopy are viruses comes from pre-existing definitions that were created before direct evidence of isolation. This means the researchers are defining the virus based on expectations, not on rigorous demonstration. It’s akin to saying:

• “We assume these particles are viruses because they look like previously assumed viruses.”

• “Since we assume they are viruses, they must be the cause of disease.”

• “Because they are in diseased patients, that proves they cause disease.”

This circular reasoning is a classic logical fallacy and undermines the credibility of virus isolation claims.

5. No Direct Evidence of Pathogenicity

Even if SARS-CoV-2 (or any virus) were definitively identified as a unique physical entity, that still does not prove it causes disease. The standard method of testing pathogenicity—Koch’s Postulates—has never been fully satisfied for SARS-CoV-2 or many other viruses. If the so-called “isolated” virus cannot be introduced into a healthy organism to produce the same disease with no other variables, then its role in causing illness remains speculative.

Conclusion: A Story Without a Solid Foundation

The claim that SARS-CoV-2 was purified directly from patient samples via ultracentrifugation and verified through electron microscopy remains an indirect inference rather than a definitive proof of a viral pathogen. The process relies on assumptions, ambiguous visual evidence, and methodological flaws that create an illusion of scientific certainty. Without true isolation, direct causation, and a rigorous control process, the case for the virus remains a constructed narrative rather than an established fact.