McKay, M. (2023). Are Viruses Real?
GravityPal. Available at: https://www.gravitypal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Are-Viruses-Real_-1Jan23.pdf

Michael McKay is a man of great kindness and courtesy, and Dr Gabb speaks very highly of him. His willingness to challenge received wisdom is admirable, especially given how much of modern science functions as ruling-class propaganda. Much of it is designed not to uncover truth but to legitimise a state of affairs that, without its authority, would be recognised as murderous oppression.

That said, even while conceding that mainstream science is often shaped by political interests—and while confessing that a Level 9 in GCSE Biology and Chemistry may not provide the credentials for pronouncing definitively on matters of virology—we must be careful not to throw out well-established principles simply because they are upheld by dubious authorities. The argument put forward in Are Viruses Real? is an ambitious one, questioning the very existence of viruses rather than merely critiquing the claims made about them. While scepticism is healthy, such a position demands rigorous evidence. Unfortunately, the document relies more on assertion and selective reading than on a comprehensive examination of the subject.

1. The Nature of Isolation and the Claim that Viruses Have Never Been Isolated

The document states:

One of the central problems for the virology establishment is that NO virus has ever been isolated in the sense of it being separated out in pure form and then physically characterized. (p. 2)

This claim is misleading. While it is true that viruses are not isolated in the same way as bacteria (which can be grown in pure culture), they have been isolated in virology’s accepted sense. Techniques such as density gradient ultracentrifugation and filtration allow scientists to separate viral particles from host material. A key example is the 1954 experiment by Enders and Peebles, who isolated and characterised the measles virus. Moreover, modern electron microscopy routinely captures images of individual viral particles, and viral genomes can be sequenced in their entirety.

Furthermore, if no virus has ever been isolated, how does one explain the vast body of work on bacteriophages—viruses that infect bacteria? These have been directly observed under electron microscopes, photographed, and even manipulated in laboratory settings. The existence of bacteriophages alone is enough to undermine the claim that viruses are mere theoretical constructs.

2. Koch’s Postulates and Their Relevance to Viruses

The document argues:

None of the so-called viruses have ever been shown to fulfil Koch’s Postulates, the gold standard for proving infectious causation. (p. 2)

This is a common objection from virus sceptics, but it rests on a misunderstanding of Koch’s Postulates. These were developed in the 19th century to identify bacterial pathogens, and they require (1) the microorganism to be found in diseased individuals, (2) its isolation and pure culture growth, (3) reproduction of the disease in a healthy host upon exposure, and (4) re-isolation from that host.

Viruses, unlike bacteria, cannot be grown in pure culture because they require host cells to replicate. However, the principles behind Koch’s Postulates have been adapted for virology. For instance, the causative link between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 was demonstrated through genetic sequencing, controlled infections in animal models, and serological studies showing immune responses specific to the virus.

Moreover, modified postulates—such as those proposed by Rivers in 1937—account for viral behaviour. Rivers demonstrated that viruses could be isolated, filtered, and shown to cause disease in experimental conditions, even if they do not fulfil Koch’s exact criteria.

3. The “Fraud” of PCR Testing

The document claims:

PCR does not detect viruses. It amplifies fragments of genetic material and has no way of determining where they came from. (p. 3)

This is a partial truth stretched into a misleading conclusion. It is correct that PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) does not detect whole viruses. Instead, it amplifies specific sequences of nucleic acids. However, the specificity of PCR depends on the primers used. If a test is designed to detect a known viral genome, and it reliably amplifies only that genome, then it is valid evidence of the virus’s presence.

PCR testing has been crucial in identifying viruses such as HIV, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza. Its reliability is confirmed by sequencing the amplified DNA/RNA to ensure that it matches known viral sequences. If PCR were inherently unreliable, its use in forensic science, cancer research, and other fields would also be suspect.

4. The Absence of Control Experiments

Another claim is:

There are NO control experiments. When you assume that a virus is causing disease, you stop looking for other causes. (p. 4)

This is demonstrably false. Control experiments are a fundamental part of virology. For instance, in vaccine trials, placebos are used to compare infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In viral pathogenesis studies, researchers expose one group of animals to a virus while keeping another group uninfected under identical conditions. If disease appears only in the infected group, it supports causation.

One clear example is the 1918 influenza pandemic. Scientists infected volunteers by exposing them to flu patients’ mucus, yet some did not fall ill. This led researchers to investigate immune responses, rather than assuming a single cause.

5. If Viruses Do Not Exist, What Causes Epidemics?

If we accept the document’s argument that viruses do not exist, an alternative explanation for infectious disease is required. The document hints at environmental toxins and malnutrition but does not explain why diseases spread in predictable patterns, why immune responses generate long-term immunity, or why vaccines—despite their flaws—have reduced diseases like smallpox and polio.

For example, polio was nearly eradicated through vaccination. If polio were not viral, why did the disease disappear from vaccinated populations but persist where vaccination was absent? The same pattern holds for rabies, measles, and hepatitis B.

The scepticism in Are Viruses Real? is valuable in so far as it challenges the complacency of the scientific establishment. However, its conclusions are not supported by rigorous evidence. Viruses are observable entities with unique genetic structures, and their effects can be replicated under controlled conditions.

To reject virology entirely requires stronger proof than has been offered. While many claims about viruses—especially in the context of public health policy—deserve scrutiny, dismissing the entire field without engaging with its findings is an overcorrection.