The Viral Delusion: Exposing a Century of Scientific Fraud

A Documentary Series - Interview with Michael Wallach

When I recently came across Michael Wallach's documentary series "The Viral Delusion," I was immediately intrigued by its premise—a comprehensive examination of virology's foundational claims, tracing the field's methodological failures from early polio experiments through AIDS to COVID-19. The scope and depth of what Wallach had undertaken, bringing together scientists, doctors, and researchers to scrutinize the core assumptions of viral theory, demanded attention. I reached out to him for an interview, grateful when he agreed to discuss his work and the profound implications of what his team had uncovered.

Wallach's journey into questioning virology began not as a scientist or medical professional, but as a father concerned about vaccination decisions for his newborn son. His research into vaccine efficacy revealed a troubling pattern: historical data showing diseases increasing after near-universal vaccination campaigns and declining without any vaccination at all. This discovery led him down a path that would eventually connect the dots between suppressed AIDS research, the work of dissident scientists whose careers were destroyed for speaking out, and the fundamental problem at the heart of virology—the field has never actually isolated a virus and proven it causes disease. As Wallach explains, virologists have redefined "isolation" to mean mixing sick person's fluids with monkey kidney cells, antibiotics, and other substances, then claiming any cellular breakdown proves a virus exists, despite never extracting or purifying the alleged pathogen itself.

The implications of Wallach's work extend far beyond academic debate. If the entire field of virology rests on unproven assumptions and flawed methodology—from PCR tests that can find any genetic sequence at high enough cycles to computer-generated viral genomes assembled from fragments without ever having an intact specimen—then the foundation of modern pandemic policy, vaccine development, and our understanding of disease transmission requires complete reassessment. This isn't merely about correcting scientific errors; it's about dismantling a fraudulent house of cards that has been used to justify unprecedented control over human bodies in the name of public health. As Wallach notes, after a century of research and trillions of dollars spent, virology has yet to demonstrate its central claim, and it's time to move on to more honest explanations for patterns of illness that better account for environmental toxins, nutritional deficiencies, and the actual conditions that make people sick.

With thanks to Michael Wallach.

The Viral Delusion Episode One: Behind The Curtain of The Pandemic

The Viral Delusion Documentary Series Home Page

1. Michael, can you tell us about your background and what initially led you to question the mainstream narrative around virology and viral causation of disease?

You know, I really came at this from the position of being a dad. When my son was born, we looked into vaccination and what had really surprised me was the discovery that historically, vaccines hadn’t shown any provable efficacy. History is replete with times when the diseases folks were vaccinating for increased after nearly 100% vaccination rates, and it’s equally replete with times and places when the disease fell-off without any vaccination whatsoever. I certainly wasn’t going to inject my baby with known pollutants that had obviously caused horrendous damage to children when there was, in reality, no convincing case it was even going to protect him from anything.

But that was all in the distant past when talk of the new “covid” disease began in 2020 and along with it all the talk about the search for a vaccine. Obviously something was amiss. The research showing that vaccines are a fraud is easy enough to find and it’s incontrovertible, it’s overwhelming - so when governments and the media almost immediately talked about the search for a vaccine, it was clear something very misguided, or very dark, was going on. I mean, the New York Times was setting its Wuhan stories to horror music. It wasn’t going to be long before there was going to be incredible pressure to inject our children with whatever they wanted. So something very odd was afoot.

I started looking for different perspectives on what was happening and I discovered the work of journalist David Crowe, who was not only warning folks about what was coming, he seemed to have incredible insight into it. For instance, he was talking about the coming PCR fraud and the dangers of isolation in old-age homes in Jan of 2020. He was covering the story in enormous detail and waving the warning flag as furiously as he could. Everything he put out seemed to come true a week later.

How did he have such foresight? I learned he had about twenty years of interviews online at the time he had done with dissident scientists. And that many of them were questioning the whole field of virology - pointing out problems that revealed, if true, the whole paradigm of virus-caused illness to be a fraud.

Now I had already read Jim West’s incredible “Polio: Toxicity Vs Virology” and Humphries and Bystrianak’s “Dissolving Illusions” and knew Polio, for instance, clearly wasn’t contagious and that it was closely linked, both temporally and geographically, with the rise of new industrial chemicals in the 20th century. So the idea that diseases might have been falsely attributed to viruses made sense in this case, but what immediately came to mind was - what about AIDS? I grew up in that period and it was terrifying.

Guided by Crowe’s interviews, I decided to dive into dissident AIDS research and what I discovered just blew my mind. There was a whole mountain of research that had been supressed by the mainstream, and it had been done by the very best of the world’s scientists - each of whom was attacked and their careers destroyed for having spoken out. These were brilliant, formerly mainstream people, loads of them, along with some on the ground activists who were just beautiful speakers, making clear sense, who had just been crushed by the NIH AIDS machine.

It was right about then that I came across Dr. Andy Kaufman, who was making it known to people that he had been reading the original papers on covid and that they were deeply flawed in the same way Crowe had been warning us about.

There was obviously a story here - we had been lied to about what was causing disease — going back to Polio, up through AIDS and on to COVID.

The whole thing was a ruse, and no one had ever made a doc that put it all together. As a film-maker, I thought this was an amazing opportunity to tell this story. And what I found was that all these unbelievably brilliant scientists, doctors, journalists and thinkers were out there and someone just needed to put a camera in front of them.

2. What does proper viral isolation actually require, and why do current laboratory methods fall short of these scientific standards?

Ah, I’m sure your readers have come across this topic, and we cover this in the doc series of course. What is so important about isolation? Why do some people seem so fixated on this?

Well, it’s the foundation of the scientific method. The scientific method is to do experiments in which you isolate a variable, and then you see what changes when you change only that variable. If I want to know, for instance, what is making my roses die, I have to isolate all the potential variables I want to test - the pot, the soil, the water, the sunlight, the location, etc. I can’t do the experiment properly if I don’t isolate the variable I am looking for. If I have xyz=10, I don’t know what x is until I know what y and z are.

The fundamental, profound problem in virology is that they don’t isolate their variables. When they try to investigate the reason someone got sick, they don’t have “a virus” with which to test their hypothesis (that a virus did it).

How could this be? We have to go back to history - the field of virology developed in reverse (as all pseudo-sciences do). It started with the assumption that there was a (theorized) physical entity which self-replicates and which causes disease - which they named “a virus.” They had no proof this was true, but they had the theory. Fine enough.

Now, if my theory was that the cold weather was causing illness, I could take the person and move them to Miami and see if they got better. Or if my theory was that they didn’t eat enough pistachios, I could feed them tons of pistachios and see if their health improved.

Their theory was that a super tiny organism was causing disease. But they didn’t have the organism, so they had no way of testing their theory!

Of course, they then set about attempting to find this entity, and they were very excited to use all sorts of new 20th century technology to find it, but they never did. They still haven’t found it. Not once.

What they did find was the possibility that it could be X, or it could be Y or it could be Z, or it could be something else entirely, or it could be that the person’s illness had nothing to do with what they are looking at. For instance, they could look at snot or tissue through an electron microscope and see all sorts of shapes which they could never see before. But they didn’t know what those things were. Are they normal parts of what you see in human tissue? Are they just what diseased tissue looks like after its succumbed to disease? Where did they come from? Is what they see even a part of living human tissue, or is it a result of the very destructive process of obliterating human tissue in order to take the EM photo?

They didn’t know, and they still don’t know. As Tom Cowan explains in the doc, in the May 2020 issue of “Viruses” the academic journal, they explain (to each other) that they are still facing this problem, and that they have no way of determining whether what they see in the EM photos is “a virus” or a normal part of a human cell.

This was (and remains) just a massive massive problem. Scientifically, it’s a death arrow. If they couldn’t extract and test what they were looking for, they really couldn’t do very much besides point at the pictures and make declarations about them.

The field is stuck in the area of UFO research - pointing at things they aren’t even sure are really even there, and then telling stories to each other about what they think they see - ah these are grey aliens, these are the good aliens, etc. Actually, I shouldn’t say that, because I don’t know UFO research, and maybe it has MORE validity than virology, but I hope you get my point.

By the 1970’s the biologist Harold Hillman was writing and speaking publicly that almost the entire field of micro-biology up to that point needed to be thrown out and the field re-started.

Accordingly, the (sub)field of virology should have become a backwater a long time ago, but historically, it happened to be just a perfect ideological partner to the growing scientific institutionalism and corporate power of the 1950’s.

So long as the field could continue to produce a mountain of complex paperwork, and publish photos which the lay public didn’t understand, it could be used to justify a massive medical machine built on selling people medicines - chiefly vaccines, but also much more - that were based on “defeating”, or “teaching the body” to “defeat” the “viruses” they had “found” - and to distract folks from the very clear poisoning that was rampant across the country from the rise of new industrial materials.

As Kaufman explains in the doc series, people had largely turned against vaccines prior to this, because their horrible horrible legacy had become well-known by the early 1920’s, but this new “research” re-invigorated the entire field. Suddenly, “scientists” could point at a photo and say “there it is! There’s polio!” - even though they had no proof that what they were pointing at was causing disease, or where it came from or how it operated or anything like that. These kinds of photos played the same role in 2020 - all sorts of pictures popped up of “corona-virus” - as Andy Kaufman explained, the CDC even had an Instagram account to get these out there.

Now, it’s well-known and was well accepted at the time that you have to isolate your variable to test it in science, I mean this is really basic stuff, that any scientific reader would look for, and the field couldn’t do that for its foundational theory (that there is such a thing called a virus which causes disease). And it still hasn’t. There still isn’t a published paper in which “a virus” is actually isolated and then tested to see if it causes disease.

So what happened instead is that the field began all sorts of linguistic fraud to cover their tracks. They began to re-define the word “isolation” to mean almost anything else - in fact, today you can buy “a virus isolate” from laboratories - but what you are actually buying is just the fluids of a sick animal mixed with a whole host of various other ingredients (monkey tissue, cows blood, antibiotics, etc.). Nothing has been isolated. It’s a joke. But it’s worse than a joke. It’s fraud. It’s what Dr. Mark Bailey in our doc series calls “the first deception.”

That’s all a very quick summary and of course over-simplified, but we cover all this in great detail in the doc series.

3. When virologists claim to have "sequenced" a virus like SARS-CoV-2, what is the actual computer process they're using, and why is it scientifically invalid?

This is just the latest of attempts to try and “do science” without an independent variable, and it suffers from the same problem that has always plagued the field, since they don’t have an isolated virus itself. When virologists claim to “sequence” “a virus”, what they are really doing is looking into the fluid mixture that has been taken from a sick person, and trying to see if they can find the full genetic sequence of what they imagine a virus would look like. They can’t. So what they then do is obliterate all the genetic material until it’s been broken up into billions of tiny pieces, and then they see if a computer can assemble what they believe to be a virus’s sequence out of the billions of pieces of material.

It’s like this: imagine I went to the outside of a Lego factory and I guessed that inside the factory they had a fully built replica of Frankenstein. When I looked in the window I couldn’t see it. But I “know” it’s there. So, I blow up the Lego factory until billions of pieces are lying around and then I have a computer catalogue all the pieces and see if it can build my replica. If it can, did that prove such a creation was inside? Of course not.

4. The mathematician from Hamburg found that the same genetic sequencing data could be used to "find" HIV, Hepatitis, Ebola, and Marburg viruses. What does this tell us about the reliability of genetic sequencing methods?

Ah… I wrote an article about this on my substack, which is probably better to reference than to rehash here.

5. The PCR test became central to pandemic policy, yet you argue it's fundamentally flawed. What are the specific technical problems that make PCR unsuitable for diagnosing viral infection?

The PCR process has a huge flaw at its core when used to diagnose so-called “viral” disease, and we go over this in great detail in the doc series. The fundamental flaw is the same flaw as always: if you have never shown that the disease is caused by a certain strand of rna, than looking for tiny pieces of your hypothetical RNA sequence doesn’t show anything. It only makes sense if you have first shown that the disease is caused by the RNA. But to date, that’s never been shown. All you are “proving” is that some people have certain bits of RNA and some don’t (and you’re not even proving that!). Again, we cover this in the doc and it’s very funny really, when you start thinking about it. I mean, I always wondered if, since the entire RNA SARS-Cov2 theory was based on the RNA of one, ONE, Chinese man in Wuhan (whose only crime was having pneumonia on the wrong day in the wrong place in China, which has about a million cases of pnuemonia a year), I always wondered whether the entire world got tested to see who shares some random RNA with this random man.

6. Traditional virology relies heavily on cell culture experiments where cells die after exposure to patient samples. What are the alternative explanations for this cellular breakdown that don't involve viruses?

We dive deep into this amazingly simplistic experiment throughout the series, and it’s such a poor methodology that I even ended up paying an artist in Argentina to animate a cartoon of it so that people could SEE how absurd it is. Of course, it became the central foundational process in virology, and is still done to this day.

In short, they take the snot of a sick animal and put it on top of healthy monkey kidney cells and see if the healthy cells break down when exposed to the sick cells. Then they add antibiotics to “rule out” that any bacteria might get involved, and then they wait around for a few days adding various other ingredients which are necessary to keep the cells healthy. If the healthy cells start to deteriorate, they claim that it must be that there is a “virus” in the sick cells which killed them. But they ignore the fact that there are lots of reasons those cells might deteriorate. For instance, the antibiotics they use are specifically toxic to kidney cells, so they will also cause the healthy cells to deteriorate. And they ignore much more too.

In The Viral Delusion episode called “Monkey Business” we do a full breakdown and the animation clown show.

7. The documentary, The Viral Delusion, traces supposed viral outbreaks throughout history. What common methodological errors connect the research behind smallpox, Spanish flu, polio, AIDS, and COVID-19?

Well, the central mistake is assuming you know the answer before you do any experiments! The next mistake is not isolating variables when you DO do any experiments. Of course, then there is not doing any controls. Then, there is claiming that what you see happening in an experiment is the same as what would happen in real life, even though the conditions are different. It’s endless. At the end of the day, it’s assuming a virus has caused the illness when you haven’t actually shown that at all.

For instance, the first experiments to see if polio was contagious were done by drilling a hole in a monkey’s brain and then pouring in huge amounts of monkey tissue from a dead monkey who had suffered paralysis. They found that sometimes, the second monkey would become paralyzed and declared that thus there was “polio virus” in the tissue that had caused the paralysis and that this proved the disease was contagious. But what they didn’t realize (or didn’t admit) is that anytime you pour vast amounts of protein into the brain of a living animal, it can cause paralysis - even if you had pored in the tissue of a perfectly healthy monkey.

I mean drawing serious conclusions from these primitive experiments they did is just… bonkers. It’s what Prof. Stefan Scoglio in our doc calls “the science of the absurd.”

8. The genetic sequencing process involves mixing patient samples with antibiotics, salt water, and other substances before fragmentation. How do these additives compromise the integrity of any conclusions drawn?

Well, if you ADD RNA sources to a sample before trying to isolate RNA in the sample, you are creating problems, you are going the wrong way. But not only that, as former virologist Stefan Lanka explains in the doc - if you run the sequencing process at high enough PCR cycles, you can find the RNA you are looking for in anything, because the process delivers the result you want by virtue of the process itself.

9. You argue that up to 17% of the final SARS-CoV-2 sequence came from PCR amplification artifacts rather than original patient material. What does this mean for the validity of the entire genetic sequence?

It means, exactly what you would think it means. The sequence has no validity. We are getting super technical here, but it’s helpful to think of a slightly simplistic analogy. The way they “sequence” the RNA is by fishing for it and seeing what they find. The way they fish for it is by using PCR. They do a process similar to this:

It would be like if I went looking for “Sunshine striped bass” with a special thing I throw in the water that ONLY lights up when it spots a “Sunshine Striped Bass.” Now, the first 25 times I throw it in the water it doesn’t light up. So I decide to throw it in another 25 times, and the 50th time it lights up. Hooray! I found the “Sunshine Striped Bass!” That would be one conclusion. But there is also the possibility that throwing the thing in the water 50 times broke it, and it light up anyway.

Now, how are we to know which is true? Well, in the substack article a mathematician from Hamburg explains his analysis that 17% of the time when they “looked for” the RNA they believed to be part of the SARS-Cov-2 sequence, they actually were just breaking the light and it was lighting up anyway, and that was 17% of the “sequence” they “found” which they claim is SARS-CoV-2.

I mean the whole thing is absurd. It’s like if I was trying to find a sentence on “Wheel of Fortune” and 17% of the time I asked for a letter and when I didn’t find it, I just gave Vanna White a huge marker to change the letter herself.

10. The control experiments that should have been performed to validate viral theory were never conducted. What would proper control studies look like, and why are they essential?

Again, best is to watch the doc series for a full break-down, but actually, tons of control experiments have been run… Even in the first paper establishing modern virology by Enders from 1954,in which the author claims that a snot mixture from a sick monkey placed on healthy monkey kidney cells has caused the monkey cells to deteriorate, he admits at the end of the paper that other scientists have put healthy monkey snot on healthy monkey cells and seen the same deterioration. So from the beginning this central experiment had been negated. But today people HAVE done this control - it’s just not published in mainstream virology journals because it would debunk what they are trying to keep obfuscated in the field.

11. How do environmental factors like air pollution, vaccination campaigns, and nutritional deficiencies better explain the patterns of illness attributed to viruses?

Oh we dive deep into this in the “Monkey Business” episode and the episode on Smallpox called “The Mask of Death.” I mean, if you poison people, they will get poisoned. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist.

But let me step back for a minute, and talk about contagion. I hear a lot of people say: "but these are contagious diseases - measles, herpes, other things. There HAS to be a physical particle in the person’s body which is making contagion happen. So all this talk of not having found a virus, in the end, it doesn’t matter." I think there are a few very serious problems with that line of thinking, and we talk about this in the film of course, because this is important stuff.

The first is that many many diseases were thought to be contagious, which looked obviously contagious, but turned out not to be. Scurvy is the most famous, but there are many others, like Pellagra. Whole families would get sick, one by one, and even die. But this, like scurvy, turned out to be nutritional deficiencies that were hitting the families slowly. Polio was said to be contagious, but wasn’t. AIDS too, the great “STD”- folks really should see our episode on AIDS, it’s my favorite episode. It’s amazing all the folks we were able to speak with and if you don’t know the suppressed story on this, your mind will be blown.

So, for example, I have seen first-hand that herpes is not contagious, and can be cured through careful thought about personal environmental triggers.

If mainstream virologists were right, “Covid” contagiousness could have been tested so simply. Inject a few mice with “sars-cov2 virus isolate” and put them in a room with 1000 mice and see what happens. But they never do simple, obvious experiments like that. You have to ask yourself why…

But that’s not to say that contagion isn’t possible. I believe contagion exists! Giggling, for example, is contagious. If you have ever seen one four year old start giggling, in a minute you can have 15 giggling four year olds. But no one thinks there is a “giggling particle”, a “gigglus,” that comes out of one child’s spit and flies on to the other child and embeds in their cell structure and rapes the cell structure, and turns it into a factory to produce more “gigglus” and if they have a high “viral load” of gigglus they start giggling. Most people would recognize how absurd that is.

We have to free ourselves from that level of thinking when it comes to disease. Not only is it absurd, it’s been disproven. 100 years of research, trillions of dollars, there’s nothing there. As Dr. Tom Cowan says in our doc, “it’s time to move on.” This kind of thinking is just propaganda at this point, it’s simply being used to colonize our bodies, to allow others to assert control over our bodies in the name of “public health.” But all attempts to control do so under the cover of “good intentions.”

12. What are you currently focused on in terms of research and education, and where can people access your work to better understand these foundational issues with virology?

Oh gosh, there’s so much to learn and think about. And I try to ask, is there anything I can do which hasn’t already been said a thousand times? I’m not sure.

I’m thinking about doing a doc series on the sordid history of the American Medical Association, which is really a key power centre in all of this. Thinking of doing a doc how the CIA became involved in drug trafficking, which is a big interest of mine. I’m reading the incredible historian Murray Rothbard when I can, because he just blows out of the water my former belief that the government is a helpful intermediary in our lives, and he’s really a great historian. Thinking about doing a doc on the history of our legal rights to our bodies and how to protect them… so many things. In the end, I usually just get overwhelmed and end up reading about who really controls the world and all that!

If folks have thoughts on what to do next, I’m all ears.

The best place to see the doc and my related articles is on my substack at

I re-released Episode One for free and it’s on there now, and will be re-releasing all the other episodes for free in the coming weeks. I hope people can get something out of them.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.