top of page

The Virus Challenge: A Guide for the Purple-Pilled

Biomedical Scientist, Simon Lee argues, that there are those who understand that “the globalist establishment is rotten to the core,” they have gone down the rabbit holes and completed the deep dives on everything from the Titanic to the Moon landings, but “if you try to tell them that viruses are not real they will lose their minds.” This is what is termed “purple pilled” and having a foot in the red camp and another in the blue. A challenge has been issued, to settle the Virus, no virus debate and as yet there are no scientific takers,”are you ready to take the red pill, “he asks.

The Virus Challenge: A Guide for the Purple-Pilled

by Simon Lee, Science Officer, Anew UK

Are you Purple-Pilled?

James Delingpole recently wrote a brilliant and thought provoking piece titled “Discrediting Our Cause” in which he introduced the concept of the “purple-pilled”. Who are, according to Delingpole:

“Fairweather Awake types – I call them the ‘purple-pilled’ because though they’ve taken the red pill more or less they still want to keep one foot in the blue-pilled camp for old times’ sake – that there are some conspiracy theories out there which are simply beyond the pale. They are so silly, these more outre conspiracy theories, that even to talk about them just discredits ‘our’ cause.”

This got me thinking (as thought provoking articles do) about the virus wars.

I used to believe in viruses. I even did diagnostic tests for viruses in a hospital lab for many years. I never believed any of the covid nonsense when it kicked off in 2020, but at that stage i did still believe that Coronaviruses were real. However, I didn’t believe that they could cause anything more serious than the common cold.

I was aware that some people did not think that viruses were real and that the pictures of alleged viruses were in fact usually exosomes which are particles produced by cells that are damaged and are dying.

So i decided to investigate these claims for myself and began to do some detailed research into the foundational science that supposedly underpinned the diagnostic testing that i used to do.

I discovered some brilliant people like the Kiwi couple Dr Sam Bailey MD and Dr Mark Bailey MD, Mike Stone and his brilliant viroLIEgy website, Dr Thomas Cowan MD, Dr Andrew Kaufman MD, Christine Massey MSc, Dr Stefano Scoglio PhD. There are many others too (see the signatories to the virus challenge further down). I quickly came to recognise that virology is a fraudulent pseudoscience and that there is no good evidence for the existence of pathogenic human viruses.

I’m used to arguing with the “normies” and “sheeple” about all things covid related but now most of the arguing is with so called “truthers” who consider themselves to be red-pilled. In reality these virus believers are what Delingpole calls the “Purple-pilled”.

Yes, they understand that the globalist establishment is rotten to the core and they may have done their research on some real conspiracies like the JFK assassination, the moon landings, 9/11, the Titanic (yes really! Look into it.) etc but if you try to tell them that viruses are not real they will lose their minds.

“If you accept – as all the red-pilled must because it is the foundation of Awake awareness – that the world as it has been sold to us is a tissue of lies, half-truths and deceptions, then it naturally follows that everything we think we know about the world is potentially fallacious.” James Delingpole

Apparently, the fallacious nature of virology is a red pill too many for some. The lab leaked genetically engineered SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon is a great story but it is complete science fiction nonsense.

The conspirators and their mainstream media accomplices are very happy for people to believe this nonsense which is why they are now allowing this narrative to be pushed. They really don’t care whether you believe the “virus” was naturally occurring or was genetically engineed in a lab. All they care about is that you believe that this imaginary virus is real.

They will most likely never admit to the full extent of their lies and deception, especially as it seems likely that they are planning on pulling the same trick again and again and again. Instead, they have opted for the limited hangout lab leaked genetically engineered SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon science fiction story.

This is why it is so important that people are prepared to reassess all the things that they thought they knew to be true by looking at the evidence. Knowledge that contradicts the official version of events is hard won because “You’re up against a vast, intricate, well-funded system of organised deception”.

Your belief system should never be unshakeable and you should always be open minded, especially when you are presented with new evidence. Its quite shocking to see how people who believe themselves to be red-pilled think like normies when it comes to the issue of viruses.

It is no longer intellectually tenable for anyone with a reasonable degree of curiosity, scepticism, and intelligence to still believe in pathogenic human viruses. As Delingpole puts it:

“If you have accepted the truth of even one conspiracy theory, no matter what it is,then you have abnegated the right to declare any other conspiracy off limits.”

If you have already accepted that “there are forces out there so corrupt, powerful, devious, entrenched and malign that they have happily and gleefully lied to you about something really big” then why can’t you accept that they are lying about viruses too? Why is that a step too far?

Many supposed red-pilled people dogmatically cling to the false belief that the “no virus” position is a Psy-op designed to discredit “our cause”. These people have evidently not put in the necessary research to understand the full extent of the lies deployed to create a pseudopandemic.

A degree of humility might be in order for some people who might have to admit to having been wrong ( as Dr Mike Yeadon PhD has graciously done) but “put in the hours and you’ll get there in the end” and the truth will out.

“Far from uniting the resistance, the broad front ‘pragmatism and unity’ strategy has divided and neutralised that resistance by luring a significant portion of it into containment pens. All those people out there who have sensed that something is wrong and are now eager for guidance on what it is are being led into a trap…That trap, essentially, is a state of controlled ignorance.”

James Delingpole

It is claimed, by some, that the “no virus” position might alienate potential allies. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth should never alienate any decent person especially those who consider themselves to be “truthers”.

The No “Virus” Challenge

The No “Virus” Challenge was originally thought up by Dr. Tom Cowan in conjunction with Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Kevin Corbett. It now has many other like minded signatories.

It was established to challenge virology, in order to put their methods to the test, and is designed to meet virology halfway.

The signatories want virology to demonstrate, using their own methods, that they can actually independently reproduce and replicate the exact same results while blinded to the different samples that they would be testing.

If virologists are really interested in following the scientific method and performing the proper control experiments ( that should have been carried out from the very beginning) then there is absolutely no reason for them not to accept this challenge.

Settling the virus debate

Central to the covid pseudopandemic is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material (either DNA or RNA) , exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to cause disease that can be transmitted from person to person.

These alleged particles, with the protein coating and genetic material inside, are commonly believed to infect living cells, replicate inside these living cells, cause tissue damage as they leave the cell, and, in doing so, can cause disease and sometimes the death of the host. These alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other people, causing disease in them as well.

Billions have been spent during a century of experimentation, studies, and interventions in this “war against viruses”. This belief has fundamentally changed the trajectory of our world and negatively impacted large sections of humanity, so its way past time that this theory was put to the test.

For several decades, many objective doctors and scientists have been arguing that virology is based on some fundamental misconceptions. They have been arguing that the pictures of “viruses” are in fact the natural and inevitable breakdown products of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues and are not independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities as is commonly claimed.

Therefore they are not pathogens, they are not harmful to other people, and there are no rational or scientific reasons to take measures to protect yourself or others from them.

Data accumulation is not science

Controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments are central to the scientific method. In contrast, publications in virology are mostly of a descriptive nature.

Dr Edward R. Dougherty, the Scientific Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Genomic Systems Engineering, wrote about the epistemological crisis in genomics in 2015:

“High-throughput technologies such as gene-expression microarrays have lead to the accumulation of massive amounts of data, orders of magnitude in excess to what has heretofore been conceivable. But the accumulation of data does not constitute science, nor does the a postiori rational analysis of data.”

Dr Dougherty warned that “contemporary genomic research often fails to satisfy the basic requirements of that epistemology, thereby failing to produce valid scientific knowledge.”

Data accumulation is not science. The collection of data does not replace the requirement for evidence that adheres to the scientific method which requires a valid independent variable (i.e. purified/isolated particles) in order to determine cause and effect. Indirect computer-generated evidence can not take the place of having the necessary direct physical proof. The strings of DNA and RNA letters in a data bank tells us little or nothing of value.

Virus particles have not been isolated

The main argument that the pathogenic viral theory is wrong, is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal.

There is general agreement that true “isolation” of these particles is not acheived by virologists, who misuse this term to mean something other than the separation of one thing from all other things.

Proponents of the viral myth have difficulty understanding the meaning of the word “isolation”. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary it is defined as “the act of separating something from other things: the act of isolating something” and isolate is defined as “to select from among others especially: to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state”.

Isolation does NOT mean the combination of many elements together. No dictionary defines isolation/isolate as meaning the mixing of many substances together in a cell culture. That is what virologists take it to mean.

Particles that have truly been isolated and purified have not been shown to be replication-competent, disease-causing and infectious, so they do not meet the definition of a virus.

The “evidence” of viruses presented in the form of “genomes” and animal experiments is derived from methodologies lacking sufficient controls as per the scientific method.

Fake genomes

We are supposed to believe that A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is all the evidence that is needed in order to prove the existence of a “virus.” No purified and isolated “virus” is necessary if the computer assembles a theoretical genome of an invisible entity.

Dr Charles Calisher and 13 other experienced virologists warned in 2001:

“A string of DNA letters in a data bank tells little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, how it makes people sick, or whether antibodies to other viruses might protect against it. Just studying sequences, is like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprints.“

The original “SARS-COV-2” genome is a fraudulent assembly produced from the unpurified bronchial alveolar lavage fluid from one person living in a heavily polluted Chinese city. Every other supposedly mutated genome has been built upon this fraudulent construction. These samples contain genetic material from numerous bacteria, fungi, parasites, as well as the human patient. If the sample has been cell cultured, they also contain the added animal DNA from the cell line as well as the fetal bovine serum used in the medium.

All “viral” sequences are most likely nothing more than a mixture of human, animal, bacterial, fungal, and other unknown sources of genetic material. These mixtures of RNA are claimed to be “viral” and added to a database in order to build a “viral” library. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of this RNA ever came from a “virus.”

It is not possible to buy purified and isolated particles of “SARS-COV-2” which comes directly from the fluids of a sick human, but you can buy lab created cell cultured concoctions supposedly containing this elusive entity known as “SARS-COV-2.”

As far as “viral” RNA is concerned, some companies are selling lab-created cell cultured concoctions and claim that “viral” RNA is contained within it. Interestingly, they do not stand by the accuracy of any claims, as noted in the product sheet for the “viral” RNA product. A company claiming it is selling “viral” RNA, is not proof that they are really selling “viral” RNA, especially when the company will not back the accuracy of any of its claims about its products.

Logical fallacy

A logical fallacy often deployed by virus believers is to shift the burden of proof. They demand that those of us questioning virology must provide an alternative hypothesis to explain why people become ill. In fact, the onus is on those that claim “viruses” exist to back up their assertion with evidence proving the existence of these transmissible pathogenic particles.

The challenge is to test their hypothesis that “viruses” exist and cause disease by performing the proper controlled experiments that should have been performed by virologists from the very beginning.

It is not necessary to provide an alternative hypothesis as to what is causing disease in order to disprove the current “viral” hypothesis.

There are numerous factors which can cause disease. Covid-19 is not a single disease with just one cause, it is a misdiagnosis based on no new or specific symptoms, as well as fraudulent and unreliable test results.

PCR test results are 100% inaccurate as no PCR test has ever been calibrated and validated against purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses.” The FDA had “no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV virus” and Drosten developed the fraudulent PCR miraculously “without having virus material available.” but instead used “synthetic nucleic acid technology”.

Dr Sam Bailey Throws Down the Gauntlet

According to Dr Sam Bailey MD, the following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:

1. A unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles.

2. The purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence.

3. The proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences.

4. The purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls.

5. Particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.

All attempts to demonstate the above have so far failed.

Virologists claim that “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient numbers in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. This makes no sense at all. These particles are supposedly present in sufficient numbers to cause illness in the individual and also to transfer the illness to other people. So why can’t they be found in-situ?

The virus challenge proposes to meet the virologists half way:

“In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures.

Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible.

Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.”

The Virus challenge proposal

The signatories to the virus challenge propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists…

STEP ONE 5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either: 1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis; 2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer; 3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who 4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)

Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present.

Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”.

Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

STEP TWO ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome.

On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples. (Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments – a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)

If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.

It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.

We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative.


Thomas Cowan, MD Mark Bailey, MD Samantha Bailey, MD Jitendra Banjara, MSc Kelly Brogan, MD Kevin Corbett, PhD Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS Michael Donio, MS Jordan Grant, MD Andrew Kaufman, MD Valentina Kiseleva, MD Christine Massey, MSc Paul McSheehy, PhD Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD Sachin Pethkar, BAMS Saeed Qureshi, PhD Stefano Scoglio, PhD Mike Stone, BEXSc Amandha Vollmer, NDoc Michael Yeadon, PhD”

Any takers?

So the challenge has been issued. Are there any scientific takers? So far, apparently not.

And what about you? Are you ready to swallow the no virus red pill yet? It’s not a bitter pill to swallow so a spoonful of sugar is not required to help it go down. Just a pinch of humility in some cases.


1) James Delingpole: How red-pilled arbiters of truth discredit our cause BY RHODA WILSON ON AUGUST 30, 2023 The Expose.


3) On the Epistemological Crisis in Genomics. Edward R Dougherty. Curr Genomics. 2008 Apr; 9(2): 69–79. PMID: 19440447

4) The “Virus” of Sin. Mike Stone.

5) The No “Virus” Challenge. Mike Stone.

Simon Lee is a published Biomedical Scientist with over 30 years in his field nearly a decade of which he worked in the field of virology. Simon is the Science Officer of Anew UK.

bottom of page