Update 3: An Open Challenge to Virologists

A Game of Cat and Mouse

In August 2025, virologist Ed Rybicki discovered ViroLIEgy.com after I cited one of his blog posts to provide historical context for my article on “Tobacco Mosaic Virus” (TMV). Rather than engaging with the data, Rybicki took umbrage at being linked and responded with a series of derogatory remarks. Despite my invitation for a professional discussion regarding the article’s merits, he chose to maintain this tone across multiple comment sections and his own blog, while systematically ignoring the core technical questions.

In light of this refusal to engage, I issued a formal challenge to Ed Rybicki—and by extension, the entire field of virology: Present the foundational evidence, derived through the scientific method and satisfying Koch’s Postulates, that proves the existence and “pathogenicity” of any “virus.”

At minimum, two straightforward questions must be answered:

1. Do you have verifiable evidence of particles—presumed to be “viruses”—that have been directly purified and isolated from the fluids of a sick human or animal, without the use of cell culturing, and then confirmed through electron microscopy and biochemical analysis?

2. Do you have evidence that these same purified and isolated particles have been proven “pathogenic” in a natural manner, through strict adherence to the scientific method and satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates?

I pointed out that if one wishes to directly prove the hypothesis that an invisible microbe within a host causes disease, the strongest scientific proof would require demonstrating that:

1. The microbe actually exists directly in the fluids of sick hosts but not in the fluids of healthy hosts.

2. The specific microbe is purified, isolated, and identified via electron microscopy as a valid independent variable prior to experimentation (known as time order: the cause must exist before the effect).

3. The microbe is introduced into a healthy host in the manner proposed by the hypothesis (via aerosolization, ingestion, etc.) as the mode of “infection.”

4. The specific disease associated with the microbe is reproduced following this introduction.

5. The disease is transmissible from a sick host to a healthy host in the hypothesized manner (e.g., through close contact, coughing, sneezing, etc.).

6. After transmission, the same microbe can be purified and isolated from the fluids of the newly sickened host and confirmed.

7. This process must be repeated with a large sample size with proper control experiments, and the results must be independently reproduced by other researchers.

This challenge has stood since August 19, 2025. While a few virologists surfaced in September and October, the results were underwhelming. Ed Rybicki eventually returned in the final update, yet he again bypassed the technical specifics of the challenge, offering dismissals rather than a logical counterargument.

After that, the trail went cold, as there had not been any serious contenders to write home about.

The closest was Kelly Goodman, PhD, a microbiologist who, along with providing her own commentary about me, claimed that she had “handled live virus,” and had “cultured it, isolated it, and watched it produce disease in cells.”

Despite her claims, when presented with the same challenge, the response was nothing but silence.

Thus, the trail went cold once again.

However, it did not stay that way for long. Just a few days later—on April 1st, to be exact—a new contender stepped up to the plate with a comment on my April Fools’ Day post on Facebook.

If I can toot my own horn for a moment, the joke was that virologists had finally purified and isolated a “virus” directly from human samples without culturing and confirmed it to be “pathogenic” in accordance with the scientific method and the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates. Many people fell for it because the image was very convincing as a news story. While great for joking purposes, it also serves as a somewhat unsettling example of how easily AI can be used to fool us.

Granted, the other reason so many people may have fallen for it is that I forgot to write “April Fools!” in my pinned comment. 😬

Regardless, not everyone appreciated the joke. Among the few negative comments left on my post was one from a man named José Esparza. I was instantly intrigued by the comment, as he identified himself as a PhD in virology with more than 50 years of experience. Like Goodman before him, Esparza claimed to have actually isolated, purified, visualized, characterized, sequenced, and studied “viruses.”

I decided to do a quick background check in order to verify whether these claims held up. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that José Esparza has had a storied career as a virologist. He completed his medical training in Venezuela and later pursued graduate studies in virology and epidemiology in the United States. From 1974 to 1985, Mr. Esparza worked in Caracas, Venezuela, at the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research (IVIC). There he served as Professor of Virology, Head of the Laboratory of Biology of Viruses, and Chairman of the Center of Microbiology and Cell Biology, where he contributed to the study of “rotaviruses.”

In 1986 he joined the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, where he coordinated international efforts to promote the development and evaluation of HIV/AIDS vaccines through the WHO-UNAIDS HIV Vaccine Initiative. From 2004 to 2014 he worked with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington, first as Senior Advisor on HIV Vaccines and later as Senior Advisor on Global Health (Vaccines).

Over the course of his career, Mr. Esparza has authored more than 190 papers on various aspects of virology, HIV/AIDS, and vaccine development. In 2016 he served as President of the Global Virus Network, and in 2018 he was appointed a Robert Koch Fellow at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Germany, as well as a member of the Latin American Academy of Sciences.

Thus, if anyone could present the necessary evidence to satisfy my challenge, I suspected that Mr. Esparza would be able to do so, or at the very least be willing to provide a logical counterargument explaining why such evidence would be unnecessary.

Now, in hindsight, I do think I could have approached Mr. Esparza differently. If I could go back, I would have invited him to a discussion rather than immediately presenting my challenge. However, in my defense, at the time I was dealing with a massive bombardment of— for lack of a better description—an army of ad hominem–flinging, germ “theory”-loving trolls on my previous post promoting the YouTube channel of researcher Jim Dandy. I was a little exhausted from shutting down so many childish insults and illogical comments, so I cut straight to the chase with Mr. Esparza, outlining the challenge immediately.

Mr. Esparza answered my challenge by questioning my credentials, stating that he did not waste his time educating “ignorant” people. I found this rather ironic, as he had obviously felt the need to comment on my post in the first place, so apparently he did want to educate me, at least by appealing to his own work. I let him know that arguments are not determined by credentials, but by sound reasoning and evidence. It was very clear to me that Mr. Esparza was using education level as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card, not only to demean me, but also to avoid having a genuine discussion.

Mr. Esparza never responded to my point, and it seemed as though our brief encounter had ended. However, he later found his way to the Dandy post to join the conversation there and promote the narrative that “vaccines save lives.” I decided to follow up to see if he would address my challenge. Sadly, it went unanswered.

Again, the conversation seemed to be at an end. Yet José continued to pop up in various threads on the same post, tagging me and simply stating “False” in response to my comments—without specifying which one he was addressing. The first instance was under a comment of mine pointing out that smallpox still existed under many names.

In the same thread, I had also commented to another user that “viral” genomes are irrelevant until the necessary foundational evidence is presented first. It was here that Mr. Esparza’s “False” appeared, but with how Facebook comments work, he could have been responding to either one of my comments. Granted, my gut feeling is that he would probably say both are false, but I do not want to put words into Mr. Esparza’s mouth.

As he claimed that my information was false but provided no evidence or reasoning in support, I challenged him to refute it. Instead, I was told to “get an education,” which I interpreted as a concession on his part that he could not refute the information in either of my comments.

The final time that Mr. Esparza surfaced led to our most extensive interaction. It was under my comment to another user where I explained that the necessary foundational evidence for polio did not exist, and that what did exist was rather pseudoscientific.

While the image is assembled to show that Mr. Esparza responded with “False” under my polio comment, there were numerous other comments of mine he could have been referring to. Presumably, he considered all of them false, but again, I do not want to put words in his mouth. I asked Mr. Esparza to specify exactly what was false, but he dismissed me as “ignorant” and told me to “bug off” my own page. I urged him to present a logical counterargument based on sound reasoning and evidence, especially as someone with his experience should have easily been able to spot any weaknesses in my argument. Yet I was again simply discounted as “ignorant.”

I noted that Mr. Esparza was being deliberately evasive. He repeatedly resorted to insults to stifle any attempt at an honest conversation—a clear sign of evasion. For this, I was referred to as “delusional.” I tried to appeal to his sense of honor, emphasizing that I was seeking a productive discussion rather than enduring a barrage of insults that did nothing to address my arguments. I was told that such a conversation was not possible with an “ignorant antivaxxer.” Of course, a productive conversation cannot occur when one party refuses to allow it.

I tried to get Mr. Esparza to respond by pointing out that his evasive tactics clearly betrayed a lack of confidence in his ability to address my arguments. In response, I was dismissed as a “clown” with no argument.

I further noted that he had yet to demonstrate a single flaw in my reasoning. Given his continued reliance on insults, I treated this as a concession that he was unable to do so. For this, I was labeled a “pest,” questioned about whether I was an adult, and even asked if I was “mentally retarded.”

It was clear to me that there would be no chance of a productive conversation with Mr. Esparza. As is often the case with those who resort to insults and ad hominem attacks, once they start, they rarely stop. It’s a coping mechanism for knowing the argument is lost. Not wanting to be insulted further—and feeling that his latest attacks had crossed a line—I tried to end the exchange. However, this is where things took a strange turn. Rather than disengage, Mr. Esparza decided he was a cat and that I was his mouse to be toyed with.

I made it clear that Mr. Esparza’s interpretation was mistaken. He had not “played with me” at all. In fact, until he addressed my arguments and refuted them with sound reasoning and evidence, I was the cat in this scenario. Undeterred, he proceeded to demand that I “jump” whenever he said so.

I noted that Mr. Esparza's responses left a lot to be desired, and it reflected poorly on his profession. He continued to command me to “jump.”

I responded with what I had hoped would be the end of it, pointing out that repeating the “jump” command did not constitute an argument, and that Mr. Esparza was substituting childish behavior for actual reasoning.

There was no direct response to this comment, and I assumed our exchange had ended. However, Mr. Esparza had other plans, showing up later in a separate thread to continue “playing” with me. Rather than engaging in cat-and-mouse antics, I suggested he act like an adult so we could have a productive conversation. The “jump” command returned.

I once again tried to appeal to his honor, pointing out that his behavior was unbecoming of someone with over 50 years of professional experience. Beyond being ordered to “jump” again, I was told that, to have a conversation, I needed a minimum education in biology (MSc or PhD) and that I needed to “stop believing in pseudoscience.” It was the response of someone gatekeeping and afraid to defend their own beliefs when challenged. From the start, Mr. Esparza had erected an educational barrier to stifle discussion, and now there was the added caveat that we must also share the same beliefs about virology to proceed.

By this point, with all of the comments Mr. Esparza had supplied, I had gathered more than enough material to highlight the mindset of a virologist for this series. I thanked him for participating and let him know he would be featured in the latest update.

For some reason, it was at this point that Mr. Esparza decided it was no longer fun “playing with me” and issuing his “jump” commands. His closing words claimed that no self-respecting virologist would discuss science with an “ignorant person who promotes pseudoscience.” Apparently, self-respecting virologists prefer to pretend they are cats, issuing insults and commands to those they deem beneath them.

With that parting shot, Mr. Esparza decided he had more important things to do, and promptly blocked me.

While brief, and unfortunately largely unproductive from an evidentiary standpoint, this exchange provides valuable insight into the mindset of career virologists. My experience has shown that many high-ranking academics in the field have lost, or perhaps never fully developed, the ability to reason critically and logically when challenged. When pressed to support their beliefs, a consistent pattern emerges: rather than engage with evidence and reasoning, they resort to ad hominem attacks, appeals to credentials and authority, and genetic fallacies to shut down conversation. Whether it was Ed Rybicki, José Esparza, or even a certain analytical chemist on the “No Virus” side, every attempt at a meaningful discussion immediately devolved into the same cycle.

This is not merely a reflection of individual temperament; it points to a broader institutional culture where protecting the narrative often takes precedence over genuine scientific inquiry. Our educational and research systems cultivate individuals who are highly intelligent yet conditioned to prioritize conformity, career advancement, and the accumulation of accolades and awards that reinforce their sense of intellectual superiority. These recognitions feed the ego, making it unlikely they will acknowledge valid arguments or evidence from those outside their profession.

Once challenged, these individuals often become emotionally reactive, lashing out at perceived threats to the status quo with childish behavior that belies their professional credentials. It is an effective combination of indoctrination, cognitive dissonance, financial incentives, and career ambitions that maintains this culture. These gatekeepers then serve as willing vectors of mainstream talking points, rarely questioning the box they have been comfortably placed in.

I initially hoped that Mr. Esparza would break the mold. However, his storied career should have been a dead giveaway that this was unlikely. While my immediate challenge may not have been the gentlest approach, based on his responses to others who approached him more diplomatically, it likely would not have made any difference.

From the start, he had pre-determined that anyone without his level of formal education was unworthy of respectful engagement. This raises the question: what was the purpose of his repeated engagement? Was it to genuinely debate, or simply to “play” with those he considered inferior?

Regardless, the exchange illustrates a key problem in public understanding of science: arguments are too often evaluated by the speaker’s credentials rather than the quality of reasoning or evidence presented. Gatekeeping, dismissals, and evasions leave little room for genuine discourse, and they reinforce blind trust in claims that may not be substantiated.

Ultimately, if the goal was a cat-and-mouse game, Mr. Esparza misread the rules. In this scenario, refusing evidence, substituting insults for reasoning, and hiding behind status inevitably leaves one as the mouse, not the cat. Next time, anyone who wishes to “play” in this arena will need to come prepared with logic, evidence, and the willingness to engage honestly. Otherwise, the game will always be lost before it even begins.