Seeing Is Believing

The Annual Subscription is being kept at the incredibly low price of just $30. Please consider donating to the largest Crowdsourced and Opensourced experiments falsifying Virology. Thank you.

My latest foray in to challenging the cult of Science has been to look into molecular and elemental Chemistry. It is an ongoing process as really this is the meat and bones of the entire branch of the “Science” known as Chemistry. If not for the building blocks of chemical substances how would it all work? So I am starting out by asking broad questions, interested in definitive evidences and practical experimentation that offers as a platform to spring from. Something with tangible reality which we can agree on is legitimate and real.

Would you know it, I am finding it really quite tough. Where in Biology, we at least have a cell, something you can see through a light microscope, so just enhancing your natural senses, you can see them replicate and move, you can describe them, they have similar looking “organelles”. Now here is where I depart from the mainstream as almost all of cellular Biology to me seems like over complicated rubbish, predicated on non existent “DNA” and “biochems”. But at least we have a benchmark in reality.

With Chemistry however there is literally fuckall: Recently on Twitter one of the litany of Pharmaceutical reps employed to pump out gay Soyence Propaganda, tweeted out a Cartoon drawing/diagram with the caption “Chemistry is in everything”. I mean call me a cynic but even if it were true, it’s a bit of a myopic to boil everything down to chemicals anyway, but needless to say I, at the stage of asking “broad questions” (being a slightly acerbic twat online) with little thinking retweeted with the caption “Chemistry is in Everything…..Shows cartoon as evidence”.

It seems this pretty flippant remark landed a knockout blow to an opponent I didn’t even know I was fighting. 300 comments underneath this post appeared over the course of the next few days with an army of increasingly foamy mouthed rage filled accounts that seethed that I had the temerity to point out that a cartoon wasn’t evidence. They writhed around as if I had posted a jobbie through their letterbox, mind melding around about 5 different styles of attack: 1. I was stupid because I thought “chemistry was fake” 2. Cartoons are real as they represent real things 3. My credentials/my character assassination 4. Outright threats thing like I should drink Sulfuric Acid 5. That I was stupid for only believing things that I could see.

I wanna obviously stick with number 5 to focus on, given the title of this article. It was funny to me, watching the list of things that were trotted out combined with expletives as things that one could not see but they thought I was (potentially) stupid for not believing in. A lot focused around Oxygen; “you can’t see oxygen, so let’s just see how you do if we remove oxygen from your life and see if you can breath lolol” (it was high brow stuff). But here is a salient point, I am not really at the point, just time limiting, that I have the confidence to say that “02 as the described molecule” doesn’t exist, I feel that atomistic chemistry is complete bullshit, but I still like to really thoroughly research before circling back to nearly 100% of the time agreeing with my gut.

But herein lies the rub. The more these people seethed, the more their reaction was doing the research for me. They couldn’t show me atoms, they couldn’t show me oxygen that I supposedly needed to live, they only had cartoons and inadvertently they had showed me that they were very insecure about the fact that their precious chemical Universe they lived in was seemingly revealing itself to be just a belief system. This was really my takeaway from the “experience” was that I am actually very confident in saying that when it comes to me, I personally only believe things that I can see. I think anything that is not possible to see with my own eyes, which includes light microscopy as just enhancing my natural born senses, is bullshit until proven otherwise.

My reasons for this and the reason why I think you should think the same too, falls back into the problem with institutions and The State. As soon as you need a special piece of equipment to “see” or “test” or “interpret” for you, you are handing over your complete trust and authority to the makers of the machine, the people operating the machine, the owner of the machine, the people who write the protocols for how to use the machine, the preparation for anything that goes in the machine etc etc etc. You ARE at this very juncture handing yourself over to the State because either directly or in a very few short steps, by definition that machine will be State controlled.

The machine will be extremely expensive, much more than a member of the public would ever dream of handing over, not to be able to see a couple of computer squiggles on a screen invariably. It would need accreditation to use it, I.e State Sponsored Indoctrination, it would need to be Peer Review vetted to have any interpretation. You get the gist that every part of the steps beyond your very own senses are locked up by The State. It is for EXACTLY this reason that all of their “Science”, the Key to the life, universe and everything ALWAYS falls out of reach of your own senses.

It is incredibly easy to control once you are there, which is why Pharmaceutical companies spend millions if not billions of dollars in marketing every year. They employ people like Simon on Twitter, the Bayer rep to gatekeep this exact arena. They want to rugby tackle anyone threatening this open channel where the State procures their souls. Once you are across that line and in the realms of fantasy you can say anything you damned well like: “CO2 levels are rising in Greenland faster than the previous decade compared to global averages”. You have only two options as a member of the public 1. Use some other authority figures data to challenge it with OR 2. get access to the equipment yourself. BOTH require you to hand yourself and all of your trust and belief to the state to even challenge one basic statement.

It’s even more than that, not just that you would need to get access to Mass Spectrometry equipment but just the sheer notion that to obtain “global averages” you once again will fall into the problem of every single nations data point is controlled by the same machinations, so would fall straight back into State control even with your own equipment. This is without factoring in whether CO2 exists in the way described floating around in molecules in the air and whether a giant Supersoaker and Magnet (Mass Spec) can indeed “See” these molecules any way (It can’t).

So they have made this protectorate cult where all of their “Fundamental” science is purposefully off limits to anyone that is not State Brainwashed. That is why they seethe so hard at me, because I unwittingly pressed some buttons on their big Transmission Electron Microscopes ($700k) and got them to falsify their own fraudulent Cell Cultures. It was more than just accepting what they were claiming the machines could do and trying to play them at their own game, it was going into the casino and showing that the games are rigged, the cards are hooky and the tables lean to the dealer.

Atomic Force Microscopy

As is par for the course here on The Virology Control studies Project Channel I wanted to focus in on a piece of their scammy tech that exemplifies the parlor tricks the Establishment are using to con the passer by with. That piece of tech is called an Atomic Force Microscope, which sounds very futuristic, and sounds well.. kinda cartoonish too. I want to focus on this particular piece of equipment because it claims to be able to “Image” a real crossing point for me in my research which is, that it claims to be able to “see” images of non existent “viruses” but it also is claimed to be able to “see” atoms.

This was the piece of new fangled apparatus which was wheeled out by just one person out of the 300 commenters showing more cartoons. The image was of course grainy digital fuzz with a vague pattern that one would consider “moleculary”, but I want to analyze all of these images and claims to show truly how absurd it all is:

The first glaring contradiction that should stick out like a sore thumb is the fact that they openly admit to not actually seeing anything with this claimed microscope. It uses no line of sight whatsoever, so really is a fraudulent term to call it a “scope” (from Skopein in Greek “to look a”). No this $300k piece of machinery wants you to not use the sense of sight to look things and replace it with the sense of touch instead, using a glorified gramophone needle to tap the assumed solid stuff attached to a plate.

With AFM is the lazer that hits the cantilever is it often interpreted and modeled to create the image or is it always direct?

Good question — this gets at how AFM data is actually turned into an image.

Short answer:
The laser signal in AFM is not a direct image of the surface. It is measured, interpreted, and modeled (to varying degrees) to create the final image.

To add insult to injury, not only are they deliberatly blinding themselves and turning to Braille to claim to see much more betterer, but indeed this Gramophone needle scratching over the surface of a sample is not even directly read, it is interpreted and modeled using computer software that spits out what it “thinks” it has just rubbed up against. This is a whole new level of inference and assumption, not only is it inferred that the gramophone needle is moving because it is hitting solid topographical changes and not just friction from the speed of the needles movement or viscosity of the substrate but heaped on top of this is the fact that this inference is once again inferred by a computer interpretation of what it may or may not feel/see/scrape.

VAN DER WAAL’S FORCES

So AFM measures intrinsic Van Der Waals Forces when measuring at the molecular level, that’s what moves the needle?

Short answer:
Yes — at the molecular scale, intrinsic van der Waals forces are a primary reason the AFM cantilever moves, especially in non-contact and tapping modes

What are Van Der Waal’s Forces and How were they discovered?

• In 1873, Dutch physicist Johannes Diderik van der Waals proposed them to explain why real gases don’t behave like ideal gases.

• He modified the ideal gas law to account for:

  • Finite molecular size

  • Attractive forces between molecules

This theoretical work earned him the 1910 Nobel Prize in Physics.

How were they measured?

Van der Waals forces were confirmed and measured in several ways over time:

1. Macroscopic evidence

• Gas condensation and deviations from the ideal gas law

• Surface tension and boiling points

2. Colloid and surface experiments

• Measurements of adhesion between surfaces

• Stability of colloids (DLVO theory)

3. Direct nanoscale measurement

• Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM):

  • Measures cantilever deflection caused by van der Waals attraction

  • Force–distance curves quantify the force

• Surface Force Apparatus (SFA):

  • Measures forces between two surfaces with piconewton sensitivity

These experiments directly measure forces at nanometer separations.

Here we have a look at Mr. Der Waal and his totally theoretical forces. He never actually did any experimentation himself, he merely theorized tiny invisible “forces” because his maths wasn’t mathing, when it came to looking at gas condensates. Instead of giving up he just invented an invisible reason to fill the gaps of his equations. Again one thing that should immediately stick out is the Olympic level conjecture that has gone on from his work theorizing gas condensation and just assuming there was something going on in the realms of the invisible. With Inferences anything is possible, it very well could have been those pesky NanoDwarfs again and their charged beards..

The Second huge gaping chasm in Obi Wan Kenobi’s forces story was that his theories are only really “confirmed” they claim “directly” with AFM. So we have already established that AFM is not direct observation of VDW forces but indeed a heap load of indirect inferences and models, but to add even MORE insult to injury VDW forces are then ONLY claimed to be verified by AFM. Chat GPT left me with this example of Circular reasoning, claiming it wasn’t this….. it is JUST this: “Van der Waals forces exist because AFM works, and AFM works because van der Waals forces exist.”

Q: “No because all of the other macroscale things just assume they work because of molecular level invisible interactions. these are just assumptions and inferences, not proof.”

You’re raising a deep and legitimate epistemology-of-science objection, not a misunderstanding of AFM or van der Waals forces. Let’s be precise and fair to your claim.

You are essentially saying:

Macroscale evidence only infers invisible molecular interactions.
Inference ≠ proof.
Therefore AFM and earlier evidence don’t escape assumption.

That position is philosophically defensible — but it leads to an important conclusion about what science can and cannot claim.

---

1. You are right about one thing

Science does not provide proof in the mathematical or absolute sense for unobservable entities.

• Atoms

• Electrons

• Forces at the molecular scale

• Even spacetime curvature

All of these are inferred, not directly “seen” in the everyday sense.

So yes:

• These are models

• Supported by indirect evidence

• Not logically proven the way a theorem is

Here we have an admittance from AI that the whole thing is predicated on indirect evidence and models that are theorized. AI was being autistically stubborn on how this wasn’t circular reasoning, so I will save you the boring tooing and froing and just say that it is about as circular reasoned as you could get and move onto the evidence that would probably push AI over the line if it actually analyzed the method for “seeing” anything on the molecular level.

“SEEING” “Atoms”

Marvel at the first “image” of atomic structure generated with our glorified Gramophone Needle Ooooh ahhhhh. It’s obviously not the image at the top which is a digital cartoon plucked from in silico fairytale land. No, it is the blurry fuzzy shite below it. One of the first things that stands out to me is that the image looks like it is a mirror image down the vertical middle axis. It is is not quite identical to my eye left to right extremities but enough to seem as if this was created by a mathematical model alone. There are no distinct features to it at all, just blurry indistinct light and dark patches. There is no differentiation between the claimed “atoms” or their “bonds”.

So reading the very informal methods of how they generated this fuzzy piece of shit we can see that firstly they had to cool it down to -268.15 degrees celcius and they had to oscillate the gramophone needle at a very specific frequency otherwise it wouldn’t generate the pattern they were looking for and to use a special kind of needle tip that would also do the business for them. But the most astounding part of this abject quackery is the fact that this tiny wobbling Gramophone needle doesn’t actually even touch the surface!!! In NON CONTACT mode this turbo knitting needle waggles around like a nano divining rod vaguely feeling the atoms beneath it.

Magic Tip

As part of imagining/imaging the picture of what a molecule look like, they first have to see an image of a molecule. Seriously! They apparently couldn’t image a molecule without putting a single CO molecule on the tip of the waggle stick. So let’s have a look at how they did it:

How a single CO molecule is put on an AFM tip

1. Prepare the surface

   • A clean metal surface (usually Cu(111)) is cooled to very low temperature (≈ 5 K).

   • A tiny amount of CO gas is introduced so that individual CO molecules adsorb on the surface, well separated.

2. Position the tip over one CO molecule

   • Using STM/AFM imaging, they locate a single, isolated CO molecule on the surface.

3. Pick up the CO molecule

   • The tip is moved very close to the CO.

   • A controlled voltage pulse or gentle mechanical approach is applied.

   • The CO molecule jumps from the surface to the tip apex because the tip–CO bond becomes stronger than the surface–CO bond.

4. Verify successful pickup

   • They re-image the surface:

     • The CO molecule is missing from its original spot

     • The imaging contrast changes in a characteristic way that confirms a CO-terminated tip

So to see a molecule with AFM first they have to blow a gas at the tip of a needle and then use AFM to show there is no molecule there as it has “jumped” onto the needle. So and I mean call me stupid but why would you need to do anything else if you could see the molecule “jump” onto the needle in the first place then just take a screenshot or something, no?

My conclusion of this claimed molecule picture is pretty easy: If you think that waggling a gas covered knitting needle above a very cold plate can generate an image of anything then I think you need your head checked. The fact that the wobbling has to be a very specific ever changing frequency suggests that the difference in charge from the waggling alone is creating the patterned fuzzy shit they are generating, they had to play around with it until they generated the pattern they were looking for.

Stirred Not Shaken

We have seen that in no contact mode that the needle just needs to oscillate in the general vicinity of atoms to feel them and take their picture. So I guess it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that they claim that they can also image liquid with a knitting needle. Yep, that’s right furiously sploshing a needle through a needle, a completely fluid surface with no discernible topography to it, well , because its a fucking liquid.

So let’s take a look at AI straight face this:

Q: They claim to do AFM on liquids. How do they do that? The needle won’t touch anything

This is a good question, and the confusion is understandable. AFM can work in liquids, but it works very differently than low-temperature UHV AFM, and the tip does interact with the liquid and the surface.

Here’s the clear picture.

---

First: the key misconception

“The needle won’t touch anything”

In liquid AFM, the tip is immersed in the liquid and does interact continuously with both:

• the liquid molecules, and

• the solid surface underneath

There is no vacuum gap like in UHV AFM.

---

How AFM works in liquids

1. The AFM is filled with liquid

• The sample and tip are submerged in water or another liquid

• The liquid replaces air or vacuum entirely

---

2. The cantilever still moves

Even in liquid:

• The cantilever oscillates or deflects

• Forces between the tip and surface still change its motion

The liquid:

• Strongly damps the motion

• Lowers the quality factor (Q)

• But does not stop measurement

---

3. Imaging modes used in liquids

Contact mode

• The tip is in physical contact with the surface

• Very common in biological AFM

• Measures repulsive forces

Tapping / AC mode in liquid

• The tip taps the surface gently

• Amplitude changes give height information

• Most common for soft samples

Force mapping

• Measures force vs distance through the liquid

• Can resolve hydration layers

---

4. What provides contrast in liquid AFM

In liquids, contrast comes from:

• Steric repulsion

• Hydration forces (structured water layers)

• Electrostatic double-layer forces

• Short-range contact forces

Van der Waals forces are strongly screened in liquid and are not dominant.

---

Why atomic resolution is harder in liquids

• Thermal motion is high

• Liquid molecules constantly rearrange

• Forces fluctuate rapidly

• Tip and surface are separated by hydration layers

Atomic resolution is possible but rare, usually on very stiff crystals (like mica).

---

Key point about “touching”

• The tip absolutely interacts with the sample

• In contact and tapping modes, it physically touches

• In non-contact liquid AFM, it still pushes against liquid layers

I wrote an article entitled Dissolving Illusions that was focused on the absolute absurdity of DNA sequencing and in fact the entire “DNA” story because for both instances they take place entirely in liquid state. The claim is that “DNA” is a physical strand of nucleotides, that in sequencing a well as all of the processes of “DNA” formation this string is read from right to left like a book by either a machine or an “enzyme”. The fact that this takes place entirely in liquid state should have been openly mocked in the town squares when the mentalist fantasists dreamt this up.

AFM takes that complete common sense, basic logic and fundamental Physics meltdown and builds upon it further suggesting that not only there can be solid parts of a liquid but indeed they can be photographed by swishing a Gramophone needle really fast through it.

What Can it do?

Q: Is the method of AFM different for visualizing Bacteria to the method for viruses

Yes — the AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) approach differs in several important ways when imaging bacteria versus viruses, mainly because of their size, mechanical properties, and how they interact with surfaces. The underlying AFM principle is the same, but sample preparation, imaging mode, and probe choice are often different.

Below is a clear comparison.

---

1. Size and Structural Differences

FeatureBacteriaVirusesTypical size0.5–5 µm20–300 nmStructureComplex (cell wall, membrane, appendages)Simple (capsid ± envelope)Mechanical stiffnessRelatively soft, deformableOften stiffer (non-enveloped)

Implication:
Viruses require higher resolution and sharper tips, while bacteria require gentler imaging to avoid deformation.

---

2. Sample Preparation

Bacteria

• Often immobilized on functionalized substrates (poly-L-lysine, APTES, mica)

• Can be imaged:

  • In liquid (to preserve native state)

  • After fixation (glutaraldehyde, ethanol)

• Must prevent:

  • Cell collapse

  • Motion during scanning

Viruses

• Typically adsorbed directly onto:

  • Fresh mica

  • Functionalized surfaces

• Often imaged:

  • Air-dried for high-resolution morphology

  • In liquid for native conformation

• Less prone to collapse, but can detach easily

Key difference:
Bacteria require stronger immobilization strategies, while viruses require gentle adsorption without aggregation.

Q: Is there alot more modeling with viruses in AFM

Short answer: yes — AFM studies of viruses generally involve more modeling than AFM studies of bacteria, and there are good reasons for that.

---

Why virus AFM relies more heavily on modeling

1. Viruses are mechanically simpler and more “ideal”

Viruses are:

• Small (tens–hundreds of nm)

• Structurally repetitive (often icosahedral)

• Lacking active metabolism

This makes them well suited to physical and mechanical models, whereas bacteria are heterogeneous, active, and adaptive.

Result:
Virus AFM data can often be directly fitted to theoretical models with fewer assumptions.

---

2. Mechanical measurements dominate virus AFM

A large fraction of virus AFM work involves:

• Nanoindentation

• Force–distance curves

• Capsid rupture experiments

These almost always require modeling:

• Hertz / Sneddon contact mechanics

• Thin-shell elasticity models

• Pressurized shell models

• Finite element modeling (FEM)

For example:

• Extracting capsid Young’s modulus

• Estimating internal pressure

• Predicting failure modes

In bacteria, nanoindentation is used too — but interpretation is harder due to:

• Cell wall heterogeneity

• Turgor pressure variation

• Active responses

---

3. Virus symmetry enables strong constraints

Many viruses have:

• Icosahedral symmetry

• Known capsid protein structures (from cryo-EM/X-ray)

AFM data can therefore be:

• Aligned with atomic models

• Simulated mechanically

• Validated against structural biology data

Bacteria lack this symmetry, so models are often phenomenological rather than predictive.

---

4. AFM resolution reaches structural limits for viruses

AFM can resolve:

• Capsomers

• Lattice defects

• Assembly intermediates

Interpreting these features usually involves:

• Geometric modeling

• Elastic network models

• Molecular dynamics (coarse-grained)

For bacteria, AFM rarely reaches atomic-scale interpretation; models are more qualitative.

As we can see from these two basic questions and the long winded list of excuses, apparently imaging Bacteria which certainly exist and can be seen with a light microscope are prepared in completely different ways to non existent viruses. The most revealing thing about these two different methods is the fact that imaging “viruses” surprisingly enough requires way more modeling (making shit up). This is perfectly summed up by AI in the wildly contradictory statement: “Virus AFM data can often be directly fitted to theoretical models with fewer assumptions”. Quite simply if you are using theorized data to model with, you are fraudulently creating pretty patterns that you assumed existed in the first place.

AFM “Virus” Images

AFM Bacteria Image

TEM Bacteria Image

Clearly the difference between the AFM images of “viruses” and bacteria is vast. The “virus” images are fuzzy indistinct pieces of shit that rely on heavy patterns and repeating symmetry that is the same as the images of atoms, a clear indication these are just the results of modelling data and the active imagination of quacks.

The TEM of a bacteria is far more useful than the AFM as it takes a cross section through it you can see all of the organelles and the different shading and implied density inside it, it looks more “life like” and so I really struggle to see the point in AFM even with things that we can all agree exist. Well actually scrap that, I know full well what the point is, the point with it is to try and get away with completely making up shit that is far too small to see.

CONCLUSION

Another thing leveled at me by the cognitive dissonance brigade is “Well if you only believe stuff that you can see, how are you using a laptop that relies on Electricity?”. Once again it is this dim non thinking myopic tunnel vision that leads to being stupid enough to believe in the Cult of science when it moves beyond the “visible light spectrum” and into the realms of complete and utter fantasy.

Of course I can see electricity, I have witnessed Lightning in storms, seen sparks from a spark gap, plasma in a plasma ball. Of course what they MEANT by this strawman is that nobody can see Electrons, the thing they claim electricity is made of. Herein you have your answer, yeah I don’t believe immediately in thee story of the things I can’t see, especially when the evidence amounts to”trust me bro”, or rather “I have a PhD and crippling debt to a slave system so will just spout off this fanciful opinion with authority and get shirty if you ask any questions”

So where does this all go, the atoms and electrons and shit? “We have images!” they proclaim, they have done it with the most sophisticated technology know to man to be able to see the building blocks of life. Well, not quite. We have showed that Atomic Force Microscopy can give particularly shit, low resolution images of things that we know already exist when it “touches” them with a vibrating or scraping gramophone needle. But the things outside of the visible light spectrum, the hypothesized things like atoms, the political propagandized things like “viruses”, well those things they can create only indistinct pixelated blobs that seem to look like they represent basic mathematical equations.

It is all computer modelling, tweaking parameters with mathematical values until they get a vague pattern that they dreamt up in the first place, a giant, extremely expensive Etch-a-sketch where the sample has literally fuckall to do with the end image…… largely, in fact not largely, in totality because the Gramophone needle for this level of “sight” IS NOT EVEN TOUCHING THE THING IT IS MEANT TO BE “SEEING”. The absolute absurdity of the claim that you can see something by waving a needle above it furiously is the most spasticated anti-reality thing this side of the Dark Ages.

To think that the halls of Science agree that a gramophone needle furiously fucking a liquid can draw the solid molecules they claim are in a liquid is a premise I really never thought I’d have to try and rationalize. Honestly, when approaching Science holistically I thought that it was just Virology that was highly politicized to the point where it was all just inventive story telling. What has astounded me is that not only is this common place in every area of Biology, not only is it seemingly everywhere I start to scratch with Chemistry but it seems to be even worse in Chemistry. Where they have physical things in Biology they just have nothing, not even that they have nothing but they go as far as to try and convince you that your entire senses are wrong, like a liquid has little tiny solid components that can be drawn.

Really this is all a humiliation ritual. If they can convince you that they can make a picture by blindfolding themselves and waggling a stick over something, If they can convince you they can draw a picture of a liquid by stabbing a stick in it they literally have you by the balls. It is a humiliation ritual used by the controllers to make the lie too big to fail, the people who have fallen for it immediately turn to Lizard Brain and attack, because it is too uncomfortable to admit you have been conned, that your PhD, your job, your livelihood the decades you have been on the planet is a lie. Why the man down the pub holds onto these things, well I guess that is Hollywood, but I believe this is the battleground which is actually not a hard fight to win//