Orgonomy & Viruses


1 - Bions





2- Actual Virus Photographs



3- Rife Microscope – Bacteria with Internal Viruses


Thankyou to


What is suggested by non-mainstream microbiology and how does it impact the present situation?

Mainstream biology believes that:

A) Viruses are dead – but they are biological particles, they multiply and they travel between cells. They may have essential roles in biological communication.

B) A Virus can never evolve into bacteria or vice versa. This is called Monomorphism (one shape) – but is this really proven, where is the evidence?

C) Living things are generally considered to be relatively large in microbiological terms by mainstream science. Definition of living things is quite narrow and depends on first being a cell and then having DNA. Viruses are considered non-living despite mostly having an outer case/protein membrane and having DNA. It is not proven that viruses do not behave in living ways as mainstream science only observes viruses artificially prepared via electron microscopes (you can see most viruses live using light microscopy – one might lost a little detail compared to electron microscopes but they can still be observed).

D) Non-living things NEVER change into living things except at some special event never seen according to mainstream views (no creativity from non-life - all cells from cells/all life from life – known as biogenesis).

E) Levels of biological organisation: organism/organ/cell (excludes virus sized entities and entities between cells and viruses). All life is dependent on a non-living code called DNA.


Non-mainstream biology argues that:

A) The question is open whether viruses are alive or not

B) Viruses can evolve into bacteria and devolve back again into viral sized particles (virus to bacteria, bacteria to virus). There is also sideways micro-evolution of one level of form into another (bacteria to bacteria or cell to cell). This is called Pleomorphism (many shapes).

C) Living things can go from the absolutely tiny to the large in microbiological terms. Definition of living broad and funcrtional and not dependent on being cell-sized or on having DNA.

D) Under the right circumstances non-living things can transform into living things (life from non-life abiogenesis – or mockingly termed ‘spontaneous generation’ by mainstream biology).

E) Levels of biological organisations: animal/plant/organ/cell/pre-cellular entities (which may include virus sized entities). Not dependent on DNA. Views DNA as having wider functions than just coding, could be a communication or crystalline radio. Genetics could be much broader.


Some of the main researchers in non-mainstream microbiology are:

Wilhelm Reich

Royal Rife

Antoine Bechamp


Here are some of the names for the entities they claimed:


Sapa Bion – bacteria sized, pre-cell membranous entity of moving plasma – Reich

T-Baccili – tiny, 'death bion' virus-sized – Reich.

Microzyma – small pre-cellular entity, both creative and destructive – Bechamp.

BX Virus - death virus – Rife.


Similar entities to Reich’s Sapa Bions have been termed:


Cell Wall Deficient Forms - Dr Eleanor Jackson.


Other terms have been Proteinoid Microspheres, Somatids, Parotids and Jeewanu.

Some mainstream biologists even found a pre-cellular protein sphere and accidentally named it the ‘bion’ not realising about Reich’s prior work. Other notables in this area are doctors, Bonghan Kim, Gaston Naessens and Gunther Enderlein.



Microbiology sizes can be very confusing. In the old days the term micron was used, this term is semi-obsolete now but it means a micrometer which is abbreviated µm. This is a thousandth of a millimetre. One can just about visualise a micrometer (µm).. A spider’s web might be a couple of µm’s wide, a hairbreadth maybe 20 µm. The next level down is a nanometre (nm) which is easily understood as a thousandth of micrometre. One nanometre might be only a couple of atoms across in terms of real world sizes. It makes it especially difficult as writers bandy about different terms and use inappropriate scales and meaningless comparisons (who can visualise a millionth?). One wouldn’t describe a walk to the local shop in inches so why is it okay in microbiology? So it’s simple: a millimetre (mm), which one can see on a ruler, has a split into a thousand, and these are then micrometres (µm). We can measure most microbiological things in this range (cells, bacteria, even medium to large viruses are a good proportion of a micrometer). Viruses vary a lot in size but most might be a quarter to a half of a micrometre. Large viruses can even be a whole micrometer wide. If we want to go down even further to small viruses and proteins and even to atoms then we go down a thousand fold again to nanometres (nm). An atom might be half a nanometre whereas a very small virus might be 20 nm across.


Comparative Chart 







Sand Bion

2 to 10 µm

Saw them with high end light microscopy called them Sapa Bions – large, blue glowing –the radiation led to discovery of orgone energy



Has occasionally rediscovered bions but mislabels them as non-alive protein spheres. Doesn’t realise they can be created from non-life.

T-Baccili/BX Virus/


0.2 to 0.5 µg (200 to 500 nm)

Always found in disease and cancer. Sapa bions can devolve into them. All bacteria and cells can devolve into them (and reverse too).

Black tiny rods, motile. Cause illness when injected. Internally produced.

The BX Virus is less than 0.1 of a micrometre (µg ). (Or under a 100 nanometres - nm). In the same range as Reich’s T-Bacilli. Red/purple rods. Always found in cancer. Causes disease on injection. Internally produced.

Discovered microzymas, similar to Reich’s bions. They were both upwards and downwards evolution of microzymas into and from other forms of mcirobiology.

Has found similar forms but cannot see the evolution because it uses low end light magnifications live. Bacteria are seen from 400 to 1000x magnification. A bacteria is about 1 to 10 µg long.



Used live light microscopy of living samples at resolutions up to 5200x. Worked at 2000x minimum though often at 3 to 4000x

Developed the first UV microscopy, used living samples up to resolutions of 20,000x – not viewable at light microscopy.

Used live light microscopy at high resolutions, the microzymas were up to 0.5µg or 500nm

Uses light microscopy only up to about 1000x normally, is dismissive of light microscopy at its upper end (2000 to 3000 or anything above 1000x,) Reich claimed to be able to get to well above 3000x. The mainstream prefers electron microscopy which cannot reveal actual real time life processes only dead and stained objects. Has begun to develop UV lvie microscopy now which can look at real processes at high magnifications.



Used bionous disintegration (breaking down matter through heat and water) to create bions.

Used bionous processes

Used bionous processes

Has not examined bionous processes.


Comparatively, 8 medium sized viruses would be about the size of a SAPA bion. A Sapa bion is perhaps similar to a small bacteria in size. Bacteria are put at varying sizes between 1 to 10 micrometres. The T-Baccili, BX Virus and Microzymas are more toward the small end similar to the T-Baccili bions or small to medium sized viruses.

Terrain Versus Germ Theory

Bechamp had opposite views on health and illness to Pasteur, who borrowed much of Bechamp’s work as his own. From Bechamp, Reich, Rife and others we have a ‘Terrain Theory’ which emphasise the role of the body and the internal. No pathogenic virus can multiply to dangerous levels if the body is healthy. We have pathogenic bacteria and viruses all the time just they are at levels which do not cause disease. Various researchers have confirmed this view. This is terrain theory and is about balance. The opposite is germ theory which is an invaders and defenders, warfare type of view. We get ill when we are invaded by bad things such as viruses and bacteria. It is noted however that there is some movement toward terrain theory in mainstream biology with the idea of the biosome and the virosome – communities of bacteria and viruses that enable health and communication within the body.

Exosome Versus Viral Theory

There is the exosome theory of doctors like Kaufman and others. They say that viruses have been misconstrued as causative when they just reflect disease processes. The so called novel coronavirus they say is very similar to a particular exosome created by cells in response to difficult conditions in an emergency healing response. This is similar to Reich’s view of cancerous processes. Reich saw the tumour as the end product of a long process of energetic and physical disintegration. The tumour is a reaction against the T-Baccilli associated disintegration of the body’s cells. The tumour is a reaction in Reich’s cancer biopathy just as apparent viruses are a reaction in exosome theory.

Questionable history of virology

Peter Duesberg’s book ‘Inventing the AIDS Virus’ is eye opening. He was one of the top virologists in the world. He went ‘rogue’ over the HIV myth. Many of the characters who are behind the way Coronavirus crisis has been handled cut their teeth with the HIV crisis in the 1980s. For example, Dr Fauci.

Even going back to the very origins of virus theory, which Duesberg does in entertaining depth, one is still left wondering, have any viral diseases been properly tied to a particular virus? In the beginning of virology, viruses were known as filterable agents. Something was causing disease in tobacco plants but this something, when transferred via a liquid was smaller than bacteria because it could be passed through a fine filter and still cause illness in another plant. Virology was lauded with great success due to polio treatment but many became ill and injured from polio vaccines and there are some who debate the claims of wonder cures. Since polio, virology has had no great success despite being overfunded.

Certainly HIV completely fails to demonstrate itself as an infectious agent, failing all four of Koch’s postulates. Virology itself shows itself to be a very base and twisted science that seems to be interested in one thing only – power.

Even the father of virology, Koch, didn’t always stick to his own four postulates, though they have served microbiology well as the basics for identifying an infectious virus for nearly a century. Virology claimed a great success with polio, the last major infectious disease of Western societies, but the real reason for the decline in infectious disease in the West is not vaccines but the environment – infectious diseases have plummeted since the beginning of the 20th century, decades before mass vaccination. The bell curve of public health was without doubt firmly in place by 1890 to 1940 – just when widespread public health measures were first taken. But that is all just a coincidence despite being glaringly obvious to anyone with the least common sense.

Virology was a science without a purpose - the western world was devoid of real plagues, diseases which quickly wipe out large segments of the population. So virology gave up on infectious diseases and tried to find a virus solution to cancer but completely failed despite prodigious amounts of money. Then what is known as a passenger virus (a virus that does no harm, like the majority of viruses), or simply a protein particle, got renamed as the cause of AIDS against all scientific evidence and against all common sense. Thousands of gay men died horrible deaths from failed toxic chemo drugs such as AZT. In the 2000's Foot and mouth led to the needless slaughter of thousands of healthy animals in the UK based on dubious virus tests and models from the same people who gave us the corona hysteria – University College of London. Even the same professor, who never ever gets a model right, was once again trusted with national power. The more you fail the more you are trusted in computer modelling and virology. After all this history of failure, virology then generously gives us the tools for the corona pandemic itself - a genetic test specifically argued by its creator to be not suited for diagnosing viral infections, an actual virus that has not been fully isolated (genetic testing and electron photographs not withstanding) and mass hysteria computer models. All this to be followed by mass surveillance and possibly compulsory vaccinations contsaining God only knows what – probably yearly. Virology has served well, it appears.

So where does this leave orgonomy?

There are a number of unanswered questions:

1) Are viruses really dead?

I don’t think so. My feeling is that they are alive. The T-Baccili, BX Virus and Microzymas were not dead in the view of Reich, Rife and Bechamp respectively. Reich’s bions range in size from viruses to bacteria and also are not dead, but show pulsation and multiplication. What more is needed to be alive from an orgonomic point of view? If viruses are living then they may be able to evolve upwards into bacteria - which bring us to the next question. From an orgonomic point of view, live microscopy would likely be the way forward for answering whether viruses are alive. Reich always observed natural processes, as they are, not as we process them. If something moves, pulsates and multiplies insitu they are likely living. To say something is only alive if it has this or that mechanical factor (for example possessing DNA) is an artificial way of defining life.

2) Do viruses have a life cycle? Could they be exosomes at one stage and infectious agents at another stage?

3) How do bions and viruses relate?

4) Could some viruses even bions that ahvae DNA?

5) How would orgonomy class a virus particle or virion? How would it study them?

Orgonomy is clear that there is much missing from current microbiology. Current views have no understanding of the life cycle of bacteria and smaller entities. It doesn’t understand that there is a crossover stage between the non-living and the living (bionous creation). It misses two whole classes of biological entities, first between cells and bacteria (SAPA bions) and secondly between bions/pre-cells and viruses (T-Baccili, BX Virus, Microzymas etc). A huge chunk of microbiological processes are currently opaque to mainstream science. However orgonomy in turn does not appear to be questioning what viruses are or how they might relate to bions. If we understood that then our understanding of virology could be much improved. Perhaps pathogenic viruses can be evolved upwards or downwards so that they become harmless.

6) Is the T-Baccili a virus? If so them orgonomy has already observed virus to bacterial transformations.

7) Could the SAPA bion be classed as a life and matter creative bacteria?

8) Do SAPA bions, T-Baccili and other bions contain or create DNA or have other genetic properties?

9) What happens if DNA is put into a bion? Does it then become a bacteria or virus? Can bions be engineered?

This last possibility could explain why bacteriophages look decidedly machine-like (see Figure 2 A).


Extended Appendix - A Potted History of Virology

The discovery of viruses started with plants and tobacco mosaic disease in the 19th century. Researchers suspected something very small because by filtering and transferring particulate from one plant to another they could transfer the disease of the tobacco plant. The filters were set too small for bacteria. Infectious filterable fluids - this was the definition of a virus in the 1890s as first found by the Russian Iwanowski in 1892. Other 'filterable viruses' were later discovered but it wasn't until 1935 and the American chemist Wendell Stanley, that the next step was taken. He managed to crystallise the viral solution and found that the fluids were still infectious even as a crystal, thus showing that the viral solution likely was not alive. A filterable virus liquid was found for polio in 1908. Polio being the last true pandemic since modern environments banished most infectious diseases. It was very hard to culture viruses and it wasn't until 1948 when John Enders accidentally discovered they could be grown in the highly energetic placental tissue outside the body.

Edward Jenner in the 1700s injected cowpox pus into people to protect against smallpox - the first vaccination (though the Chinese also did it even earlier actually). The first artificially grown virus samples (using monkeys) were used in 1935 but caused polio in children. Jonas Salk conducted the first field test of 400,000 viral vaccines for polio in 1954. However 200 people got vaccine induced polio and 11 people died.

Many viruses do nothing virulent - they were called 'orphan viruses' because they have no 'parent' disease but continue to live quietly) in small numbers. Today viruses are being queried to have much wider communication roles and the term 'virome' has been proposed, like biome for positive bacteria.

Much of our genetic structure is thought to have viral origins. Viruses have a set replication time with a maximum of about 1000 viruses per cell, so to take over the body they have to replicate quickly. This means viral diseases tend to have specific latency and then active phases of illness. To create illness there has to be a lot of virus in the system, the viral load. Antibody and genetic testing of coronavirus does not indicate the viral load. Those types of tests cannot tell you if you have enough virus to cause illness. Pathogenic viruses are often in the body without problem in snail numbers.

in the early days of virus study, the concept of a 'slow' or 'hidden' viruses was proposed. But as a virus generally acts quickly for a virus to be reactivated and then to do damage the immune system needs first to be weakened.

Gajdusek in 1950s thought of the slow or latent virus theory studying the New Guinea brain disease, Kuru. This disease had been attributed to claimed cannibalism of tribes people eating deceased brains. Gajdusek managed to create a Kuru like disease in monkeys through injecting brain matter into other monkeys brains but never isolated or proved the existence of a slow or latent virus. Nevertheless slow viruses were claimed for Multiple Scelorosis by a coronavirus researcher in the 1960s and for various other diseases since, all without much evidence. The theory never held up.

In the early 1980s the search for a 'slow' virus for Hepatitus C, a disease that is restricted to certain groups of immune compromised people, was underway with massive funding. However the slow virus was elusive, lifestyle and environmental factors were perhaps important. But genetic markers instead were hunted as signposts to the mysterious virus assumed to be the cause of the disease. RNA tests were used to indicate the prescence of a virus otherwise not found. Retrovirus means a virus that doesn't kill its host cell like some viruses can do but hides in the cells genetic structure by inserting its own RNA information into the cell's DNA using a 'reverser' enzyme (usually DNA goes to RNA). This type of RNA testing is now also being used to test for the novel coronavirus thought to be the cause of the COVID disease.

The first mass-produced artificial vaccine, polio in the 1950s, was partly grown on monkey tissues. Viral research generally was struggling to find its holy grail, a virus that caused cancers in humans, as yet only viruses that caused rare cancers in weakened animals had been found. But simian strain 40, accidentally found as a contaminate in the new polio vaccine, did cause cancer, though it was hard to trace the numbers of cancers caused by the vaccination. The widely used polio vaccine created awareness of a lot of 'orphan' viruses - viruses with no known disease. The well funded viral research community felt it was only a matter of time before these viruses would explain all cancers. However viruses and cancer were at odds as processes. Viruses act quickly and kill host cells whereas in cancer you have slow-acting long-lived cells but which are degenerated or changed. Plus cancer doesn't behave as an infection epidemiologically (the way it spreads in a population).

Normally double stranded DNA transcripts itself into protein via single stranded RNA. Apparently some of the slow or hidden viruses instead of multiplying and killing cells like viruses normally do, use an enzyme, reverse transcriptase, to do the genetic process backwards. They take their RNA, change it into DNA in the cell and thus hide their information. After which the virus itself goes into hiding. Thus 'retro'.

1971 saw President Nixon declare the War on Cancer but by 1980 despite multiple billions of funding dollars most viral cancer hypotheses had failed. Retroviruses were not a good cause of cancer scientifically speaking.

The first swine flu epidemic was announced in 1976 by an officer of the EIS a US infectious disease monitoring system, nicknamed the medical CIA. This swine flu epidemic was based on a cluster of just 5 patients.

One of the 5, a soldier had died after ignoring medical advice not to exert himself. David Spencer the CDC head (Centres for Disease Control) was expecting a pandemic on the scale of 1918. It never materialised. Still President Ford called for the vaccination of 'every man, woman and child'. However, insurance companies wouldn't cover the risk because of the high rate of reactions (20%-40%) and rates of fevers (1%+)in the early test subjects, despite getting the go ahead and funding from Congress. The swine flu epidemic never happened but the treatment for it, a new vaccination got rolled out on the back of an unrelated cluster of illness attributed to legionnaires disease. 600 people became paralysed and 74 people died in reactions to the vaccination though. Anthony Fauci, now famous for his involvement with corona became involved with this in 1983.

The viral research community was a well-paid, veritable army of technicians and researchers but who lacked an enemy. The viral cancer enemy never materialised, a new infectious plague never happened and flu came and went each year whether or not people had flu vaccines. But then in the 1980s the large infectious monitoring bureaucracy in the US noticed a cluster of Kaposes sarcoma and various rare pneumonias. These diseases were showing up in a small group of immunocompromised young men. They were taking nitrate drugs (poppers) and had hundreds of partners and thus were not in good health. Instead of looking at the blatently obvious environmental or lifestyle factors an infectious retroviruse was solely blamed. The normal scientific process, itself often dodgy at the best of times, was entirely circumvented by the US authorities and the scientist Gallo, partly in an attempt to beat the original French researchers (led by Montaigner) raced to the lucrative prize of the patent for the genetic testing for a new retrovirus. Long story short, it was not proved or even likely that the immune disease, later termed AIDS, was caused by a novel virus but in the rush for prominence science was pushed aside. AIDS was declared to be caused by a type of virus that had been studied for years but had failed to be the cause of anything. An RNA test that doesn't even detect the suspect virus directly was marketed. A hyper-toxic failed chemo drug, AZT, which itself causes AIDS in high doses, was given to homosexuals who then died by the thousands in horrible deaths.

Roll on to 2020 and we have the same type of test that was also used in the Foot and Mouth mass killing debacle of UK animals now being used to find a virus that again has not been adaquetely isolated.

The current situation is that we had, at first, a small number of unusual pneumonias in Wuhan that were assumed to be viral caused but were not proven to be. The authorities there did genetic testing but did not follow the scientific laws of viral isolation and proof of causation (called Koch's postulates, though even Koch didn't always follow them but now they've been pretty much abandoned).

To prove a virus causes an illness, according to Koch, the father of virology, one must first:

Isolate the virus physically from the patient (where it is growing in sufficient numbers to cause illness - known as viral load)

Photograph it

Grow the virus in a petri dish

Re-infect another organism with that causative agent.

Lastly everyone who has the illness must have the causative agent.

Most infectious viruses do not meet this criteria fully. It is unclear whether novel coronavirus meets these criteria even partly.

When studies talk about isolating the new coronavirus it appears they are mostly talking about the genetic sequences they have found. When they talk of the actual virus, even when they have done electron microscopy, the sample has been stained, fixed, treated with chemicals, set in plastic, sliced into micro sections, sprayed with fixative and various coatings before even making it to the electron microscope in the first place. What artefacts does all that create?

I'd want to see more evidence. Light microscopes can see at levels of magnification that visualise most viruses in sufficient detail - but the mainstream mostly refuses to look at living samples much above 1000x - because there isn't sufficient detail. Its like saying I won't look at the moon because my telescope can't see indiviidual rocks. Half a century after the pioneers - see Reich's bion work at 2000 - 5200x and Rife's UV microscopy at up to 20,000x, we still fail to look at viruses in living samples. That is now beginning to change at the edges with modern UV microscopy beginning to be explored.

Lastly, I'd also want to see too that the virus was physically existing in huge numbers in covid patients (not genetic evidence but physical) and also that that specific virus then causes covid when injected into another organism. Genetic studies alone personally do not seem adequate as proof of viral causation of covid. Especially when the whole world is turned upside down on the back of a single virus. I'm not saying there isn't an infectious agent causing or partly causing Covid disease, just that the work has not been done fully.

So that was the basic history of virus research as far as I can make it out at the moment....