Ladislaus, I checked this article and I understand that bishop Williamson is sometimes rash, writing and speaking many controversial themes that often doesn't have connection (at least not directly) to his state of life, as a traditional Catholic bishop.

This doctor who is skeptic and disproves it as a miracles is an atheist, who thinks that the Novus Ordo or Conciliar Mass is Catholic Mass, etc.

He and some other doctor may be right, that it's some kind of bacteria that occurs with passage of time in damp, public spaces. He and a few other atheistic doctors concluded that this probably happened in some other centuries old Eucharistic Miracles because microscope didn't exit.
But I could also say he too is biased like his colleague, who is a Catholic, at least Novus Ordo Catholic. 

The hard truth that WE ALL are biased and have reasons to approve and believe or dispute and a priori conclude that is not possible, so it must be satanic fake miracle.

Both of those statements and mindsets could be dangerous for the faith. This is still matter of personal opinion and subjective, and bishop Williamson should know better that is one of the main characteristics of the (neo)modernism. I didn't know that there hasn't been genetical and some other detailed tests done. 

He is also wrong on Garabandal and Maria Valtorta, I don't believe every word he says or writes. But he said he went to Poland, talked with doctors and that priest. Why would he give support to Novus Ordo mass by endorsing "Eucharistic Miracles" that allegedly happened in this type of mass or service?
It goes against archbishop Lefevbre and his fight for Tradition in the Catholic Church.

It doesn't make any sense, unless he is brave enough to search for the truth against all odds, no matter where the truth leads him. 



We should be cautious of course, but Devil can't fake true miracle from God. Maybe that wasn't human flesh and blood after all. 

The hard truth that WE ALL are biased and have reasons to approve and believe or dispute and a priori conclude that is not possible, so it must be satanic fake miracle.

Absurd.  Church's attitude toward alleged miracles, visions, apparitions has always been the default of extreme skepticism, so that in rashly approving something the Church isn't subjected to ridicule, and the first criterion for evaluating such claims has always been to determine whether there are any doctrinal problems with the phenomena, since the Church knows that the devil can and often does simulate such things to mislead the faithful.  So the burden of proof is on those of you who claim that these miracles are legitimate, and actually it's not a burden you can carry, since only the Church is competent to determine their veracity.  So, basically, they're fake until proven otherwise to the satisfaction of the Church.  Period.  We don't make ridiculous theological conclusions from these phenomena, such as your and Bishop Williamson's "therefore, the New Mass must be valid."  That's ludicrous.  You judge whether or not the New Mass may or may not be valid by applying theological criteria ... and pay no attention to these miracles, because people like you (and evidently) Bishop Williamson are easily duped by such things.  This is no bias, but it's the default attitude of the Church, that we disregard such things until such a time as the Church determines them to be true.  And, even then, if the Church approves a miracle, the faithful are still not strictly obliged to believe in them, since such judgments are not infallible.

Nor does the approval of the Conciliar Church count for anything, as their credibility is zero.  In fact, often when the Conciliar Church approves of something, it's precisely because it fits with the non-Catholic Conciliar agenda, such as approving the "miracles" used to canonize the scoundrels Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla ... or the entire host of fake "saints" promoted by the Novus Ordo establishment.

Catholics are to carry on as if these miracles are fake, and that is not a "bias" but the mind of the Church.

We should be cautious of course, but Devil can't fake true miracle from God. Maybe that wasn't human flesh and blood after all.

What does this even mean?  You're begging the question that these are "true miracles from God".  What we have here is a PHENOMENON that can easily be faked, and that's precisely the question under discussion whether they are in fact "true miracles of God".  You can't use circular reasoning where you assume that they're true miracles from God to prove that they're true miracles from God.  Even if it WAS "human flesh and blood", the devil can fake that as well.  It would be a piece of cake for the devil to swap out a bit of bread with a bit of human flesh and blood.