There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. Bacteriophages, rather than being spherical, like human viruses, are robust and have a shape and function that leaves no doubt that they are targeting "machines" of some sort, created by "sick" bacteria, designed to transfer specific codes to other bacteria (which is really the definition of a virus). I myself have done infection experiments with bacteriophages. No one seems to protest those, so why the protest on human viruses?

It could even be that we have done similar tests in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often" and the reason I couldn't find any is because the signal to noise ratio is just too high) is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick (or infectious, or even potentially sick or infectious).

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. Bacteriophages, rather than being spherical, like human viruses, are robust and have a shape and function that leaves no doubt that they are targeting "machines" of some sort, created by "sick" bacteria, designed to transfer specific codes to other bacteria (which is really the definition of a virus). I myself have done infection experiments with bacteriophages. No one seems to protest those, so why the protest on human viruses?

It could even be that we have done similar tests in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often" and the reason I couldn't find any is because the signal to noise ratio is just too high) is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick (or infectious, or even potentially sick or infectious).

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. Bacteriophages, rather than being spherical, like human viruses, are robust and have a shape and function that leaves no doubt that they are targeting "machines" of some sort, created by "sick" bacteria, designed to transfer specific codes to other bacteria (which is really the definition of a virus). I myself have done infection experiments with bacteriophages. No one seems to protest those, so why the protest on human viruses?

It could even be that we have done similar tests in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often" and the reason I couldn't find any is because the signal to noise ratio is just too high) is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick (or infectious, or even potentially sick or infectious).

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. Bacteriophages, rather than being spherical, like human viruses, are robust and have a shape and function that leaves no doubt that they are targeting "machines" of some sort, created by "sick" bacteria, designed to transfer specific codes to other bacteria (which is really the definition of a virus). I myself have done infection experiments with bacteriophages. No one seems to protest those, so why the protest on human viruses?

It could even be that we have done similar tests in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often" and the reason I couldn't find any is because the signal to noise ratio is just too high) is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick.

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. Bacteriophages, rather than being spherical, like human viruses, are robust and have a shape and function that leaves no doubt that they are targeting "machines" of some sort, created by "sick" bacteria, designed to transfer specific codes to other bacteria (which is really the definition of a virus). I myself have done infection experiments with bacteriophages. No one seems to protest those, so why the protest on human viruses?

It could even be that we have done so in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often") is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick.

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. Bacteriophages, rather than being spherical, like human viruses, are robust and have a shape and function that leaves no doubt that they are targeting "machines" of some sort. I myself have done infection experiments with bacteriophages. No one seems to protest those, so why the protest on human viruses?

It could even be that we have done so in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often") is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick.

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. I myself have done such isolation experiments with bacteriophages.

It could even be that we have done so in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often") is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick.

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. I myself have done such isolation experiments with bacteriophages.

It could even be that we have done so in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often") is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is there. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick.

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. I myself have done such isolation experiments with bacteriophages.

It could even be that we have done so in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is there. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick.

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.

There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.

This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.

The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.

No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.

The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. I myself have done such isolation experiments with bacteriophages.

It could even be that we have done so in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are extremely difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).

As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is there. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding something there doesn't make you sick.

With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.