Correct. And explaining why that's not proof that viruses don't exist, and explaining the proof that viruses do exist, and explaining why isolation was a barrier to understanding due to insufficient tools, and why isolation was an arbitrary limitation in the first place. The lack of isolation is not a good argument for tossing out scientifically advancement and possible cures for disease.
A virus is a thing and can be separated from everything that is different from it.
Yes, but not with our current technology. Just because we cannot do it today does not mean that viruses do not exist.
Current methodology is fucking ridiculous
On that we 100% agree.
Why use such contaminated supernatant?
To create poison. Why else?
It's genetic code has been manufactured, not isolated.
Fair enough, it has not been isolated. But, it was neither manufactured. Statistical analysis is not voodoo. Sequencing a clump of many viruses and figuring out their DNA from that is not a wholly invalid approach to overcoming the inability to isolate a single virus' DNA.
At best they've identified a few primer sequences of around 18 base pairs
The odds of those matches being coincidental are vanishingly small. I understand that there is still some possibility that they are wrong, but it is a repeatable process that nets the same results reliably.
We absolutely have the technology and ability to do a much better isolation, but we don't. Why do you think that is?
I was under the impression we do not. If that is true, same reason as above, to create poison.
requesting records of Covid-19 isolated from a human, which has yielded zero results.
I would say that's because we do not have the technology to do so, thus the question is a trap.
How is it possible the CDC can issue policy yet not even possess a sample of the virus, according to the CDC itself?
Sample and isolate are different standards. But, the CDC are the enemy, they have no need to be consistent or honest. They can issue policy by the whim of their malice with no just reason whatsoever. That they do not have an isolated sample is immaterial, both to the real world actions they take and to the truth of whether or not viruses exist.
In order to claim something exists, you should be able to observe it as a unique entity.
Viruses have been observed as unique entities. We have many electron microscope photos of them. However it cannot be observed in real time with your own eyes.
Science claims viruses exist as definite things that can be isolated and studied.
They can be, and are, just not in the particular way you (and others) are arbitrarily saying they must be to be valid.
If we can engineer machines on a nano scale, I'm pretty sure we have the technology to study things on the scale of a supposed virus.
That's not a logical assumption. First of all, the smallest nano machines are about 10 times the size of the largest virus, and that's not a trivial difference. As well, its not like we have nano machines just roaming around performing technological miracles, they're basically still a completely undeveloped technology just beginning to emerge from theory. Second, you might be able to build nano scale structures with a completely controlled environment, but you cannot find viruses in controlled environments.
Again, without isolation you are assuming what you have in your soup are viruses.
No, you can see them, you know there are tiny little things there. You just can't see them clearly enough in real time, and control them precisely enough, to isolate a single one of them.
you have no idea where they came from
If you swab them from the mucous of a sick person you can be 99.99999999% sure they came from that sick person.
What you do have is the debris from the cellular breakdown caused by starvation and nephrotoxic drugs.
Scientitsts know what those compounds look like, and it is not a realistic expectation that they would mistake them for viral DNA.
evaluated using Koch's or River's
Koch's second postulate, that the organism must be isolated and grown in culture, is not possible with viruses, as they are too small to independently grow. Koch came up with that well before viruses were discovered.
Obviously, they are matching those of other viruses which were generated (not sequenced) the same way.
That's not a rational explanation. Gene sampling is pretty well established technology, used in many applications besides attempting to identify viruses, and it is well proven.
What I am suggesting is not that viruses are not a "thing", rather, that they may represent an entire class of "things" such as exosomes or pleomorphic bacterial phages, products of the cell in response to disease, as opposed to invaders that cause disease, as described by Bechamp.
But, viruses have been observed to do exactly what they are purported to do. They latch on to a cell, the cell bloats then dies and falls apart, and out spring many new copies of the virus. The mechanisms by which they do this, injecting RNA, has also been observed via genetic sequencing techniques finding genetic sequences that are not found in human DNA.
pleomorphic bacterial phages
That would be a virus specialized in infecting bacteria.
Not really. Calling it monomorphic is a straw man. Modern medicine knows very well that cells can change states, bacteria have life cycle driven and environment driven variations on their forms, and that there are many more things not yet understood than understood. I am only talking about what I see from the evidence I've seen, and it is just not explained well by your theory, in my opinion.
Bechamp's pleomorphic theory.
He was certainly way ahead of his time, but he did not have modern methods of observation to see if his hypothesis was correct. We now "know" that cell and bacteria organelles have their roots in smaller, simpler, more ancient organisms, bacteria being like trucks full of these organisms and eukaryotic cells like cities full of them. Perhaps some of these organelles are indeed virus sized. However, we can also separate and analyze the genetic sequences of the organelles, and in the case of mitochondria it is done very commonly. There is no mechanism for healthy cells to generate previously nonexistent DNA sequences and explode into piles of tiny vessels of this new DNA sequence, and even if there were it would not reliably generate the same DNA sequences in many people infectiously across the whole world, sequences that can be differentiated from other similar sequences and vastly different from the DNA of healthy human cells.
you believe in monomorphism, that all microorganisms (or microforms) are fixed species... that each pathological type produces (usually) only one specific disease... that blood and tissues are sterile under healthy conditions
That's quite a straw man. No, I do not believe that, nor does modern medicine. It is well known that diseases vary in effect from person to person, and that these viruses mutate constantly. The attempt to understand how and why it varies and how to still correctly diagnose such diseases is a big part of modern disease research. The purpose of identifying the exact cause of a particular disease is to be able to correctly cure it. Bechamp was as much a proponent of identifying the root cause as anyone, he just had a different theory about it.
I am considering the possibility of pleomorphism... that there are no specific diseases, but only specific disease conditions.
This is simply not supported by the evidence. Even in Bechamps time, bacteria were a known cause of disease. Heck, his theory was based on seeing organelles inside of bacteria. He did not have the benefit of DNA sequencing to figure out if he was correct or not. We do have that benefit today, and viral DNA species have distinct genetic codes compared to bacteria, and bacteria have many thousands of distinct species groups as well. Even if a bacteria could shrink to the size of a virus as part of its life cycle or as a reaction to its environment, it cannot alter its entire DNA chain into a completely unrelated code and remain functional. There's simply no mechanism for doing so. The genetic mechanism for a virus to be a virus, however, is well understood and apparent from evidence available.
may very well be endogenous repair mechanisms expressed when in the presence of a disease condition.
This actually explains the variance in disease symptoms and strength very poorly, since why would different people have identical reactions to completely different disease conditions?
Pleomorphic bacterial phages, what you call "viruses that attack other bacteria" may very well be proteins expressed by bacterial cells as a repair mechanism.
Well, no, bacteriophages kill bacteria, and more bacteriophages emerge from the corpse. Certainly, that is not the bacteria repairing itself.
Honestly, you are dismissing all evidence, straw manning me and modern science, and making a wild claim based on a 170 year old outdated theory. There is plenty wrong with modern medicine, it's almost all poison, but Bechamps pleomorphic theory is not the magical solution.
Correct. And explaining why that's not proof that viruses don't exist, and explaining the proof that viruses do exist, and explaining why isolation was a barrier to understanding due to insufficient tools, and why isolation was an arbitrary limitation in the first place. The lack of isolation is not a good argument for tossing out scientifically advancement and possible cures for disease.
Yes, but not with our current technology. Just because we cannot do it today does not mean that viruses do not exist.
On that we 100% agree.
To create poison. Why else?
Fair enough, it has not been isolated. But, it was neither manufactured. Statistical analysis is not voodoo. Sequencing a clump of many viruses and figuring out their DNA from that is not a wholly invalid approach to overcoming the inability to isolate a single virus' DNA.
The odds of those matches being coincidental are vanishingly small. I understand that there is still some possibility that they are wrong, but it is a repeatable process that nets the same results reliably.
I was under the impression we do not. If that is true, same reason as above, to create poison.
I would say that's because we do not have the technology to do so, thus the question is a trap.
Sample and isolate are different standards. But, the CDC are the enemy, they have no need to be consistent or honest. They can issue policy by the whim of their malice with no just reason whatsoever. That they do not have an isolated sample is immaterial, both to the real world actions they take and to the truth of whether or not viruses exist.
Viruses have been observed as unique entities. We have many electron microscope photos of them. However it cannot be observed in real time with your own eyes.
They can be, and are, just not in the particular way you (and others) are arbitrarily saying they must be to be valid.
That's not a logical assumption. First of all, the smallest nano machines are about 10 times the size of the largest virus, and that's not a trivial difference. As well, its not like we have nano machines just roaming around performing technological miracles, they're basically still a completely undeveloped technology just beginning to emerge from theory. Second, you might be able to build nano scale structures with a completely controlled environment, but you cannot find viruses in controlled environments.
No, you can see them, you know there are tiny little things there. You just can't see them clearly enough in real time, and control them precisely enough, to isolate a single one of them.
If you swab them from the mucous of a sick person you can be 99.99999999% sure they came from that sick person.
Scientitsts know what those compounds look like, and it is not a realistic expectation that they would mistake them for viral DNA.
Koch's second postulate, that the organism must be isolated and grown in culture, is not possible with viruses, as they are too small to independently grow. Koch came up with that well before viruses were discovered.
That's not a rational explanation. Gene sampling is pretty well established technology, used in many applications besides attempting to identify viruses, and it is well proven.
But, viruses have been observed to do exactly what they are purported to do. They latch on to a cell, the cell bloats then dies and falls apart, and out spring many new copies of the virus. The mechanisms by which they do this, injecting RNA, has also been observed via genetic sequencing techniques finding genetic sequences that are not found in human DNA.
That would be a virus specialized in infecting bacteria.
Not really. Calling it monomorphic is a straw man. Modern medicine knows very well that cells can change states, bacteria have life cycle driven and environment driven variations on their forms, and that there are many more things not yet understood than understood. I am only talking about what I see from the evidence I've seen, and it is just not explained well by your theory, in my opinion.
He was certainly way ahead of his time, but he did not have modern methods of observation to see if his hypothesis was correct. We now "know" that cell and bacteria organelles have their roots in smaller, simpler, more ancient organisms, bacteria being like trucks full of these organisms and eukaryotic cells like cities full of them. Perhaps some of these organelles are indeed virus sized. However, we can also separate and analyze the genetic sequences of the organelles, and in the case of mitochondria it is done very commonly. There is no mechanism for healthy cells to generate previously nonexistent DNA sequences and explode into piles of tiny vessels of this new DNA sequence, and even if there were it would not reliably generate the same DNA sequences in many people infectiously across the whole world, sequences that can be differentiated from other similar sequences and vastly different from the DNA of healthy human cells.
That's quite a straw man. No, I do not believe that, nor does modern medicine. It is well known that diseases vary in effect from person to person, and that these viruses mutate constantly. The attempt to understand how and why it varies and how to still correctly diagnose such diseases is a big part of modern disease research. The purpose of identifying the exact cause of a particular disease is to be able to correctly cure it. Bechamp was as much a proponent of identifying the root cause as anyone, he just had a different theory about it.
This is simply not supported by the evidence. Even in Bechamps time, bacteria were a known cause of disease. Heck, his theory was based on seeing organelles inside of bacteria. He did not have the benefit of DNA sequencing to figure out if he was correct or not. We do have that benefit today, and viral DNA species have distinct genetic codes compared to bacteria, and bacteria have many thousands of distinct species groups as well. Even if a bacteria could shrink to the size of a virus as part of its life cycle or as a reaction to its environment, it cannot alter its entire DNA chain into a completely unrelated code and remain functional. There's simply no mechanism for doing so. The genetic mechanism for a virus to be a virus, however, is well understood and apparent from evidence available.
This actually explains the variance in disease symptoms and strength very poorly, since why would different people have identical reactions to completely different disease conditions?
Well, no, bacteriophages kill bacteria, and more bacteriophages emerge from the corpse. Certainly, that is not the bacteria repairing itself.
Honestly, you are dismissing all evidence, straw manning me and modern science, and making a wild claim based on a 170 year old outdated theory. There is plenty wrong with modern medicine, it's almost all poison, but Bechamps pleomorphic theory is not the magical solution.