"Over a year ago, I proposed (insisted on) a procedure to prove SARS-COV-2 exists.
This procedure is essential—and needless to say, it hasn’t been done, and will never be done.
Why? Because the outcome could completely and utterly destroy the COVID narrative.
Here is the procedure: You line up 500 people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, and you take tissue samples from them.
You properly process these samples, through centrifuging, etc., in order to extract and arrive at what you believe is the virus.
You put that material under an electron microscope and photograph it.
You then place the 500 photos from the 500 “pandemic patients” side by side.
You ask yourself three burning questions.
One: In each and every photo, are there many identical viruses?
Two: Are these viruses in every one of the 500 photos?
Three: Is the virus one you’ve never seen before?
If the answer to question one and two is yes, you appear to have found a common virus for the 500 patients. If the answer to three is yes, it’s a virus never seen before.
If the answer to either question one or two is no, you’ve failed to find the common virus you’re looking for. You’ve failed to prove a viral cause for what you’re calling COVID-19.
If you see many identical virus particles in some, but not all, of the photos, you may or may not have found a virus. To decide that issue, you need three conditions: the researchers are honest and independent; a new team of such researchers will repeat the whole procedure, from the beginning, to see whether their findings match those of the original team; and you need truly qualified experts to determine whether the particles in the electron microscope photos are actually viruses or something else.
Note: This is why one or two photos from a study mean NOTHING.
All right. Moving on, there are other factors involved in the process of discovering a virus. These factors are ISOLATION and GENETIC SEQUENCING.
They’re both covered in a Statement on Virus Isolation, authored and published by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell."
I love the things you post and upvote you just about every day. If you look at my history you can see I'm one of the good guys.
But I have to say, you haven't done your homework on the science here. What you say sounds plausible on the surface but is clearly wrong to anyone who has actually studied it. I have master's in Bio and took a grad level course in immunology. Maybe you should take my word for it. If you want to speak from knowledge, there are many places on line that are not political that can help, but it will take time. Given the excellent work you do here, that may or may not be a good use of your time.
Yeah, biology isn't my specialty. Philosophy and Religious studies are where my diplomas rest. I have no problem taking your word for it. After all, this angle was just one of the horns on the bull. Option #2 is still a viable option in my book.
Thanks for engaging me. I'm actually glad you did, this way I could "test" the material I am reading.
If you had a purified sample how would you know it wasn't just salt?
They do this with very small samples. That's how they know what they have.
"Over a year ago, I proposed (insisted on) a procedure to prove SARS-COV-2 exists.
This procedure is essential—and needless to say, it hasn’t been done, and will never be done.
Why? Because the outcome could completely and utterly destroy the COVID narrative.
Here is the procedure: You line up 500 people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, and you take tissue samples from them.
You properly process these samples, through centrifuging, etc., in order to extract and arrive at what you believe is the virus.
You put that material under an electron microscope and photograph it.
You then place the 500 photos from the 500 “pandemic patients” side by side.
You ask yourself three burning questions.
One: In each and every photo, are there many identical viruses?
Two: Are these viruses in every one of the 500 photos?
Three: Is the virus one you’ve never seen before?
If the answer to question one and two is yes, you appear to have found a common virus for the 500 patients. If the answer to three is yes, it’s a virus never seen before.
If the answer to either question one or two is no, you’ve failed to find the common virus you’re looking for. You’ve failed to prove a viral cause for what you’re calling COVID-19.
If you see many identical virus particles in some, but not all, of the photos, you may or may not have found a virus. To decide that issue, you need three conditions: the researchers are honest and independent; a new team of such researchers will repeat the whole procedure, from the beginning, to see whether their findings match those of the original team; and you need truly qualified experts to determine whether the particles in the electron microscope photos are actually viruses or something else.
Note: This is why one or two photos from a study mean NOTHING.
All right. Moving on, there are other factors involved in the process of discovering a virus. These factors are ISOLATION and GENETIC SEQUENCING.
They’re both covered in a Statement on Virus Isolation, authored and published by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell."
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/09/20/the-failure-to-prove-the-virus-exists/
I love the things you post and upvote you just about every day. If you look at my history you can see I'm one of the good guys.
But I have to say, you haven't done your homework on the science here. What you say sounds plausible on the surface but is clearly wrong to anyone who has actually studied it. I have master's in Bio and took a grad level course in immunology. Maybe you should take my word for it. If you want to speak from knowledge, there are many places on line that are not political that can help, but it will take time. Given the excellent work you do here, that may or may not be a good use of your time.
I appreciate the upvotes! And the courtesy!
Yeah, biology isn't my specialty. Philosophy and Religious studies are where my diplomas rest. I have no problem taking your word for it. After all, this angle was just one of the horns on the bull. Option #2 is still a viable option in my book.
Thanks for engaging me. I'm actually glad you did, this way I could "test" the material I am reading.
This is how I learn.
As Iron sharpens iron, my fren. Cheers!
: )