All the papers you linked that claim to isolate the virus, do exactly what Cowan explained in this video. They innoculate the sample with a bunch of other stuff, observe the cytopathic effect and claim they isolated the virus.

And the papers you linked that claim to sequence the virus, again do exactly what Cowan says they do. Break everything to pieces. Pick nucleotide strings, re-assemble it based on a template, and claim the genome has been sequenced.

Also everything you wrote actually agrees with what Cowan says as objective facts. Only your subjective belief that "this is how you isolate virus" is where you differ, and that is exactly what he says right in the beginning of the video.

I love this, because every time someone tries to debunk these theories, they end up bolstering it. This is how I started paying serious attention to these. Originally I had written it off as crap shit. So thanks for that (not you personally, but people such as yourself who had the same arguments with me a few months ago)

well, yes, that is how you isolate a virus.

Why ? Because a guy in 1954 did it that way after people spent 20 years looking for a virus in the electron microscope and failed?

It's like saying Walls in houses don't exist, show me any house where they've managed to put up walls without using screws or nails, you won't find it.

Thats an incorrect analogy. That would be correct if, say viruses came attached with some things that are required for their structural existence.

In your example, you are interested in walls, but they come attached to the house with screws. So in this example, isolating a virus is parallel to isolating the house.

If your point is that its impossible to isolate a virus for whatever reason, it does not matter what the reason is, then the answer is "With the current known techniques, we cannot isolate a virus, but we can infer its existence through indirect means" and at that point those indirect means becomes a subjective criteria. But the current science pretends that its an objective fact.

With Viruses you need to be able to keep the thing alive long enough to image it

From: https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-resource-center

_ infectious viral particles that can float or drift around in the air. Aerosols are emitted by a person infected with coronavirus — even one with no symptoms — when they talk, breathe, cough, or sneeze. Another person can breathe in these aerosols and become infected with the virus. Aerosolized coronavirus can remain in the air for up to three hours. A mask can help prevent that spread._

if they can stick around in the air for 3 hours without any nutrients, I am sue it can stick around for the time you are isolating it.

Notice the word sterilized, that means it is essentially pasteurized and the viruses that may exist inside are killed so they can mix it with infected fluids and isolate the virus.

This would have been a valid argument if Cowan claimed that cow milk contains viruses and are being detected. But thats not what he is saying. He is saying that what we are looking for are pieces of RNA, and even sterilised cow milk will contain the pieces of RNA belonging to the cells in the milk.

Claiming there are no viruses is the same ballpark as flat earth

This is a strawman argument.

Cowan never claimed viruses dont exist. He even talks about certain viruses in the ocean that have been isolated and observed under a microscope. His claim is that no one has proven that the entities claimed to be viruses are the entities that cause the diseases attributed to those viruses.

study them under the extremely high powered microscope to determine what virus they had so it could be treated

I am very interested in knowing what was the process you used to determine what virus the horses had. What exactly did you see on the slides? How did you determine what virus the horse had?

We've seen this copy-and-paste nonsense on GAW before.

I doubt you have read any of those papers, and do not understand any of it.

Explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS what Cowan's argument is.

THEN, we can talk about the fake links you provided.

And, here is isolated imagery of the virus: https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/albums/72157712914621487/with/49557785797/

Ohhh ... artist's drawings! How impressive!

Here are some more drawings of "real stuff" that you might like:

http://getdrawings.com/flying-unicorn-drawing

Clearly, you are ignorant as to what Cowan's argument is. Until you understand it and can express it IN YOUR OWN WORDS, you have nothing to say about the topic.

WAIT they mixed infected fluids with other fluids ... well, yes, that is how you isolate a virus.

And THAT is the POINT!

When you take genetic material from Subject A, and add genetic material from Subjects B, C, D, and E ... and you also POISON the mixture, such that it breaks down into small pieces ... and then you ARBITRARILY CLAIM that those broken down pieces ARE THE VIRUS ... then you have just engaged in scientific FRAUD.

THAT is the entire POINT.

And YOU don't get it.

if you just pull a virus out of a body and throw it on a plate it will instantly die without a substrate to exist in long enough to image it.

That is a FALSE CLAIM that was INVENTED to HIDE THE TRUTH ... that there IS NO VIRUS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Duh!

Claiming there are no viruses is the same ballpark as flat earth.

You are using a red herring, which is a logical fallacy, which means you are grasphing at straws ... because YOU do not understand the argument.

I am guessing that the reason you do not understand it is because you have been too fucking lazy to ACTUALLY listen to what Cowan has said.

But you can change that arrogant attitude. You can have a listen. Right now.

In college I studied agriculture and we would take samples from sick horses and study them under the extremely high powered microscope to determine what virus they had so it could be treated. I personally took blood from horses and prepared plates for viewing.

Annnnnd ... THERE we have it! The REASON you are ignorant of this subject is because you believe that what you learned years ago was the TRUTH ... and that is now locked in your brain as "truth." Therefore, you REFUSE to consider the possiblity that you are wrong, and that your professors were wrong -- and they were most likely wrong for the same reasons you are: arrogance of false superiority. That college degree has a lot of false power.

I have one, too, but I don't think of it as anything other than what it actually is (in reality): a piece of paper.

In your MIND, your degree says to you that you learned truth that 99% of the public does not know. In REALITY, your degree says you learned a false perspective of reality, that you do not understand, and it gives you "permission" in your own mind to ignore anything contrary.

Cognitive Dissonance, at its finest. Explains A LOT of what has been going on with doctors, nurses, police, judges, attorneys, politicians, teachers, and a large segment of society.