[People have been] seeking records that describe the isolation/purification of the alleged “COVID-19 virus” from any unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient.
What does it mean "any unadulterated sample"? By what measure? How exactly do you propose to isolate anything (cell fractionate, and get to and sequence the viral RNA) without using, you know, actual biochemistry? Should we get out our little tweezers and then manually go through, with our fingers, each little nucleotide? Even if we could do that, is that sufficiently "unadulterated?" The methods by which these things are done are the same methods we do all the other isolations. Not just viral, but protein, or organelle, etc. This is how things are done.
The reason: without the crucial step of isolation/purification having been performed (from many patients, followed by characterization, sequencing and controlled experiments), there is no way to claim scientifically that the alleged “novel coronavirus”
This is a claim made without evidence. The authors of this work (and others like it) are making the claim that "if you don't do 'this', you can't say 'that'." People who haven't done years of schooling and who haven't done all these tests in an actual lab don't understand what is really involved in the "this" part of the claim (the required steps in the tests). They also don't then understand the "that" part (what science is).
Science is a tiered process. It builds upon itself. The isolation techniques of cell fractionation and genome sequencing are complicated, but not to someone who has done them. They are based upon decades and decades of techniques that led up to the systems we have. They are used for everything, and they work very well in all other uses. The claim is that they don't work for viruses. The claim is made without any evidential support.
What Science isn't, is a "claim." PEOPLE make claims. Science is just a process. A process of probabilities, a process of model making, a regimented testing process. Science can't tell you what the truth is (that is outside of it's design capacity), but it is a very useful process.
In the case of the isolation techniques, they have proven very useful in the past. The ideas that they can't be used to isolate a virus are ludicrous. Anyone who makes such claims never gives reasons that address any particular problem. They only state "look, you are using not human parts for human things, thus you are wrong." OK, maybe, but your protest will have to be a whole lot more specific than that to be taken seriously.
And if a protest can't be taken seriously by anyone who has experience in these techniques, and then people go around believing that these unevidenced claims have merit in their ignorance, it makes those in "opposition" look like idiots. This discredits good evidence, evdidence that has teeth and would otherwise be convincing, by association.
Whether you realize it or not, whether it is true or not, by espousing this shit (without a whole lot more evidence and addressing the specifics of why this works for everything else, but not for viruses) you are not only unwitting Controlled Opposition yourself, you make all the really good evidence out there not be looked at because you fall into the category of "crazy conspiracy theorist."
First, there is no such thing as "debunked." The search for truth is an endless debate, all points made by any party necessarily directly addressed in rebuttal. This rebuttal process can go on forever, because there is always more evidence to show, always new points to be made that were not considered. We have been trained to believe that a single rebuttal is sufficient for truth. That is exactly how the world is controlled.
Second, I have addressed in rebuttal all of the statements by the "no such thing as isolation" crowd more times than I can count. Granted, it has been a very long time, but I will not do so here again. It falls on deaf ears every time. The reason it falls on deaf ears is because no one has any response to what I have to say. They simply lack the knowledge, and they don't have a canned "rebuttal" they can point to online, so instead they say something like "your education and experience is a fraud." To that I say, I pretty much agree, but it wasn't all a fraud.
You can't fake experiments. While I haven't ever worked with human viruses personally, I have done experiments with bacteriophage, which is a bacterial virus. I have done isolation of organelles, DNA, RNA, proteins, blebs, etc. on human cells through the exact same purification (isolation) techniques they use to isolate the virus. It's not the same techniques as what the "no isolation"-ist demand, but that's because their demanded technique of "isolation" is completely impractical. If those who say "there is no such thing as isolation" had ever done these experiments, had ever isolated organelles, much less viruses, they would understand why these experiments work, and why they are sufficient.
Again, I could go through all the biology explicitly (again), but it would be a complete waste of my time. You believe what you believe and that's fine, but what you haven't done is "debunk" anything. And it isn't because I haven't listened, or that I want my beliefs to be true. I don't give a fuck what I believe. My beliefs are completely mutable with new evidence, but if an argument can't be put forth that will match with all of the experiments, all of the evidence then they won't convince me, and I will think them likely to be disinformation campaigns.
These people, like Kaufman who "prove" these things show evidence, but they leave out a whole bunch of contraindicating evidence. Any theory that needs to leave out evidence to be "proven," is, I suggest, wrong. Or at the least, not proven.
The ideas that they can't be used to isolate a virus are ludicrous
This is the key remark you made in the above comment Slyver. On this, we agree completely. Your ability to isolate bacteriophages, of similar size, shape and morphology proves it's possible, just like what has been done with the nebulous "exosome". All this to say, anybody suggesting boogeyman-virus isolation is not possible is spewing nonsense - "ludicrous" as you say. We're not dealing with a technical problem here, it's something far more sinister.''
Dr. Tom Cowan was contacted by a guy whose profession was to literally "find very hard to find things". This guy stated that boogeymen-viruses would be one of the EASIEST things he could find given all the details of their alleged size/shape. He said he had been working in this unique field for over 40 years as one its well known specialists and had never once been asked to find any boogeymen-viruses, although he had a great deal of experience finding other trace substances/chemicals/elements in human tissue/fluid samples.
On the topic of bacteriophages, I understand the scientific community at large calls these a type of "virus". But this is highly misleading, quite on purpose I might add. Because before such an attribution can be made, an actual "thing" called a boogeyman-virus must be proven to exist. And electron microscope pictures or viral culturing cytopathic effects (without control experiments, independent variables or hypothesis) or correlative epidemiology studies are not even remotely close to good enough. All this to say, calling a bacteriophage a virus is like calling a donkey a unicorn that lost its horn. First you have to prove the unicorn exists, only then can we speculate as to whether the donkey is related to the mythical creature.
Here is the core problem in a nutshell. The field of virology has been called out - COMPLETELY in a BIG WAY, with very easy to understand assertions from the "no boogeyman-virus" camp. And no virologist has even ATTEMPTED to respond to their assertions. Instead, they simply repeat this same basic line when confronted; "virologists have been working with boogeyman-viruses for decades so we know they exist" type deflections. This statement, knowing full well that Dr. Stefan Lanka won the famous "no proof of measles" case in 2015 as well as his 2020 viral culturing control experiment paper demonstrating you didn't need to add the fluids of a sick person (ostensibly containing a boogeyman-virus) to cause the cytopathic effect. And let's make no mistake, it is the cytopathic effect that virologists use as their ONE AND ONLY CLAIM as proof that viruses exist.
So Dr. Lanka showed he can produce the cytopathic effect without adding any boogeyman-viruses. This is key. He DEFINITIVELY demonstrates something else is causing these chromosomally abnormal, highly sensitive and reactive green monkey kidney cells to deteriorate and decay. Is it the lowering of the nutrition (FBS), the addition of the anti-biotics which are highly poisonous to living tissue, especially kidney tissue, or something else? My money is on the anti-biotics, ostensibly used to "sterilize" the vero cells to ensure no bacteria are present. But I can't prove that at the moment, it's merely speculation.
The front-half of this viral-culturing process is also a MAJOR problem, as the bodily fluids/tissues are not proven to contain any boogeyman-viruses before adding them to the toxic culture soup. How can we be sure there are any boogeyman-viruses at all without doing this step? How can we be sure there aren't 2 or 3 or more boogeyman-viruses? We can't be sure of anything actually. Our virologists excuse? The boogeyman-viruses are "too hard to find" or "there aren't enough in the sample" or "the boogeyman-viruses are hiding within the cell membrane". These statements are what our virologists were brainwashed to believe and say. Taken as a whole, they can be seen for what they are - deflections.
Doctors Cowan and Kaufman pressed a Wuhan virologist on a call back in late 2020 and asked if they could find a boogeyman-virus if they added 10 fluid/tissue samples of people sick with the same dis-ease together. The answer was "nope", not enough to find. They then asked 100, a vat with 1000 samples and got the same answer. They then asked 10,000, looking for the point at which the virologist would finally agree he could find them, but he stopped responding to them and moved to other questioners. This was a telling exchange in my opinion. First it demonstrated that the virologist had clearly never even attempted to find a virus in a real world sample. And second, that he couldn't answer the question if someone asked him about a vat of 1 billion fluid samples. He didn't know because he had no idea. He was just repeating his brainwashing. But most importantly, this exchange demonstrated to me that such absurdity simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that a microscopic fleck of my spittle can fly out of my mouth into yours, teaming with boogeyman-viruses, that can make you sick hours or days later. Both notions can not rationally be held as true, which in my reckoning, renders them both false.
However, the debate-ending assertions that we can all agree on without any hemming and hawing are the fact that virologists do not follow the scientific method in any way, shape or form. The classic viral-culturing process is 100% PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC. In fact, it's clearly not even treated as an experiment at all as no hypothesis is even stated in their papers let alone the defining of an independent variable. But the most damning part of it is that they do not run any control experiments. This is CLEARLY deliberate and undoubtedly NECESSARY to continue upholding the boogeyman-virus lie.
The biggest irony of all is, the 1954 Ender's measles paper is the basis for all modern viral culturing procedures today and the vast majority always cite this paper in their citations. And in that paper, Enders actually DOES PERFORM a control experiment as he states directly in the paper. He also states his results which COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED from the main experiment allegedly proving the measles boogeyman-virus existed. It's right there in black and white. He got the same results in 1954 as Dr. Lanka got in 2020. The "cytopathic effect" is the lynchpin of the whole deception. If there are two, three or dozens of ways to cause this cytopathic effect, the burden of proof is on the virologist to scientifically demonstrate how their particular tests cytopathic effect could ONLY have been caused by the mythical boogeyman-virus.
And let's not forget virology's very deliberate, and highly deceptive use of the word "isolate/isolation". As has been clearly pointed out and demonstrated by the "no virus camp" team over and over again in referencing the "Methods" section of hundreds of these papers, the most common use of the word Isolate/Isolation refers to either: 1. "Isolating" the fluid/tissue sample from the patient. or 2. Isolating the fluids/tissue sample from the swab or bronchial lavage constituents. Only under the rarest of cases has anybody seen any virology paper that actually attempts to filter and centrifuge the fluid/tissue down to a band of particles they allege to be boogeymen-viruses ---- which is what the uninitiated 99% of the population would ASSUME the virologist means when they say they "isolated the virus".
So we have deliberate deception stacked upon deliberate deception, sprinkled with deliberate deception from beginning to end in virology. The word "isolated" doesn't mean what we think it means, nobody checks for any boogey-man viruses in tissue/fluid samples prior to throwing them in the toxic culture mix, and nobody runs any control experiments to rule out other possible causes for the cytopathic effect. The rules of the game I was taught was "3 strikes and you're out!". And this complete lack of honesty, transparency and scientific rigor is wholly and completely INDEFENSIBLE in my opinion. And that is why, not a single credentialed virologist I'm aware of will sit down at the debate table with the "no boogeyman-virus camp" nor will they address these 3 basic points. It's quite clear to me the reason this is so is because they CAN'T DEFEND IT!!!
Now, I have heard quite a few virologists quickly turn the conversation to their more modern "Sequencing" techniques for proof of the boogeyman-virus. This process too is a load of rubbish on its face. The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples. But of course, they want us to believe they can find 789 KAJILLION RNA fragments of the mythical boogeyman-virus sequence. How these people cannot see through this obvious deception is beyond me. It should be quite obvious, even to a child, that all these RNA fragments are, without even a shadow of a doubt, fragments of HUMAN RNA, the host in which they were derived from. The technicians attempts to say "we remove all known human RNA from our analysis" is disingenuous at best, deliberately deceptive at worst. The problem with this argument is, or course, that they don't catalog tiny fragments of known human RNA, they catalog full strand and/or mostly complete sequences of known human RNA. And should you be bored out of your mind enough to read through their explanation of this sequencing process, you see them eliminating these long/large strands of RNA right at the start. And many times, after this process they then chop up the remaining RNA fragments into even tinier pieces --- making them easier to work with to RE-ASSEMBLE their frankenstein-viruses.
The simplest analogy to this deceptively named "sequencing" process is this; imagine taking say "Grapes of Wrath" and shredding it up. Amidst the shreds, you would find the occasional complete sentence, maybe even several or a full paragraph. Maybe if you were a bad shredder, you might even miss a full page. And amidst this you would likewise find single words as well as single letters, etc. A whole mixed bag. Now your goal is to take this now shredded book and make it conform to your model (fake boogeyman-virus genome model), like for instance "For Whom the Bell Tolls". So you tell your software program to take all the shredded paper and stitch the letters, words, sentences, etc. together to match this book which it then does -> ASSEMBLY. The beginning and middle of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" assemble together beautifully. However as we get toward the end of this assembly process, as it turns out, we've run out of say "Os" and "Ts" for example as "For Whom the Bell Tolls" used more of these letters than "The Grapes of Wrath". Now, every time we hit the word "the", the software program can only give us "he", and for "cat" we get "ca", the words "to" and "too" vanish altogether in the final assembly process etc. And voila, this is how our magical, mythical "viral variants" are born. Last I heard, there were over 500,000 "SARS-COV2" variants in the the virologist's databases. This is absolutely LUDICROUS of course. But now you know how they do it and why they get the results they get. No two "viral sequencing" are ever identical and this is the reason why.
It should be noted for all other RNA/DNA "Sequencing" research the world over, the scientists always START with the complete, fully intact genome of the test subject, be it a carrot, mouse or human. They then go about snipping up the full genome to perform their experiments. This is what "sequencing" is for "everything else". But of course, not for our mythical boogeymen-viruses, they're the special exception to the rule.
Sorry, thought I could squeeze all this into one comment.
So finally, we get to the virologists dreaded "Koch's Postulates" problem. They have all been programmed to DISMISS this question by saying "They are archaic and outdated" - smh! Oh how I wish I could respond to these guys who say this and grill them on the absolute absurdity of this stance. The virologists are counting on the fact that the person questioning them doesn't understand the simplicity of Koch's Postulates and the absurdity of their deflection.
Koch's Postulates are grade-school level logic and they make perfect sense. My 11-year old niece understood them in 5 minutes. Take the thing you say is causing the dis-ease in the sick person, ISOLATE it (by our normal definition, not the virologists deceptive definition), and then introduce this "Isolated thing", and only this isolated thing, via normal alleged "infection vectors" (no jabs!!!!) and then demonstrate the healthy person comes down with the symptoms and dis-ease of the original sick person. Rinse and repeat for certainty.
This has been tried, no doubt, thousands of times in the first half of the 20th century. But good luck finding much information as most of it was never published, and/or those papers that were published have been removed, suppressed or white-washed from the records. A large group of us were only able to find 11 examples of these failures. But the simple fact remains, there are no examples of "successes" to be found. And this is why the scientific community stopped even trying around 1950. Instead, they had to come up with their dismissive arguments and even invent "newer, more updated" things like "River's Postulates" which also can't be satisfied for boogeymen-virus.
Thus, as we can see, there is nothing but a trail of deliberate deceptions, sleight-of-hands and deflections everywhere we look that are used in this pseudoscientific field. Not one aspect of virology holds up to even a modicum of scrutiny. It's as simple as this.
Now, the hardest part of all of this isn't the science, or lack thereof. The problem with people accepting all these facts is this; they can't imagine another possible way that they either caught or passed a dis-ease from or too another person. This seems to be the obstacle most people aren't willing to contemplate. And I understand, because the answer to the question of "what else could it have been" shatters our deeply ingrained "victim consciousness" and is the cause for tremendously unsettling cognitive dissonance when first encountered.
Anyway, I've explained the cause of I think 10 or so common "viral dis-eases" several months back here on GA and can link to those threads if anybody is interested. Unfortunately, doctors Cowan, Kaufman, Mark & Sam Bailey have rejected what Dr. Lanka showed us all in favor of their "terrain theory" which, like germ theory lacks even a shred of scientific proof. Their credibility took a severe hit because they can't readily explain any alternatives other than the blanket "diet/toxins/water/food/5G hypothesis. Only. Dr. Lanka understands the full picture. And he's clearly divorced himself from the others over the past year or so.
So if it ain't toxins and it ain't germs, then what is it? Matter follows mind is my very short answer.
I welcome any feedback or pushback from my two-comment missive. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible without belaboring any single point too deeply. I think I got my point across though -> Virology is CLEARLY a pseudoscience no matter what angle you approach it from. And that's because, boogeyman-viruses don't exist. Thus, it has to be!
The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples.
That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. Shotgun sequencing (more specifically Illumina or PacBio) requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. These techniques mentioned are the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.
Basically, if you want to challenge these WGS techniques, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types (same organism). These, according to the "fabricated" idea, just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.
SOMETHING is making the expected sameness and differences in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up these sequencing techniques to understand them. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.
This is what Controlled Opposition looks like.
What does it mean "any unadulterated sample"? By what measure? How exactly do you propose to isolate anything (cell fractionate, and get to and sequence the viral RNA) without using, you know, actual biochemistry? Should we get out our little tweezers and then manually go through, with our fingers, each little nucleotide? Even if we could do that, is that sufficiently "unadulterated?" The methods by which these things are done are the same methods we do all the other isolations. Not just viral, but protein, or organelle, etc. This is how things are done.
This is a claim made without evidence. The authors of this work (and others like it) are making the claim that "if you don't do 'this', you can't say 'that'." People who haven't done years of schooling and who haven't done all these tests in an actual lab don't understand what is really involved in the "this" part of the claim (the required steps in the tests). They also don't then understand the "that" part (what science is).
Science is a tiered process. It builds upon itself. The isolation techniques of cell fractionation and genome sequencing are complicated, but not to someone who has done them. They are based upon decades and decades of techniques that led up to the systems we have. They are used for everything, and they work very well in all other uses. The claim is that they don't work for viruses. The claim is made without any evidential support.
What Science isn't, is a "claim." PEOPLE make claims. Science is just a process. A process of probabilities, a process of model making, a regimented testing process. Science can't tell you what the truth is (that is outside of it's design capacity), but it is a very useful process.
In the case of the isolation techniques, they have proven very useful in the past. The ideas that they can't be used to isolate a virus are ludicrous. Anyone who makes such claims never gives reasons that address any particular problem. They only state "look, you are using not human parts for human things, thus you are wrong." OK, maybe, but your protest will have to be a whole lot more specific than that to be taken seriously.
And if a protest can't be taken seriously by anyone who has experience in these techniques, and then people go around believing that these unevidenced claims have merit in their ignorance, it makes those in "opposition" look like idiots. This discredits good evidence, evdidence that has teeth and would otherwise be convincing, by association.
Whether you realize it or not, whether it is true or not, by espousing this shit (without a whole lot more evidence and addressing the specifics of why this works for everything else, but not for viruses) you are not only unwitting Controlled Opposition yourself, you make all the really good evidence out there not be looked at because you fall into the category of "crazy conspiracy theorist."
A mediocre attempt. Unfortunately your entire post is debunked by Andrew Kaufman in the third link in my post above.
First, there is no such thing as "debunked." The search for truth is an endless debate, all points made by any party necessarily directly addressed in rebuttal. This rebuttal process can go on forever, because there is always more evidence to show, always new points to be made that were not considered. We have been trained to believe that a single rebuttal is sufficient for truth. That is exactly how the world is controlled.
Second, I have addressed in rebuttal all of the statements by the "no such thing as isolation" crowd more times than I can count. Granted, it has been a very long time, but I will not do so here again. It falls on deaf ears every time. The reason it falls on deaf ears is because no one has any response to what I have to say. They simply lack the knowledge, and they don't have a canned "rebuttal" they can point to online, so instead they say something like "your education and experience is a fraud." To that I say, I pretty much agree, but it wasn't all a fraud.
You can't fake experiments. While I haven't ever worked with human viruses personally, I have done experiments with bacteriophage, which is a bacterial virus. I have done isolation of organelles, DNA, RNA, proteins, blebs, etc. on human cells through the exact same purification (isolation) techniques they use to isolate the virus. It's not the same techniques as what the "no isolation"-ist demand, but that's because their demanded technique of "isolation" is completely impractical. If those who say "there is no such thing as isolation" had ever done these experiments, had ever isolated organelles, much less viruses, they would understand why these experiments work, and why they are sufficient.
Again, I could go through all the biology explicitly (again), but it would be a complete waste of my time. You believe what you believe and that's fine, but what you haven't done is "debunk" anything. And it isn't because I haven't listened, or that I want my beliefs to be true. I don't give a fuck what I believe. My beliefs are completely mutable with new evidence, but if an argument can't be put forth that will match with all of the experiments, all of the evidence then they won't convince me, and I will think them likely to be disinformation campaigns.
These people, like Kaufman who "prove" these things show evidence, but they leave out a whole bunch of contraindicating evidence. Any theory that needs to leave out evidence to be "proven," is, I suggest, wrong. Or at the least, not proven.
This is the key remark you made in the above comment Slyver. On this, we agree completely. Your ability to isolate bacteriophages, of similar size, shape and morphology proves it's possible, just like what has been done with the nebulous "exosome". All this to say, anybody suggesting boogeyman-virus isolation is not possible is spewing nonsense - "ludicrous" as you say. We're not dealing with a technical problem here, it's something far more sinister.''
Dr. Tom Cowan was contacted by a guy whose profession was to literally "find very hard to find things". This guy stated that boogeymen-viruses would be one of the EASIEST things he could find given all the details of their alleged size/shape. He said he had been working in this unique field for over 40 years as one its well known specialists and had never once been asked to find any boogeymen-viruses, although he had a great deal of experience finding other trace substances/chemicals/elements in human tissue/fluid samples.
On the topic of bacteriophages, I understand the scientific community at large calls these a type of "virus". But this is highly misleading, quite on purpose I might add. Because before such an attribution can be made, an actual "thing" called a boogeyman-virus must be proven to exist. And electron microscope pictures or viral culturing cytopathic effects (without control experiments, independent variables or hypothesis) or correlative epidemiology studies are not even remotely close to good enough. All this to say, calling a bacteriophage a virus is like calling a donkey a unicorn that lost its horn. First you have to prove the unicorn exists, only then can we speculate as to whether the donkey is related to the mythical creature.
Here is the core problem in a nutshell. The field of virology has been called out - COMPLETELY in a BIG WAY, with very easy to understand assertions from the "no boogeyman-virus" camp. And no virologist has even ATTEMPTED to respond to their assertions. Instead, they simply repeat this same basic line when confronted; "virologists have been working with boogeyman-viruses for decades so we know they exist" type deflections. This statement, knowing full well that Dr. Stefan Lanka won the famous "no proof of measles" case in 2015 as well as his 2020 viral culturing control experiment paper demonstrating you didn't need to add the fluids of a sick person (ostensibly containing a boogeyman-virus) to cause the cytopathic effect. And let's make no mistake, it is the cytopathic effect that virologists use as their ONE AND ONLY CLAIM as proof that viruses exist.
So Dr. Lanka showed he can produce the cytopathic effect without adding any boogeyman-viruses. This is key. He DEFINITIVELY demonstrates something else is causing these chromosomally abnormal, highly sensitive and reactive green monkey kidney cells to deteriorate and decay. Is it the lowering of the nutrition (FBS), the addition of the anti-biotics which are highly poisonous to living tissue, especially kidney tissue, or something else? My money is on the anti-biotics, ostensibly used to "sterilize" the vero cells to ensure no bacteria are present. But I can't prove that at the moment, it's merely speculation.
The front-half of this viral-culturing process is also a MAJOR problem, as the bodily fluids/tissues are not proven to contain any boogeyman-viruses before adding them to the toxic culture soup. How can we be sure there are any boogeyman-viruses at all without doing this step? How can we be sure there aren't 2 or 3 or more boogeyman-viruses? We can't be sure of anything actually. Our virologists excuse? The boogeyman-viruses are "too hard to find" or "there aren't enough in the sample" or "the boogeyman-viruses are hiding within the cell membrane". These statements are what our virologists were brainwashed to believe and say. Taken as a whole, they can be seen for what they are - deflections.
Doctors Cowan and Kaufman pressed a Wuhan virologist on a call back in late 2020 and asked if they could find a boogeyman-virus if they added 10 fluid/tissue samples of people sick with the same dis-ease together. The answer was "nope", not enough to find. They then asked 100, a vat with 1000 samples and got the same answer. They then asked 10,000, looking for the point at which the virologist would finally agree he could find them, but he stopped responding to them and moved to other questioners. This was a telling exchange in my opinion. First it demonstrated that the virologist had clearly never even attempted to find a virus in a real world sample. And second, that he couldn't answer the question if someone asked him about a vat of 1 billion fluid samples. He didn't know because he had no idea. He was just repeating his brainwashing. But most importantly, this exchange demonstrated to me that such absurdity simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that a microscopic fleck of my spittle can fly out of my mouth into yours, teaming with boogeyman-viruses, that can make you sick hours or days later. Both notions can not rationally be held as true, which in my reckoning, renders them both false.
However, the debate-ending assertions that we can all agree on without any hemming and hawing are the fact that virologists do not follow the scientific method in any way, shape or form. The classic viral-culturing process is 100% PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC. In fact, it's clearly not even treated as an experiment at all as no hypothesis is even stated in their papers let alone the defining of an independent variable. But the most damning part of it is that they do not run any control experiments. This is CLEARLY deliberate and undoubtedly NECESSARY to continue upholding the boogeyman-virus lie.
The biggest irony of all is, the 1954 Ender's measles paper is the basis for all modern viral culturing procedures today and the vast majority always cite this paper in their citations. And in that paper, Enders actually DOES PERFORM a control experiment as he states directly in the paper. He also states his results which COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED from the main experiment allegedly proving the measles boogeyman-virus existed. It's right there in black and white. He got the same results in 1954 as Dr. Lanka got in 2020. The "cytopathic effect" is the lynchpin of the whole deception. If there are two, three or dozens of ways to cause this cytopathic effect, the burden of proof is on the virologist to scientifically demonstrate how their particular tests cytopathic effect could ONLY have been caused by the mythical boogeyman-virus.
And let's not forget virology's very deliberate, and highly deceptive use of the word "isolate/isolation". As has been clearly pointed out and demonstrated by the "no virus camp" team over and over again in referencing the "Methods" section of hundreds of these papers, the most common use of the word Isolate/Isolation refers to either: 1. "Isolating" the fluid/tissue sample from the patient. or 2. Isolating the fluids/tissue sample from the swab or bronchial lavage constituents. Only under the rarest of cases has anybody seen any virology paper that actually attempts to filter and centrifuge the fluid/tissue down to a band of particles they allege to be boogeymen-viruses ---- which is what the uninitiated 99% of the population would ASSUME the virologist means when they say they "isolated the virus".
So we have deliberate deception stacked upon deliberate deception, sprinkled with deliberate deception from beginning to end in virology. The word "isolated" doesn't mean what we think it means, nobody checks for any boogey-man viruses in tissue/fluid samples prior to throwing them in the toxic culture mix, and nobody runs any control experiments to rule out other possible causes for the cytopathic effect. The rules of the game I was taught was "3 strikes and you're out!". And this complete lack of honesty, transparency and scientific rigor is wholly and completely INDEFENSIBLE in my opinion. And that is why, not a single credentialed virologist I'm aware of will sit down at the debate table with the "no boogeyman-virus camp" nor will they address these 3 basic points. It's quite clear to me the reason this is so is because they CAN'T DEFEND IT!!!
Now, I have heard quite a few virologists quickly turn the conversation to their more modern "Sequencing" techniques for proof of the boogeyman-virus. This process too is a load of rubbish on its face. The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples. But of course, they want us to believe they can find 789 KAJILLION RNA fragments of the mythical boogeyman-virus sequence. How these people cannot see through this obvious deception is beyond me. It should be quite obvious, even to a child, that all these RNA fragments are, without even a shadow of a doubt, fragments of HUMAN RNA, the host in which they were derived from. The technicians attempts to say "we remove all known human RNA from our analysis" is disingenuous at best, deliberately deceptive at worst. The problem with this argument is, or course, that they don't catalog tiny fragments of known human RNA, they catalog full strand and/or mostly complete sequences of known human RNA. And should you be bored out of your mind enough to read through their explanation of this sequencing process, you see them eliminating these long/large strands of RNA right at the start. And many times, after this process they then chop up the remaining RNA fragments into even tinier pieces --- making them easier to work with to RE-ASSEMBLE their frankenstein-viruses.
The simplest analogy to this deceptively named "sequencing" process is this; imagine taking say "Grapes of Wrath" and shredding it up. Amidst the shreds, you would find the occasional complete sentence, maybe even several or a full paragraph. Maybe if you were a bad shredder, you might even miss a full page. And amidst this you would likewise find single words as well as single letters, etc. A whole mixed bag. Now your goal is to take this now shredded book and make it conform to your model (fake boogeyman-virus genome model), like for instance "For Whom the Bell Tolls". So you tell your software program to take all the shredded paper and stitch the letters, words, sentences, etc. together to match this book which it then does -> ASSEMBLY. The beginning and middle of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" assemble together beautifully. However as we get toward the end of this assembly process, as it turns out, we've run out of say "Os" and "Ts" for example as "For Whom the Bell Tolls" used more of these letters than "The Grapes of Wrath". Now, every time we hit the word "the", the software program can only give us "he", and for "cat" we get "ca", the words "to" and "too" vanish altogether in the final assembly process etc. And voila, this is how our magical, mythical "viral variants" are born. Last I heard, there were over 500,000 "SARS-COV2" variants in the the virologist's databases. This is absolutely LUDICROUS of course. But now you know how they do it and why they get the results they get. No two "viral sequencing" are ever identical and this is the reason why.
It should be noted for all other RNA/DNA "Sequencing" research the world over, the scientists always START with the complete, fully intact genome of the test subject, be it a carrot, mouse or human. They then go about snipping up the full genome to perform their experiments. This is what "sequencing" is for "everything else". But of course, not for our mythical boogeymen-viruses, they're the special exception to the rule.
out of space..
@ u/tewdryg , u/Mar-0
@ u/tewdryg , u/Mar-0 , u/slyver
Continuing...
Sorry, thought I could squeeze all this into one comment.
So finally, we get to the virologists dreaded "Koch's Postulates" problem. They have all been programmed to DISMISS this question by saying "They are archaic and outdated" - smh! Oh how I wish I could respond to these guys who say this and grill them on the absolute absurdity of this stance. The virologists are counting on the fact that the person questioning them doesn't understand the simplicity of Koch's Postulates and the absurdity of their deflection.
Koch's Postulates are grade-school level logic and they make perfect sense. My 11-year old niece understood them in 5 minutes. Take the thing you say is causing the dis-ease in the sick person, ISOLATE it (by our normal definition, not the virologists deceptive definition), and then introduce this "Isolated thing", and only this isolated thing, via normal alleged "infection vectors" (no jabs!!!!) and then demonstrate the healthy person comes down with the symptoms and dis-ease of the original sick person. Rinse and repeat for certainty.
This has been tried, no doubt, thousands of times in the first half of the 20th century. But good luck finding much information as most of it was never published, and/or those papers that were published have been removed, suppressed or white-washed from the records. A large group of us were only able to find 11 examples of these failures. But the simple fact remains, there are no examples of "successes" to be found. And this is why the scientific community stopped even trying around 1950. Instead, they had to come up with their dismissive arguments and even invent "newer, more updated" things like "River's Postulates" which also can't be satisfied for boogeymen-virus.
Thus, as we can see, there is nothing but a trail of deliberate deceptions, sleight-of-hands and deflections everywhere we look that are used in this pseudoscientific field. Not one aspect of virology holds up to even a modicum of scrutiny. It's as simple as this.
Now, the hardest part of all of this isn't the science, or lack thereof. The problem with people accepting all these facts is this; they can't imagine another possible way that they either caught or passed a dis-ease from or too another person. This seems to be the obstacle most people aren't willing to contemplate. And I understand, because the answer to the question of "what else could it have been" shatters our deeply ingrained "victim consciousness" and is the cause for tremendously unsettling cognitive dissonance when first encountered.
Anyway, I've explained the cause of I think 10 or so common "viral dis-eases" several months back here on GA and can link to those threads if anybody is interested. Unfortunately, doctors Cowan, Kaufman, Mark & Sam Bailey have rejected what Dr. Lanka showed us all in favor of their "terrain theory" which, like germ theory lacks even a shred of scientific proof. Their credibility took a severe hit because they can't readily explain any alternatives other than the blanket "diet/toxins/water/food/5G hypothesis. Only. Dr. Lanka understands the full picture. And he's clearly divorced himself from the others over the past year or so.
So if it ain't toxins and it ain't germs, then what is it? Matter follows mind is my very short answer.
I welcome any feedback or pushback from my two-comment missive. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible without belaboring any single point too deeply. I think I got my point across though -> Virology is CLEARLY a pseudoscience no matter what angle you approach it from. And that's because, boogeyman-viruses don't exist. Thus, it has to be!
That's not what's going on. It isn't that they can't find intact viral genomes, it's that they don't select for it. Shotgun sequencing (more specifically Illumina or PacBio) requires smaller pieces of DNA/RNA to function. There are numerous techniques for mapping a genome. These techniques mentioned are the cheapest and fastest, so it is the most often used, but all of the techniques corroborate each other. It works by getting multiple copies and overlapping them. The odds of a mismatch on an overlap, given a large enough sample size, are miniscule. The odds of the same mismatch on two subsequent tests are so small as to be ludicrous. The odds of the same mismatch on a thousand subsequent tests isn't even worth talking about. This is how it is done. When the same experiments get the same (or close enough to the same) results every time, it is safe to assume there is something to the experiment. At the least it is ridiculous to assume there isn't.
Basically, if you want to challenge these WGS techniques, you are basically stating that the entirety of genomics (not just virology) is not just "wrong," but completely fabricated, despite getting the same results each time on the same sample types (same organism). These, according to the "fabricated" idea, just so happen to be different results on different sample types, which are then also the same for each of those same sample types.
SOMETHING is making the expected sameness and differences in output from these experiments. You assume it's ridiculous and there is nothing there, but this is an assertion made, I suggest, in not understanding what is done in these experiments. Please look up these sequencing techniques to understand them. Look specifically at the math involved. Look also for examples of corroboration with different sequencing techniques. Perhaps that will reduce your incredulity.