I guess you are stating the isolate is not actually an "isolate" and there are other things added in

Correct, that's what we're saying. If you have a pocket full of change and I say "isolate" the pennies from the nickels, dimes and quarters, regardless of whether you can visually identify the pennies or not, until you "isolate" the pennies from the mix, you don't have an "Isolated pennies" yet.

your idea of "something else" doesn't add up.

Your reasoning is rightfully starting with the fact that you have a known "thing", the bacteriophage, that you're looking for, that you've seen, that others have found, seen and "isolated" in the past. Our argument is, nobody has yet been able to START WITH this "known thing" called a boogeyman-virus. Because of this, they can now claim any particle they find at the bottom of the viral culturing petri dish, that wasn't put into the toxic soup in the beginning, is a boogey-man virus as that "thing" wasn't there in the beginning.

I didn't include this in my original missive but you may be familiar with this idea of an "exosome" (outside the body (cell)). It's just a catch-all word they use to describe little particles they can't identify as some "known thing". But the great irony of these exosomes is that virologists are forced to reluctantly admit that they can't tell the difference between exosomes and boogeymen-viruses. The virologists say they look identical to one another - same size, shapes, morphology, etc. This is a damning admission. But then, they want us to turn around and agree that their electron microscope pictures they point their little red arrows at are really boogeymen-viruses and not exosomes. We assert that all these "things" are just "exosomes", or as they sometimes also call them "extracellular vesicles" - which is the same thing. All of it is just particles of the decayed, disintegrated vero cells...and possibly just particles that were in the FBS serum for all we know. But at the end of the day, just particles.

No virologist or scientist has ever taken these particles they point to in the electron microscope pictures following the cytopathic effect in the cultures, isolated them from the toxic brew (using the real definition of course) and then taken these fully isolated particles they claim are boogeymen-viruses and not exosomes or extracellular vesicles, and gone on to infect lab animals or humans via normal so-called "infection vectors" that ultimately causes the symptoms and dis-ease said to be caused by the boogeyman-virus in the bottom of their petri dish.

And furthermore, no scientific paper exists where they can demonstrate that these newly isolated particles can be introduced to a healthy cell line and shown to enter the cellular membrane via any alleged "receptor" (e.g. "ACE receptor) and then go on to use the cellular machinery to "replicate" themselves. They can't "see" this of course, because you have to kill everything to see at this magnification level with electron microscopes. The fact that Royal Rife and Gaston Naessens "somatoscope" dark-field microscopy does exist today, although not used in mainstream establishment labs is lost on them. If dark-field microscopy was used, they COULD see this alleged boogeyman-virus receptor breach and replication process happening....if it were true. But we assert it isn't true, and therefore, nobody in the field of virology would attempt such a feat.

So it's not just a matter of taking pictures of particles with an electron microscope that proves the existence of the boogeyman-virus. That's only a third of the equation. The burden of proof is on the virologist to demonstrate this receptor breach, intra-cellular machinery takeover event and replication process to demonstrate the second third of the equation. And should they succeed at this, then the final third of the equation is to take these newly replicated boogeymen-viruses, isolate them and introduce them to human subjects or lab animals via normal "infection vectors", not with injections into the sterile body cavity and bloodstream, which then exhibit the symptoms and alleged dis-ease the boogeyman-virus is said to cause. Really it's the second and third part of the equation that are essential. The electron microscope pictures are entirely unnecessary in the proof.

All this to say, the problem we have with both the viral culturing and sequencing techniques is there is no scientific proof that the starting "material" is anything other than RNA/DNA derived from the human bodily fluids/tissues or the vero cells. Without definitively demonstrating the provenance of the RNA/DNA, nothing can be proven. And Occam's razor suggests that's all these virologists are doing with their sequencing (assembling) process - they're working with human RNA/DNA fragments due to the natural bodily process of apoptosis, which is always heightened when a person is sick to make it all the more obvious what's going on.

The idea that no one ever noticed bad science being done on something like a bacteriophage, which has literally millions of experiments having been done on them is ludicrous.

I fully agree. You're working with a REAL "thing" that exists in nature. Virologists are not. It's this simple.

I swear, some people seem to believe that just because biologists have been brainwashed (which I agree with, and not just biologists), that that makes them stupid.

I never said such a thing and I hope you don't think I implied it. We all believe what we've been taught. This is at the crux of the issue - not intelligence levels or IQ or whatever. It's a situation of "blind belief in authority" where today's working virologists had to have blindly believed their professors and teachers in medical school in order to get their degree and license. And assuming you don't suspect you're being deceived in any way, this is perfectly understandable. It's happened in all walks of life, professions, disciplines, etc. I've pierced but a handful - but virology and health are my specialties - thanks to Cooties-1984 I might add.

Scientists, in general, understand the process [scientific method] very well.

I totally agree. I'm not suggesting they don't. I'm simply saying all their papers do NOT follow the fundamental tenants of the scientific method. It's not a problem with "understanding". This is simply a case of "this is how you do it...follow the rules...do what others that came before you did...and above all else....don't ask too many questions". I can't think of any better explanation then this -> if you want to keep your paycheck, pay off your loans and live the lifestyle you've become accustomed to, maintain your reputation, etc., your best bet is to "go along to get along" on the off chance you start getting cold feet...

They aren't being fooled in the way you suggest. They are being fooled in other ways (through dogma).

I agree again. They've been deceived within the dogma of their discipline. Furthermore, many assume that if you didn't receive the same education that they had, then you can't possibly be qualified to question their methods and techniques. This is why it took somebody like Dr. Lanka, one of their own, to blow the lid off of things and add credibility to the "no virus camp" claims.

THAT is how science is controlled. (That and the publication process, which is where most of the fuckery happens.)

Agreed again, 100%!

I can't really speak to mammalian viruses because I have personally never worked on them. I have read many experimental reports however, and have not previously noticed red flags. You have given me some specific things to look for however, and I will do so.

Great! That's all I can hope for. I don't expect anybody to believe me straight-away. It took me a good 6-months to come around to all this. I was a heavy skeptic from the start. It was the lack of credentialed virologists countering the assertions and arguments of the "no virus camp" that finally swayed me. It was clear they had nothing to offer but dismissal/denial. And as I mentioned, I honestly believe Judy Mikovits does fully BELIEVE she has worked with viruses all her life. I don't think she's trying to deceive us by defending her work. She literally doesn't understand how she was fooled. That's my take on it anyway. And the same may hold true for Dr. Malone as well. It's hard to say. All I know for sure is that neither these two, nor anybody else has even attempted to respond to the "no-virus-camp" assertions in any meaningful way. And they've all been invited to discuss at open round tables thousands of times now over the past 3 years. No takers, no talkers and none are willing to go on record.

I wish you luck in poking around with the material and look forward to your professional assessment in the future. Now that you know the trick word "isolation" and the lack of control experiments in play, you'll be well armed to see through some of these not-so-obvious discrepancies.