There is a conceptual problem here. On the one hand, you claim there are no such things as a virus. On the other hand, you seem to have very specific criteria for what is not a virus. How can you have exclusion criteria for something that does not exist? Not a persuasive epistemological position.
I agree that what I dashed off might sound circular.
I make the claim that nothing we have been told is a virus can in fact be proven to be a virus by the very definition used in virology. What is it about a blurry splat on the outside of a cell that proves it is a virus as opposed to something else?
Yes phages are viruses of bacterium, and much larger than supposed animal viruses, which doesn't make sense unless you're a nebulous dark world organization that wants people to believe in viruses without ever showing one.
Exactly what is found microscopically? Black dots that supposedly cause cytopathic effects? That's the only proven infection, which isn't proof at all, because the cells in control experiments show the exact same CPEs without any purported infectious agent. That's why in virology they never do control experiments -- it would give the game away. A science which does not conduct control experiments is a pseudo-science.
The electron microscope images are actual images, not "black dots." You keep on discrediting yourself with these false or ignorant accusations. The famous polyhedron-on-a-column-with-legs is a bacteriophage.
They establish infectious properties by communicating bodily fluid that has been filtered to exclude bacteria and observing disease symptoms. Or at least that was de rigueur at the outset. I'm not responsible for any break in method since. But Didier Raoult used a control group in his study that pointed toward a cure.
How is it possible to cure something that doesn't exist? Sorry, but you are not convincing.
There is a conceptual problem here. On the one hand, you claim there are no such things as a virus. On the other hand, you seem to have very specific criteria for what is not a virus. How can you have exclusion criteria for something that does not exist? Not a persuasive epistemological position.
I agree that what I dashed off might sound circular.
I make the claim that nothing we have been told is a virus can in fact be proven to be a virus by the very definition used in virology. What is it about a blurry splat on the outside of a cell that proves it is a virus as opposed to something else?
When they are found microscopically and proven to be infectious, I don't know what you have against that. By the way, phages are viruses.
Yes phages are viruses of bacterium, and much larger than supposed animal viruses, which doesn't make sense unless you're a nebulous dark world organization that wants people to believe in viruses without ever showing one.
Exactly what is found microscopically? Black dots that supposedly cause cytopathic effects? That's the only proven infection, which isn't proof at all, because the cells in control experiments show the exact same CPEs without any purported infectious agent. That's why in virology they never do control experiments -- it would give the game away. A science which does not conduct control experiments is a pseudo-science.
The electron microscope images are actual images, not "black dots." You keep on discrediting yourself with these false or ignorant accusations. The famous polyhedron-on-a-column-with-legs is a bacteriophage.
They establish infectious properties by communicating bodily fluid that has been filtered to exclude bacteria and observing disease symptoms. Or at least that was de rigueur at the outset. I'm not responsible for any break in method since. But Didier Raoult used a control group in his study that pointed toward a cure.
How is it possible to cure something that doesn't exist? Sorry, but you are not convincing.