Correct. And explaining why that's not proof that viruses don't exist, and explaining the proof that viruses do exist, and explaining why isolation was a barrier to understanding due to insufficient tools, and why isolation was an arbitrary limitation in the first place. The lack of isolation is not a good argument for tossing out scientifically advancement and possible cures for disease.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. In order to claim something exists, you should be able to observe it as a unique entity. Science doesn't say, "There's a high probability viruses exist". Science claims viruses exist as definite things that can be isolated and studied. The whole science of virology was based on filtering out a virus. If we can engineer machines on a nano scale, I'm pretty sure we have the technology to study things on the scale of a supposed virus.
Sequencing a clump of many viruses and figuring out their DNA from that is not a wholly invalid approach to overcoming the inability to isolate a single virus' DNA.
Again, without isolation you are assuming what you have in your soup are viruses. Possibly, but you have no idea where they came from, it's all being contaminated with multiple foreign viruses and proteins. What you do have is the debris from the cellular breakdown caused by starvation and nephrotoxic drugs. Even if you believe you've found the "virus" that's causing your "disease" it is never evaluated using Koch's or River's for infectiousness.
The odds of those matches being coincidental are vanishingly small.
Obviously, they are matching those of other viruses which were generated (not sequenced) the same way. The real concern is what else they are homologous to.
What I am suggesting is not that viruses are not a "thing", rather, that they may represent an entire class of "things" such as exosomes or pleomorphic bacterial phages, products of the cell in response to disease, as opposed to invaders that cause disease, as described by Bechamp.
Correct. And explaining why that's not proof that viruses don't exist, and explaining the proof that viruses do exist, and explaining why isolation was a barrier to understanding due to insufficient tools, and why isolation was an arbitrary limitation in the first place. The lack of isolation is not a good argument for tossing out scientifically advancement and possible cures for disease.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. In order to claim something exists, you should be able to observe it as a unique entity. Science doesn't say, "There's a high probability viruses exist". Science claims viruses exist as definite things that can be isolated and studied. The whole science of virology was based on filtering out a virus.
If we can engineer machines on a nano scale, I'm pretty sure we have the technology to study things on the scale of a supposed virus.
Sequencing a clump of many viruses and figuring out their DNA from that is not a wholly invalid approach to overcoming the inability to isolate a single virus' DNA.
Again, without isolation you are assuming what you have are viruses. Possibly, but you have no idea where they came from, possibly being contaminated with multiple foreign viruses and proteins.
The odds of those matches being coincidental are vanishingly small.
Obviously, they are matching those of other viruses which were generated (not sequenced) the same way. The real concern is what else they are homologous to.
What I am suggesting is not that viruses are not a "thing", rather, that they may represent an entire class of "things" such as exosomes or pleomorphic bacterial phages, products of the cell in response to disease, as opposed to invaders that cause disease, as described by Bechamp.