I am revisiting this thread, so I don't know if you will see this. I'll respond, anyway.

You have to understand the time involved in watching all these videos ... I wish folks would post a summary

I agree with you. That's why I posted a summary. It's not easy to summarize, though.

His entire talk was basically, "I say it's so, and these doctors say it's so, so therefore this is how it is." That's not proof of a theory.

As opposed to Anthony Fauci or the others who say, "Trust muh science?" He goes into great detail why his theory is likely correct. Has any virologist even tried to refute him? Supposedly yes, and unsuccessfully according to him, but I have not seen that. He is not the only doctor/researcher who is saying these things. He is one of many.

Besides that, you are committing the logical fallacy of Argument from Popularity, along with a little ad hominem. He DID explain his theory. He DID NOT simply say this is what it is an believe me because I say so.

He explained how ALL virologists claim a virus exists and how they claim a virus causes illness. He explained that no virus has ever been isolated and purified, how virologists simply re-define the world "isolated" to mean something it does not actually mean, and then use a computer model to create the so-called sequence, which is used to "test" for the virus.

How is that not a clear explanation? He also showed results of a lab study done by another researcher -- the first time it has ever been done in nearly 70 years (because no virologist has ever thought of doing it) -- that actually used a CONTROL to figure out what virologists are looking at.

It is not JUST his word. He backs it up. It is up to the viewer to understand what he is saying.

No scientific evidence whatsoever was offered.

That is a false statement.

A slide or two showing viral particles? What does that mean?

You clearly did not understand the significance: (a) it is claimed that person has a virus inside their body, (b) a sample of their snot it taken, which is claimed has a sample of the virus, (c) other genetic material NOT from the person is added to the sample, (d) additional chemicals are added to the sample that are designed to kill genetic material, (e) the soup is added to monkey kidney cells, (f) the monkey kidney cells die, (g) fragments are left of the soup, and (h) those fragments are claimed to be proof that the virus existed inside the person, and that this virus is what made the person sick.

This is what you are referring to as "viral particles."

In the very same experiment, the researcher ran a control (something virologists NEVER do). In that control, he performed the exact same steps as above, EXCEPT he never took a sample from a person to start with. He just added all the other genetic material, the chemicals, and the monkey kidney cells. He ended up with the EXACT SAME RESULT in the control as he did in the test subject.

This PROVES that the images seen are NOT from a virus, because there is no claim that a virus was in the control soup.

one must take his word that the other researchers he's quoting are relevant, or even exist.

The researcher who did this experiment, that Cowan refers to, is a German named Stefan Lanka. He exists. He won a court case in Germany over this issue (a damn near impossible thing to do, considering that German courts are even more corrupt in favor of the estblishment than American courts are).

Is he saying that the entire science of virology is a farce?

Yes. And so are many others, not just him.

Why are there labs like the Wuhan lab, studying coronaviruses?

Follow the money. Who is getting rich off bogus research? How do you tack the money spent by the Wuhan lab in China? How many offshore bank accounts received money for "consultants?"

Gain of function could also be used for bioweapons (aka "vaccines") to make them more deadly, with the S1 protein/virus story being a diversion so people will not look at what is really going on. I don't know, but we should be considering multiple ideas, not just one.

Why does Dr. David Martin claim that there are 73 patents on coronaviruses from 2009 to 2017?

Because those patents do exist. But the FIRST thing to establish is whether or not there is ANY evidence that can withstand scrutiny that viruses exist in the first place. If they do not, then those patents were for something ELSE (such as bioweapons).

Virology is operating on a FALSE PREMISE. It is entirely possible that most virologists BELIEVE what they are saying, or don't really but go along for the ... $$$$$$$$$.

Robert Gallo eventually admitted that he NEVER had any evidence that HIV causes AIDS. NEVER. HAD. EVIDENCE. But he lied and let other people believe it, and he also got rich from the lie.

Why does Dr. Peter Daszak claim that manipulation of coronaviruses is easy, through the insertion of sequences?

I am not familiar with his work. But the SARS-CoV-2 sequence is an "in silico" sequence. That means it was CREATED INSIDE A COMPUTER PROGRAM. It does NOT EXIST in nature -- at least, the sequence itself does not prove it exists in nature. It was created in a computer.

This is why I am skeptical of Dr. Judy Mikovitz. She BELIEVES all of here work on HIV was relevant and real. Imagine if she was just a "useful idiot" during her entire career. How difficult would THAT be to admit to herself, much less admit to the public?

Some of these people believe what they are saying. But ...

That does NOT mean they are right. They MIGHT be wrong.

And if viruses do not exist, then they ARE wrong.

And there is NO EVIDENCE that viruses actually exist -- at least, not when it is scrutinized.

Virology was going "out of business" in the 1940's and 1950's, because virlogists could NOT prove they were right about anything. Then Enders came along and created the current fake method of "isolation" of a virus. Even HE wrote that when he did a control experiment without DNA, the results were the same as a test with DNA.

That was 1954.

NOBODY ... has EVER ... done another control experiment to test the basic premise of the existence of viruses ... until 2021.

That was Dr. Stefan Lanka.

https://greatreject.org/dr-stefan-lanka-claims-about-viruses-are-false/

https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/Lanka_Bardens_Trial_E.pdf

I am revisiting this thread, so I don't know if you will see this. I'll respond, anyway.

You have to understand the time involved in watching all these videos ... I wish folks would post a summary

I agree with you. That's why I posted a summary. It's not easy to summarize, though.

His entire talk was basically, "I say it's so, and these doctors say it's so, so therefore this is how it is." That's not proof of a theory.

As opposed to Anthony Fauci or the others who say, "Trust muh science?" He goes into great detail why his theory is likely correct. Has any virologist even tried to refute him? Supposedly yes, and unsuccessfully according to him, but I have not seen that. He is not the only doctor/researcher who is saying these things. He is one of many.

Besides that, you are committing the logical fallacy of Argument from Popularity, along with a little ad hominem. He DID explain his theory. He DID NOT simply say this is what it is an believe me because I say so.

He explained how ALL virologists claim a virus exists and how they claim a virus causes illness. He explained that no virus has ever been isolated and purified, how virologists simply re-define the world "isolated" to mean something it does not actually mean, and then use a computer model to create the so-called sequence, which is used to "test" for the virus.

How is that not a clear explanation? He also showed results of a lab study done by another researcher -- the first time it has ever been done in nearly 70 years (because no virologist has ever thought of doing it) -- that actually used a CONTROL to figure out what virologists are looking at.

It is not JUST his word. He backs it up. It is up to the viewer to understand what he is saying.

No scientific evidence whatsoever was offered.

That is a false statement.

A slide or two showing viral particles? What does that mean?

You clearly did not understand the significance: (a) it is claimed that person has a virus inside their body, (b) a sample of their snot it taken, which is claimed has a sample of the virus, (c) other genetic material NOT from the person is added to the sample, (d) additional chemicals are added to the sample that are designed to kill genetic material, (e) the soup is added to monkey kidney cells, (f) the monkey kidney cells die, (g) fragments are left of the soup, and (h) those fragments are claimed to be proof that the virus existed inside the person, and that this virus is what made the person sick.

This is what you are referring to as "viral particles."

In the very same experiment, the researcher ran a control (something virologists NEVER do). In that control, he performed the exact same steps as above, EXCEPT he never took a sample from a person to start with. He just added all the other genetic material, the chemicals, and the monkey kidney cells. He ended up with the EXACT SAME RESULT in the control as he did in the test subject.

This PROVES that the images seen are NOT from a virus, because there is no claim that a virus was in the control soup.

one must take his word that the other researchers he's quoting are relevant, or even exist.

The researcher who did this experiment, that Cowan refers to, is a German named Stefan Lanka. He exists. He won a court case in Germany over this issue (a damn near impossible thing to do, considering that German courts are even more corrupt in favor of the estblishment than American courts are).

Is he saying that the entire science of virology is a farce?

Yes. And so are many others, not just him.

Why are there labs like the Wuhan lab, studying coronaviruses?

Follow the money. Who is getting rich off bogus research? How do you tack the money spent by the Wuhan lab in China? How many offshore bank accounts received money for "consultants?"

Gain of function could also be used for bioweapons (aka "vaccines") to make them more deadly, with the S1 protein/virus story being a diversion so people will not look at what is really going on. I don't know, but we should be considering multiple ideas, not just one.

Why does Dr. David Martin claim that there are 73 patents on coronaviruses from 2009 to 2017?

Because those patents do exist. But the FIRST thing to establish is whether or not there is ANY evidence that can withstand scrutiny that viruses exist in the first place. If they do not, then those patents were for something ELSE (such as bioweapons).

Virology is operating on a FALSE PREMISE. It is entirely possible that most virologists BELIEVE what they are saying, or don't really but go along for the ... $$$$$$$$$.

Robert Gallo eventually admitted that he NEVER had any evidence that HIV causes AIDS. NEVER. HAD. EVIDENCE. But he lied and let other people believe it, and he also got rich from the lie.

Why does Dr. Peter Daszak claim that manipulation of coronaviruses is easy, through the insertion of sequences?

I am not familiar with his work. But the SARS-CoV-2 sequence is an "in sinco" sequence. That means it was CREATED INSIDE A COMPUTER PROGRAM. It does NOT EXIST in nature -- at least, the sequence itself does not prove it exists in nature. It was created in a computer.

This is why I am skeptical of Dr. Judy Mikovitz. She BELIEVES all of here work on HIV was relevant and real. Imagine if she was just a "useful idiot" during her entire career. How difficult would THAT be to admit to herself, much less admit to the public?

Some of these people believe what they are saying. But ...

That does NOT mean they are right. They MIGHT be wrong.

And if viruses do not exist, then they ARE wrong.

And there is NO EVIDENCE that viruses actually exist -- at least, not when it is scrutinized.

Virology was going "out of business" in the 1940's and 1950's, because virlogists could NOT prove they were right about anything. Then Enders came along and created the current fake method of "isolation" of a virus. Even HE wrote that when he did a control experiment without DNA, the results were the same as a test with DNA.

That was 1954.

NOBODY ... has EVER ... done another control experiment to test the basic premise of the existence of viruses ... until 2021.

That was Dr. Stefan Lanka.

https://greatreject.org/dr-stefan-lanka-claims-about-viruses-are-false/

https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/Lanka_Bardens_Trial_E.pdf