nobody has ever actually seen a virus, captured a virus to study, or studied a virus. What they are looking at are cellular fragments of poisoned cells in a lab (not in a person), and everything else from there is pure speculation, not scientific at all.

There is so much here to unpack.

nobody has ever actually seen a virus

What does it mean "to see" something? Does it mean we look with our eyes and "oh look, there's a unicorn"? Do we have to "touch" the unicorn to make it real? Do we have to hear the unicorn make sounds? Do we have to smell the unicorn farts? What makes something "real"?

In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope? Are we not assuming there isn't a little gremlin painting a picture for us to look at through the scope? I mean, how do you define "see" in the context of a virus?

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions. I suggest we have seen millions if not billions of things that look exactly like we expect a virus to look like.

As to what you think we are seeing (cell fragments), see below.

captured a virus to study

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc.. This technique is called cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS), and/or if we have the antibodies for it, we can also use chromatography to capture proteins, or virions, or anything that expresses specific molecules on the exterior. We see virus's in all sorts of ways.

Is there any speculation in there? Sorta. We use statistics and multiple experiments to be as sure as we can be that what we have is what we think we have.

Is that 100% certain? No, but nothing is 100% certain. The idea that there is any experiment that ever tells anything with 100% certainty completely misunderstands what science is.

Science is the best method we have of being less wrong than we were before. It has nothing to do with telling the Truth. Science can't tell the Truth, because it starts from the basic premise that we don't know what the Truth is. It perpetually remains in that position to ensure we don't miss anything. Because if you believe you know the Truth, you won't look at evidence to the contrary. Science must be willing to look at evidence to the contrary or it is a worthless practice. Just like all other forms of investigation that do the same....

What they are looking at are cellular fragments of poisoned cells

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are). Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome, as found by WGS when we fractionate the samples. Exosomes do not contain the same material inside (the same RNA/DNA sequences every time) nor do they have those unique proteins on the outside, nor does the extracellular milieu contain the same amount of exosomes as it does virions (there are in general many more virions than there are exosomes in any random sampling). This is an assumption on my part. I am going on pictures I have seen, I have never done the experiments on viruses myself, but I have seen a lot of pictures.

Does that make me correct? Even if I had done the experiments myself, would that make me correct? No, but I have yet to see any reasonable evidence that it is incorrect either, therefore, it is, for me, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because I have seen no reason to doubt it.

As for apopotic blebs. When a cell undergoes apoptosis, like when it gets really sick from poison, it breaks up into little bubbles (blebs). These blebs are not uniform in size like virions are, nor do they contain unique sequences of RNA/DNA like virions do.

The idea that there is "no such thing as a virus" does not match with documentation or experiment. IF it is all a fraud, it isn't because "the experiments haven't been done correctly". It would have to be a conspiracy of all scientists, not just those at the top, and I know from personal experience that such a conspiracy doesn't exist.

I think the whole "doesn't match with Koch's principles" thing is controlled opposition, designed to make those that don't understand the minutia of cell biology believe something plausible to discredit everything else they say.

Just like Flat Earth is for those who don't understand physics.

nobody has ever actually seen a virus, captured a virus to study, or studied a virus. What they are looking at are cellular fragments of poisoned cells in a lab (not in a person), and everything else from there is pure speculation, not scientific at all.

There is so much here to unpack.

nobody has ever actually seen a virus

What does it mean "to see" something? Does it mean we look with our eyes and "oh look, there's a unicorn"? Do we have to "touch" the unicorn to make it real? Do we have to hear the unicorn make sounds? Do we have to smell the unicorn farts? What makes something "real"?

In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope? Are we not assuming there isn't a little gremlin painting a picture for us to look at through the scope? I mean, how do you define "see" in the context of a virus?

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions. I suggest we have seen millions if not billions of things that look exactly like we expect a virus to look like.

As to what you think we are seeing (cell fragments), see below.

captured a virus to study

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc.. This technique is called cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS), and/or if we have the antibodies for it, we can also use chromatography to capture proteins, or virions, or anything that expresses specific molecules on the exterior. We see virus's in all sorts of ways.

Is there any speculation in there? Sorta. We use statistics and multiple experiments to be as sure as we can be that what we have is what we think we have.

Is that 100% certain? No, but nothing is 100% certain. The idea that there is any experiment that ever tells anything with 100% certainty completely misunderstands what science is.

Science is the best method we have of being less wrong than we were before. It has nothing to do with telling the Truth. Science can't tell the Truth, because it starts from the basic premise that we don't know what the Truth is. It perpetually remains in that position to ensure we don't miss anything. Because if you believe you know the Truth, you won't look at evidence to the contrary. Science must be willing to look at evidence to the contrary or it is a worthless practice. Just like all other forms of investigation that do the same....

What they are looking at are cellular fragments of poisoned cells

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are). Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome, as found by WGS when we fractionate the samples. Exosomes do not contain the same material inside (the same RNA/DNA sequences every time) nor do they have those unique proteins on the outside, nor are does the extracellular milieu contain the same amount of exosomes as it does virions (there are in general many more virions than there are exosomes in any random sampling). This is an assumption on my part. I am going on pictures I have seen, I have never done the experiments on viruses myself, but I have seen a lot of pictures.

Does that make me correct? Even if I had done the experiments myself, would that make me correct? No, but I have yet to see any reasonable evidence that it is incorrect either, therefore, it is, for me, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because I have seen no reason to doubt it.

As for apopotic blebs. When a cell undergoes apoptosis, like when it gets really sick from poison, it breaks up into little bubbles (blebs). These blebs are not uniform in size like virions are, nor do they contain unique sequences of RNA/DNA like virions do.

The idea that there is "no such thing as a virus" does not match with documentation or experiment. IF it is all a fraud, it isn't because "the experiments haven't been done correctly". It would have to be a conspiracy of all scientists, not just those at the top, and I know from personal experience that such a conspiracy doesn't exist.

I think the whole "doesn't match with Koch's principles" thing is controlled opposition, designed to make those that don't understand the minutia of cell biology believe something plausible to discredit everything else they say.

Just like Flat Earth is for those who don't understand physics.

nobody has ever actually seen a virus, captured a virus to study, or studied a virus. What they are looking at are cellular fragments of poisoned cells in a lab (not in a person), and everything else from there is pure speculation, not scientific at all.

There is so much here to unpack.

nobody has ever actually seen a virus

What does it mean "to see" something? Does it mean we look with our eyes and "oh look, there's a unicorn"? Do we have to "touch" the unicorn to make it real? Do we have to hear the unicorn make sounds? Do we have to smell the unicorn farts? What makes something "real"?

In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope? Are we not assuming there isn't a little gremlin painting a picture for us to look at through the scope? I mean, how do you define "see" in the context of a virus?

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions. I suggest we have seen millions if not billions of things that look exactly like we expect a virus to look like.

As to what you think we are seeing (cell fragments), see below.

captured a virus to study

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc.. This technique is called cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS). We can also use chromatography to capture proteins, or virions, or anything that expresses specific molecules on the exterior. We see virus's in all sorts of ways.

Is there any speculation in there? Sorta. We use statistics and multiple experiments to be as sure as we can be that what we have is what we think we have.

Is that 100% certain? No, but nothing is 100% certain. The idea that there is any experiment that ever tells anything with 100% certainty completely misunderstands what science is.

Science is the best method we have of being less wrong than we were before. It has nothing to do with telling the Truth. Science can't tell the Truth, because it starts from the basic premise that we don't know what the Truth is. It perpetually remains in that position to ensure we don't miss anything. Because if you believe you know the Truth, you won't look at evidence to the contrary. Science must be willing to look at evidence to the contrary or it is a worthless practice. Just like all other forms of investigation that do the same....

What they are looking at are cellular fragments of poisoned cells

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are). Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome, as found by WGS when we fractionate the samples. Exosomes do not contain the same material inside (the same RNA/DNA sequences every time) nor do they have those unique proteins on the outside, nor are does the extracellular milieu contain the same amount of exosomes as it does virions (there are in general many more virions than there are exosomes in any random sampling). This is an assumption on my part. I am going on pictures I have seen, I have never done the experiments on viruses myself, but I have seen a lot of pictures.

Does that make me correct? Even if I had done the experiments myself, would that make me correct? No, but I have yet to see any reasonable evidence that it is incorrect either, therefore, it is, for me, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because I have seen no reason to doubt it.

As for apopotic blebs. When a cell undergoes apoptosis, like when it gets really sick from poison, it breaks up into little bubbles (blebs). These blebs are not uniform in size like virions are, nor do they contain unique sequences of RNA/DNA like virions do.

The idea that there is "no such thing as a virus" does not match with documentation or experiment. IF it is all a fraud, it isn't because "the experiments haven't been done correctly". It would have to be a conspiracy of all scientists, not just those at the top, and I know from personal experience that such a conspiracy doesn't exist.

I think the whole "doesn't match with Koch's principles" thing is controlled opposition, designed to make those that don't understand the minutia of cell biology believe something plausible to discredit everything else they say.

Just like Flat Earth is for those who don't understand physics.