What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think is the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

But ... NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

It is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION -- an assumption that these particles are "virons" when in reality they are fragments of the genetic material that was MIXED into this soup, and were created when the toxins did what toxins do.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

Stefan Lanka not only showed that the "virus" image is created by the process the virologist uses, but also showed that the "genome" was created in a computer, also WITHOUT starting with any material from any human. Got the exact same genetic sequence. No virus, because no human or animal fluid to start the process with. Just the mixture of other genetic materials and the toxins.

Same result.

Explain that.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think is the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

But ... NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

It is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION -- an assumption that these particles are "virons" when in reality they are fragments of the genetic material that was MIXED into this soup, and were created when the toxins did what toxins do.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think is the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

But ... NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

It is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think is the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

But ... NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think is the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

But ... NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... THAT HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think is the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... THAT HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think are the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... THAT HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the cells inevitible die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think are the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... THAT HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness (or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the cells inevitible die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think are the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... THAT HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness (or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the cells inevitible die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think are the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... THAT HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were added to a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLE IT ... because that is what it was programed to do.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.

Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness (or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the cells inevitible die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think are the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... THAT HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.

There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."

"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.

There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.

What does it mean "to see" something? ... In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope?

See = Vision.

Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use an electron microscope.

We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions.

What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness (or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.

They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.

They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).

They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.

They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.

And when the cells inevitible die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"

THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."

It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think are the coronavirus.

If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.

That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.

This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.

I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.

I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.

Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.

That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.

Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.

We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc., which is cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS).

That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.

The human genome started with a real, live human.

NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... THAT HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.