1/2

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

I think you missed my point on this, or at least you didn’t address it. My point was, you don’t have to see something (capture reflected light) for something to be detected, in fact, almost all science done on the very small has little to do with photons directly. We use other methods of detection, and we use statistics and multiple experiments to understand what we are “seeing” (in a not reflected light sort of way).

People in the macroscopic world rely on vision, because that is the most common sense we use to interface with the world. It is not the only way to determine if something is “real”, in fact, it leads to conclusions that are provably not real more often that not.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity.

Says who? Electon microscopy of virions shows remarkable uniformity. That makes sense because the proteins that make up the structure of the viral coat have specific geometry that makes a uniform exterior surface. See here. Or here. Or here. Or here.

Tell me those don’t look uniform. On the contrary, their size and morphology are remarkably uniform. There are a million more pictures just like those. All you have to do is look.

That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS.

What does that mean to you? I don’t think you fully appreciate how difficult such a task would be. Not to say it can't be done, but the effort v. reward is unbalanced.

We use many experiments and statistics to determine these things. You seem to want to hold a single virion in your hand. Why? You are again relying on “seeing”. We don’t do science on the very small by this method. We use statistics and many experiments. Until you really go through the methods we do use, you can’t say they are insufficient. You assume they are insufficient because you rely on sight, and holding a single thing in your hand.

If I fractionate a sample, and isolate the fraction that contains the “things” that escaped the cell, and then do a whole genome sequence on them, and find a sequence that is not contained within the cells genome, have I not found something unique? Something that isn’t supposed to be there? Have I not isolated it? I took the fraction that had what I assume are virions. Those fractions don’t contain parts of mitochondria, or the nucleus, because those things are in different fractions. We know that, because we do those experiments all the time. So here I have a fraction that doesn’t contain that stuff, but it does have the virions (what you call cell fragments) and they have a unique genome, which I just found. How is that not an isolation? I’m not saying there’s no contamination from mitochondria or nuclei, but the same contaminants are not found in each such experiment, and they are far less than would be found in the fraction that contained just the mitochondria, or just the nuclei (both of which can also be isolated from each other by the same method). So when we do 20 experiments, and we find different small amounts of contaminants in each one, we can subtract out those contaminants, and what remains is the unique sequence. That’s not “seeing” but its multiple experiments to determine what is there.

...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).

This is a mischaracterization of the process. First, it’s not “monkey kidney cells.” I am sure there are experiments that use such cell lines, in my lab I worked with several human cell lines (I did not do virus research). To suggest “monkey kidney cells” as if that were some standard thing is inappropriate. It’s whatever they use. It could be one of many different cell lines, or even multiple different ones to see if there is a difference.

You say a lot of things in the “process” they use, that is not the actual process they use. I’m not sure where you are getting these ideas. Did you look up one specific experiment and then think that they all follow the same exact protocol? Almost all labs design their own protocols. While there are similarities, there are substantial differences. They use different cell lines, different processes of extraction, etc. I have no idea why you think they add “antibiotics that are specifically toxic to the kidney cells.” That is simply not true. We do use antibiotics in our cell culture medium, but they are not toxic. In fact cells thrive in the medium. I personally have used such a medium thousands of times. It never kills the cells. It never produces products like the virions seen in the picture samples above. Never. This idea is a mischaracterization of what actually happens.

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

I assert it is not the sum total of anything. It is actually a gross oversimplification that doesn’t understand the larger picture at all.

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

This is an assumption that doesn’t understand what is occuring.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do.

Why would you assume this? As far as I can remember, every paper I have read on this topic includes control studies.

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.

This is not a proper control, because it only says that the process he used was toxic. It says nothing about the protocols that other people have used, which is many. I assert again this may be controlled opposition.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ...

… It’s not their eyesight, its multiple experiments and statistics. We DON’T use eyesight, that was my point.

is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Your conclusion assumes that the one “experiment” captured all the other experiments in a nutshell. I assert that is impossible, and that this experiment, even if it is exactly as you suggest, was inherently flawed, because it didn’t account for the MASSIVE variables in experimental protocols.

1/2

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

I think you missed my point on this, or at least you didn’t address it. My point was, you don’t have to see something (capture reflected light) for something to be detected, in fact, almost all science done on the very small has little to do with photons directly. We use other methods of detection, and we use statistics and multiple experiments to understand what we are “seeing” (in a not reflected light sort of way).

People in the macroscopic world rely on vision, because that is the most common sense we use to interface with the world. It is not the only way to determine if something is “real”, in fact, it leads to conclusions that are provably not real more often that not.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity.

Says who? Electon microscopy of virions shows remarkable uniformity. That makes sense because the proteins that make up the structure of the viral coat have specific geometry that makes a uniform exterior surface. See here. Or here. Or here. Or here.

Tell me those don’t look uniform. On the contrary, their size and morphology are remarkably uniform. There are a million more pictures just like those. All you have to do is look.

That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS.

What does that mean to you? I don’t think you fully appreciate how difficult such a task would be. We use many experiments and statistics to determine these things. You seem to want to hold a single virion in your hand. Why? You are again relying on “seeing”. We don’t do science on the very small by this method. We use statistics and many experiments. Until you really go through the methods we do use, you can’t say they are insufficient. You assume they are insufficient because you rely on sight, and holding a single thing in your hand.

If I fractionate a sample, and isolate the fraction that contains the “things” that escaped the cell, and then do a whole genome sequence on them, and find a sequence that is not contained within the cells genome, have I not found something unique? Something that isn’t supposed to be there? Have I not isolated it? I took the fraction that had what I assume are virions. Those fractions don’t contain parts of mitochondria, or the nucleus, because those things are in different fractions. We know that, because we do those experiments all the time. So here I have a fraction that doesn’t contain that stuff, but it does have the virions (what you call cell fragments) and they have a unique genome, which I just found. How is that not an isolation? I’m not saying there’s no contamination from mitochondria or nuclei, but the same contaminants are not found in each such experiment, and they are far less than would be found in the fraction that contained just the mitochondria, or just the nuclei (both of which can also be isolated from each other by the same method). So when we do 20 experiments, and we find different small amounts of contaminants in each one, we can subtract out those contaminants, and what remains is the unique sequence. That’s not “seeing” but its multiple experiments to determine what is there.

...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).

This is a mischaracterization of the process. First, it’s not “monkey kidney cells.” I am sure there are experiments that use such cell lines, in my lab I worked with several human cell lines (I did not do virus research). To suggest “monkey kidney cells” as if that were some standard thing is inappropriate. It’s whatever they use. It could be one of many different cell lines, or even multiple different ones to see if there is a difference.

You say a lot of things in the “process” they use, that is not the actual process they use. I’m not sure where you are getting these ideas. Did you look up one specific experiment and then think that they all follow the same exact protocol? Almost all labs design their own protocols. While there are similarities, there are substantial differences. They use different cell lines, different processes of extraction, etc. I have no idea why you think they add “antibiotics that are specifically toxic to the kidney cells.” That is simply not true. We do use antibiotics in our cell culture medium, but they are not toxic. In fact cells thrive in the medium. I personally have used such a medium thousands of times. It never kills the cells. It never produces products like the virions seen in the picture samples above. Never. This idea is a mischaracterization of what actually happens.

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

I assert is not not the sum total of anything. It is actually a gross oversimplification that doesn’t understand the larger picture at all.

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

This is an assumption that doesn’t understand what is occuring.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do.

Why would you assume this? As far as I can remember, every paper I have read on this topic includes control studies.

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.

This is not a proper control, because it only says that the process he used was toxic. It says nothing about the protocols that other people have used, which is many. I assert again this may be controlled opposition.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ...

… It’s not their eyesight, its multiple experiments and statistics. We DON’T use eyesight, that was my point.

is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Your conclusion assumes that the one “experiment” captured all the other experiments in a nutshell. I assert that is impossible, and that this experiment, even if it is exactly as you suggest, was inherently flawed, because it didn’t account for the MASSIVE variables in experimental protocols.

1/2

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

I think you missed my point on this, or at least you didn’t address it. My point was, you don’t have to see something (capture reflected light) for something to be detected, in fact, almost all science done on the very small has little to do with photons directly. We use other methods of detection, and we use statistics and multiple experiments to understand what we are “seeing” (in a not reflected light sort of way).

People in the macroscopic world rely on vision, because that is the most common sense we use to interface with the world. It is not the only way to determine if something is “real”, in fact, it leads to conclusions that are provably not real more often that not.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity.

Says who? Electon microscopy of virions shows remarkable uniformity. That makes sense because the proteins that make up the structure of the viral coat have specific geometry that makes a uniform exterior surface. See here. Or here. Or here. Or here.

Tell me those don’t look uniform. On the contrary, their size and morphology are remarkably uniform. There are a million more pictures just like those. All you have to do is look.

That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS.

What does that mean to you? I don’t think you fully appreciate how difficult such a task would be. We use many experiments and statistics to determine these things. You seem to want to hold a single virion in your hand. Why? You are again relying on “seeing”. We don’t do science on the very small by this method. We use statistics and many experiments. Until you really go through the methods we do use, you can’t say they are insufficient. You assume they are insufficient because you rely on sight, and holding a single thing in your hand.

If I fractionate a sample, and isolate the fraction that contains the “things” that escaped the cell, and then do a whole genome sequence on them, and find a sequence that is not contained within the cells genome, have I not found something unique? Something that isn’t supposed to be there? Have I not isolated it? I took the fraction that had what I assume are virions. Those fractions don’t contain parts of mitochondria, or the nucleus, because those things are in different fractions. We know that, because we do those experiments all the time. So here I have a fraction that doesn’t contain that stuff, but it does have the virions (what you call cell fragments) and they have a unique genome, which I just found. How is that not an isolation? I’m not saying there’s no contamination from mitochondria or nuclei, but the same contaminants are not found in each such experiment, and they are far less than would be found in the fraction that contained just the mitochondria, or just the nuclei (both of which can also be isolated from each other by the same method). So when we do 20 experiments, and we find different small amounts of contaminants in each one, we can subtract out those contaminants, and what remains is the unique sequence. That’s not “seeing” but its multiple experiments to determine what is there.

...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).

This is a mischaracterization of the process. First, it’s not “monkey kidney cells.” I am sure there are experiments that use such cell lines, in my lab I worked with several human cell lines (I did not do virus research). To suggest “monkey kidney cells” as if that were some standard thing is inappropriate. It’s whatever they use. It could be one of many different cell lines, or even multiple different ones to see if there is a difference.

You say a lot of things in the “process” they use that is not the actual process they use. I’m not sure where you are getting these ideas. Did you look up one specific experiment and then think that they all follow the same exact protocol? Almost all labs design their own protocols. While there are similarities, there are substantial differences. They use different cell lines, different processes of extraction, etc. I have no idea why you think they add “antibiotics that are specifically toxic to the kidney cells.” That is simply not true. We do use antibiotics in our cell culture medium, but they are not toxic. In fact cells thrive in the medium. I personally have used such a medium thousands of times. It never kills the cells. It never produces products like the virions seen in the picture samples above. Never. This idea is a mischaracterization of what actually happens.

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

I assert is not not the sum total of anything. It is actually a gross oversimplification that doesn’t understand the larger picture at all.

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

This is an assumption that doesn’t understand what is occuring.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do.

Why would you assume this? As far as I can remember, every paper I have read on this topic includes control studies.

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.

This is not a proper control, because it only says that the process he used was toxic. It says nothing about the protocols that other people have used, which is many. I assert again this may be controlled opposition.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ...

… It’s not their eyesight, its multiple experiments and statistics. We DON’T use eyesight, that was my point.

is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Your conclusion assumes that the one “experiment” captured all the other experiments in a nutshell. I assert that is impossible, and that this experiment, even if it is exactly as you suggest, was inherently flawed, because it didn’t account for the MASSIVE variables in experimental protocols.

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

I think you missed my point on this, or at least you didn’t address it. My point was, you don’t have to see something (capture reflected light) for something to be detected, in fact, almost all science done on the very small has little to do with photons directly. We use other methods of detection, and we use statistics and multiple experiments to understand what we are “seeing” (in a not reflected light sort of way). People on the macroscopic rely on vision, because that is the most common sense we use to interface with the world. It is not the only way to determine if something is “real”, in fact, it leads to conclusions that are provably not real more often that not.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity.

Says who? Electon microscopy of virions shows remarkable uniformity. That makes sense because the proteins that make up the structure of the viral coat have specific geometry that makes a uniform exterior surface. See here. Or here. Or here. Or here.

Tell me those don’t look uniform. On the contrary, their size and morphology are remarkably uniform. There are a million more pictures just like those. All you have to do is look.

That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS.

What does that mean to you? I don’t think you fully appreciate how difficult such a task would be. We use many experiments and statistics to determine these things. You seem to want to hold a single virion in your hand. Why? You are again relying on “seeing”. We don’t do science on the very small by this method. We use statistics and many experiments. Until you really go through the methods we do use, you can’t say they are insufficient. You assume they are insufficient because you rely on sight, and holding a single thing in your hand.

If I fractionate a sample, and isolate the fraction that contains the “things” that escaped the cell, and then do a whole genome sequence on them, and find a sequence that is not contained within the cells genome, have I not found something unique? Something that isn’t supposed to be there? Have I not isolated it? I took the fraction that had what I assume are virions. Those fractions don’t contain parts of mitochondria, or the nucleus, because those things are in different fractions. We know that, because we do those experiments all the time. So here I have a fraction that doesn’t contain that stuff, but it does have the virions (what you call cell fragments) and they have a unique genome, which I just found. How is that not an isolation? I’m not saying there’s no contamination from mitochondria or nuclei, but the same contaminants are not found in each such experiment, and they are far less than would be found in the fraction that contained just the mitochondria, or just the nuclei (both of which can also be isolated from each other by the same method). So when we do 20 experiments, and we find different small amounts of contaminants in each one, we can subtract out those contaminants, and what remains is the unique sequence. That’s not “seeing” but its multiple experiments to determine what is there.

...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).

This is a mischaracterization of the process. First, it’s not “monkey kidney cells.” I am sure there are experiments that use such cell lines, in my lab I worked with several human cell lines (I did not do virus research). To suggest “monkey kidney cells” as if that were some standard thing is inappropriate. It’s whatever they use. It could be one of many different cell lines, or even multiple different ones to see if there is a difference.

You say a lot of things in the “process” they use that is not the actual process they use. I’m not sure where you are getting these ideas. Did you look up one specific experiment and then think that they all follow the same exact protocol? Almost all labs design their own protocols. While there are similarities, there are substantial differences. They use different cell lines, different processes of extraction, etc. I have no idea why you think they add “antibiotics that are specifically toxic to the kidney cells.” That is simply not true. We do use antibiotics in our cell culture medium, but they are not toxic. In fact cells thrive in the medium. I personally have used such a medium thousands of times. It never kills the cells. It never produces products like the virions seen in the picture samples above. Never. This idea is a mischaracterization of what actually happens.

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

I assert is not not the sum total of anything. It is actually a gross oversimplification that doesn’t understand the larger picture at all.

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

This is an assumption that doesn’t understand what is occuring.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do.

Why would you assume this? As far as I can remember, every paper I have read on this topic includes control studies.

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.

This is not a proper control, because it only says that the process he used was toxic. It says nothing about the protocols that other people have used, which is many. I assert again this may be controlled opposition.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ...

… It’s not their eyesight, its multiple experiments and statistics. We DON’T use eyesight, that was my point.

is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Your conclusion assumes that the one “experiment” captured all the other experiments in a nutshell. I assert that is impossible, and that this experiment, even if it is exactly as you suggest, was inherently flawed, because it didn’t account for the MASSIVE variables in experimental protocols.

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

I think you missed my point on this, or at least you didn’t address it. My point was, you don’t have to see something (capture reflected light) for something to be detected, in fact, almost all science done on the very small has little to do with photons directly. We use other methods of detection, and we use statistics and multiple experiments to understand what we are “seeing” (in a not reflected light sort of way). People on the macroscopic rely on vision, because that is the most common sense we use to interface with the world. It is not the only way to determine if something is “real”, in fact, it leads to conclusions that are provably not real more often that not.

That SOMETHING has no uniformity.

Says who? Electon microscopy of virions shows remarkable uniformity. That makes sense because the proteins that make up the structure of the viral coat have specific geometry that makes a uniform exterior surface. See here. Or here. Or here. Or here.

Tell me those don’t look uniform. On the contrary, their size and morphology are remarkably uniform. There are a million more pictures just like those. All you have to do is look.

That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS.

What does that mean to you? I don’t think you fully appreciate how difficult such a task would be. We use many experiments and statistics to determine these things. You seem to want to hold a single virion in your hand. Why? You are again relying on “seeing”. We don’t do science on the very small by this method. We use statistics and many experiments. Until you really go through the methods we do use, you can’t say they are insufficient. You assume they are insufficient because you rely on sight, and holding a single thing in your hand.

If I fractionate a sample, and isolate the fraction that contains the “things” that escaped the cell, and then do a whole genome sequence on them, and find a sequence that is not contained within the cells genome, have I not found something unique? Something that isn’t supposed to be there? Have I not isolated it? I took the fraction that had what I assume are virions. Those fractions don’t contain parts of mitochondria, or the nucleus, because those things are in different fractions. We know that, because we do those experiments all the time. So here I have a fraction that doesn’t contain that stuff, but it does have the virions (what you call cell fragments) and they have a unique genome, which I just found. How is that not an isolation? I’m not saying there’s no contamination from mitochondria or nuclei, but the same contaminants are not found in each such experiment, and they are far less than would be found in the fraction that contained just the mitochondria, or just the nuclei (both of which can also be isolated from each other by the same method). So when we do 20 experiments, and we find different small amounts of contaminants in each one, we can subtract out those contaminants, and what remains is the unique sequence. That’s not “seeing” but its multiple experiments to determine what is there.

...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).

This is a mischaracterization of the process. First, it’s not “monkey kidney cells.” I am sure there are experiments that use such cell lines, in my lab I worked with several human cell lines (I did not do virus research). To suggest “monkey kidney cells” as if that were some standard thing is inappropriate. It’s whatever they use. It could be one of many different cell lines, or even multiple different ones to see if there is a difference.

You say a lot of things in the “process” they use that is not the actual process they use. I’m not sure where you are getting these ideas. Did you look up one specific experiment and then think that they all follow the same exact protocol? Almost all labs design their own protocols. While there are similarities, there are substantial differences. They use different cell lines, different processes of extraction, etc. I have no idea why you think they add “antibiotics that are specifically toxic to the kidney cells.” That is simply not true. We do use antibiotics in our cell culture medium, but they are not toxic. In fact cells thrive in the medium. I personally have used such a medium thousands of times. It never kills the cells. It never produces products like the virions seen in the picture samples above. Never. This idea is a mischaracterization of what actually happens.

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

I assert is not not the sum total of anything. It is actually a gross oversimplification that doesn’t understand the larger picture at all.

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

This is an assumption that doesn’t understand what is occuring.

Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do.

Why would you assume this? As far as I can remember, every paper I have read on this topic includes control studies.

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.

This is not a proper control, because it only says that the process he used was toxic. It says nothing about the protocols that other people have used, which is many. I assert again this may be controlled opposition.

So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ...

… It’s not their eyesight, its multiple experiments and statistics. We DON’T use eyesight, that was my point.

is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.

Your conclusion assumes that the one “experiment” captured all the other experiments in a nutshell. I assert that is impossible, and that this experiment, even if it is exactly as you suggest, was inherently flawed, because it didn’t account for the MASSIVE variables in experimental protocols.

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

The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.

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.

How can you say both:

They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness

and

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.

I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.

And then John Enders did an experiment

I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…

It’s ludicrous beyond belief.

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.

And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.

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.

Really?

Are you sure?

Are you 100% positive about that?

Like, absolutely 100%?

Because the documentation says something quite different.

Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed...

Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.

Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.

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

“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because it is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.

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.

One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced one a result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.

That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the Beyond a reasonable doubt category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.

The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus.

The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.

It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL

This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).

... 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.

I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.

Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that.

If you are suggesting you can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…

Wow.

Do you think we are all idiots?

Stefan Lanka not only showed...

WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols