I explained how virologists claim they "see" a virus. I gave you the steps they go through, and why their claims are false.
You provided nothing but, "uhh ... yeah, bro, they see stuff."
They claim to grow cultures in monkey kidney cells. They poison those cells. Once poisoned, the cells break apart and die. They CLAIM this proves the virus was there. They show photos of fragments from the experiment, and claim it was the virus.
We KNOW that is not true, because if you do the exact same experiment, and do NOT use any fluid from a human (sick or not), you get the exact same result with the exact same photos that are claimed to be a virus (from a person).
Vero is not the most commonly used either.
What is, then?
The papers I have seen related to SARS-CoV-2 claims all show vero cells used.
To the point: What genetic material has been used in the SARS exeriments that were used more than vero cells?
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation.
Show me a study where: (a) a human fluid sample is used, (b) it is filtered, (c) AND it is centrifuged BEFORE adding other genetic material to the mixture.
THIS is the crux of the issue. They do it with bacteria, but not with viruses.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations
EXACTLY. The fact that the SAME end result occurs with or WITHOUT any bodily fluid sample (supposedly of a person "with a virus") ... PROVES that it is the PROCEDURE of the experiment itself that causes the result. And that result is what virologists use to claim that the virus exists in the first place.
They do NOT separate the virus from everything else (the literal definition of "isolate"), because THEY say they cannot see it (find it) in the fluid sample -- after filtering. They also cannot find it by centrifuge, which is why they don't even try.
Instead, they MIX it with OTHER genetic material, and THEN perform their experiment. That is what Lanka did, and then he did a control without any fluid, and got the same result -- proving that the method used is what causes the virus to "show up" in the electron microscope photos.
f he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE
Can't prove a negative. If the virus does not exist, it is impossible to prove that virus is not causing CPE. He simply did the experiment without a fluid sample (and, therefore, without a "virus" if it existed), and got the CPE effect.
The CPE could not have been caused by a "virus" because none could have been present. The CPE is the "virus."
or if he wanted to be extra smart ...
The interesting thing is that your challenge is completely imaginary and one-sided. No virologist has ever bothered to do it, even the "extra smart" ones.
samples from uninfected individuals
And besides, there would be no way to do it in the first place, because there is no way to identify "uninfected individuals" versus "infected individuals." The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and never was. And there are no symptoms of sickness that are unique to Covid-19 that do not also occur in common cold and flu.
You can also run ... PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue.
You clearly are not informed on the fraudulent use of PCR, as emphasized by its inventor.
There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
No experiment has ever been successful in showing that a sick person with a supposed virus could make another person sick. Never any evidence of transmission. And there have been plenty of attempts at, for more than 100 years.
So, since that is the #1 alarm we here -- that you will "catch" a virus and get sick -- and yet NOBODY has ever proven it, well ... that should be one hell of a clue.
On a side note: I had a conversation with a biology student, who thought she knew a lot about virology and how experiments are done.
I realized that she was relying solely on her assumptions that they do things the way other biology disciplines do, which is a false assumption. I further realized that every argument she gave me had to so with what they do AFTER they mix a bodily fluid with other non-human genetic material, and NOT before.
Therefore, all of her claims were irrelevant, because she was talking not about a human fluid (with virus) experiment, but a human fluid plus other non-human genetic material, including various poisons experiment.
Once she understood that, she exited the conversation.
Since your claims are all vague and general, with nothing specific ("they use stuff other than vero cells" ... "they can see it" ... "they can use PCR and other stuff"), I have to assume that you are in the same boat she was.
You are likely assuming that you know how they do things, but not educated on the specifics of it.
I explained how virologists claim they "see" a virus. I gave you the steps they go through, and why their claims are false.
You provided nothing but, "uhh ... yeah, bro, they see stuff."
They claim to grow cultures in monkey kidney cells. They poison those cells. Once poisoned, the cells break apart and die. They CLAIM this proves the virus was there. They show photos of fragments from the experiment, and claim it was the virus.
We KNOW that is not true, because if you do the exact same experiment, and do NOT use any fluid from a human (sick or not), you get the exact same result with the exact same photos that are claimed to be a virus (from a person).
Vero is not the most commonly used either.
What is then?
The papers I have seen related to SARS-CoV-2 claims all show vero cells used.
To the point: What genetic material has been used in the SARS exeriments that were used more than vero cells?
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation.
Show me a study where: (a) a human fluid sample is used, (b) it is filtered, (c) AND it is centrifuged BEFORE adding other genetic material to the mixture.
THIS is the crux of the issue. They do it with bacteria, but not with viruses.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations
EXACTLY. The fact that the SAME end result occurs with or WITHOUT any bodily fluid sample (supposedly of a person "with a virus") ... PROVES that it is the PROCEDURE of the experiment itself that causes the result. And that result is what virologists use to claim that the virus exists in the first place.
They do NOT separate the virus from everything else (the literal definition of "isolate"), because THEY say they cannot see it (find it) in the fluid sample -- after filtering. They also cannot find it by centrifuge, which is why they don't even try.
Instead, they MIX it with OTHER genetic material, and THEN perform their experiment. That is what Lanka did, and then he did a control without any fluid, and got the same result -- proving that the method used is what causes the virus to "show up" in the electron microscope photos.
f he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE
Can't prove a negative. If the virus does not exist, it is impossible to prove that virus is not causing CPE. He simply did the experiment without a fluid sample (and, therefore, without a "virus" if it existed), and got the CPE effect.
The CPE could not have been caused by a "virus" because none could have been present. The CPE is the "virus."
or if he wanted to be extra smart ...
The interesting thing is that your challenge is completely imaginary and one-sided. No virologist has ever bothered to do it, even the "extra smart" ones.
samples from uninfected individuals
And besides, there would be no way to do it in the first place, because there is no way to identify "uninfected individuals" versus "infected individuals." The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and never was. And there are no symptoms of sickness that are unique to Covid-19 that do not also occur in common cold and flu.
You can also run ... PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue.
You clearly are not informed on the fraudulent use of PCR, as emphasized by its inventor.
There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
No experiment has ever been successful in showing that a sick person with a supposed virus could make another person sick. Never any evidence of tranmission. And there have been plenty of attempts at, for more than 100 years.
So, since that is the #1 alarm we here -- that you will "catch" a virus and get sick -- and yet NOBODY has ever proven it, well ... that should be one hell of a clue.
On a side note: I had a conversation with a biology student, who thought she knew a lot about virology and how experiments are done.
I realized that she was relying solely on her assumptions that they do things the way other biology disciplines do, which is a false assumption. I further realized that every argument she gave me had to so with what they do AFTER they mix a bodily fluid with other non-human genetic material, and NOT before.
Therefore, all of her claims were irrelevant, because she was talking not about a human fluid (with virus) experiment, but a human fluid plus other non-human genetic material, including various poisons experiment.
Once she understood that, she exited the conversation.
Since your claims are all vague and general, with nothing specific ("they use stuff other than vero cells" ... "they can see it" ... "they can use PCR and other stuff"), I have to assume that you are in the same boat she was.
You are likely assuming that you know how they do things, but not educated on the specifics of it.
I explained how virologists claim they "see" a virus. I gave you the steps they go through, and why their claims are false.
You provided nothing but, "uhh ... yeah, bro, they see stuff."
They claim to grow cultures in monkey kidney cells. They poison those cells. Once poisoned, the cells break apart and die. They CLAIM this proves the virus was there. They show photos of fragments from the experiment, and claim it was the virus.
We KNOW that is not true, because if you do the exact same experiment, and do NOT use any fluid from a human (sick or not), you get the exact same result with the exact same photos that are claimed to be a virus (from a person).
Vero is not the most commonly used either.
What are?
The papers I have seen related to SARS-CoV-2 claims all show vero cells used.
To the point: What genetic material has been used in the SARS exeriments that were used more than vero cells?
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation.
Show me a study where: (a) a human fluid sample is used, (b) it is filtered, (c) AND it is centrifuged BEFORE adding other genetic material to the mixture.
THIS is the crux of the issue. They do it with bacteria, but not with viruses.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations
EXACTLY. The fact that the SAME end result occurs with or WITHOUT any bodily fluid sample (supposedly of a person "with a virus") ... PROVES that it is the PROCEDURE of the experiment itself that causes the result. And that result is what virologists use to claim that the virus exists in the first place.
They do NOT separate the virus from everything else (the literal definition of "isolate"), because THEY say they cannot see it (find it) in the fluid sample -- after filtering. They also cannot find it by centrifuge, which is why they don't even try.
Instead, they MIX it with OTHER genetic material, and THEN perform their experiment. That is what Lanka did, and then he did a control without any fluid, and got the same result -- proving that the method used is what causes the virus to "show up" in the electron microscope photos.
f he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE
Can't prove a negative. If the virus does not exist, it is impossible to prove that virus is not causing CPE. He simply did the experiment without a fluid sample (and, therefore, without a "virus" if it existed), and got the CPE effect.
The CPE could not have been caused by a "virus" because none could have been present. The CPE is the "virus."
or if he wanted to be extra smart ...
The interesting thing is that your challenge is completely imaginary and one-sided. No virologist has ever bothered to do it, even the "extra smart" ones.
samples from uninfected individuals
And besides, there would be no way to do it in the first place, because there is no way to identify "uninfected individuals" versus "infected individuals." The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and never was. And there are no symptoms of sickness that are unique to Covid-19 that do not also occur in common cold and flu.
You can also run ... PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue.
You clearly are not informed on the fraudulent use of PCR, as emphasized by its inventor.
There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
No experiment has ever been successful in showing that a sick person with a supposed virus could make another person sick. Never any evidence of tranmission. And there have been plenty of attempts at, for more than 100 years.
So, since that is the #1 alarm we here -- that you will "catch" a virus and get sick -- and yet NOBODY has ever proven it, well ... that should be one hell of a clue.
On a side note: I had a conversation with a biology student, who thought she knew a lot about virology and how experiments are done.
I realized that she was relying solely on her assumptions that they do things the way other biology disciplines do, which is a false assumption. I further realized that every argument she gave me had to so with what they do AFTER they mix a bodily fluid with other non-human genetic material, and NOT before.
Therefore, all of her claims were irrelevant, because she was talking not about a human fluid (with virus) experiment, but a human fluid plus other non-human genetic material, including various poisons experiment.
Once she understood that, she exited the conversation.
Since your claims are all vague and general, with nothing specific ("they use stuff other than vero cells" ... "they can see it" ... "they can use PCR and other stuff"), I have to assume that you are in the same boat she was.
You are likely assuming that you know how they do things, but not educated on the specifics of it.
I explained how virologists claim they "see" a virus. I gave you the steps they go through, and why their claims are false.
You provided nothing but, "uhh ... yeah, bro, the see stuff."
They claim to grow cultures in monkey kidney cells. They poison those cells. Once poisoned, the cells break apart and die. They CLAIM this proves the virus was there. They show photos of fragments from the experiment, and claim it was the virus.
We KNOW that is not true, because if you do the exact same experiment, and do NOT use any fluid from a human (sick or not), you get the exact same result with the exact same photos that are claimed to be a virus (from a person).
Vero is not the most commonly used either.
What are?
The papers I have seen related to SARS-CoV-2 claims all show vero cells used.
To the point: What genetic material has been used in the SARS exeriments that were used more than vero cells?
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation.
Show me a study where: (a) a human fluid sample is used, (b) it is filtered, (c) AND it is centrifuged BEFORE adding other genetic material to the mixture.
THIS is the crux of the issue. They do it with bacteria, but not with viruses.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations
EXACTLY. The fact that the SAME end result occurs with or WITHOUT any bodily fluid sample (supposedly of a person "with a virus") ... PROVES that it is the PROCEDURE of the experiment itself that causes the result. And that result is what virologists use to claim that the virus exists in the first place.
They do NOT separate the virus from everything else (the literal definition of "isolate"), because THEY say they cannot see it (find it) in the fluid sample -- after filtering. They also cannot find it by centrifuge, which is why they don't even try.
Instead, they MIX it with OTHER genetic material, and THEN perform their experiment. That is what Lanka did, and then he did a control without any fluid, and got the same result -- proving that the method used is what causes the virus to "show up" in the electron microscope photos.
f he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE
Can't prove a negative. If the virus does not exist, it is impossible to prove that virus is not causing CPE. He simply did the experiment without a fluid sample (and, therefore, without a "virus" if it existed), and got the CPE effect.
The CPE could not have been caused by a "virus" because none could have been present. The CPE is the "virus."
or if he wanted to be extra smart ...
The interesting thing is that your challenge is completely imaginary and one-sided. No virologist has ever bothered to do it, even the "extra smart" ones.
samples from uninfected individuals
And besides, there would be no way to do it in the first place, because there is no way to identify "uninfected individuals" versus "infected individuals." The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and never was. And there are no symptoms of sickness that are unique to Covid-19 that do not also occur in common cold and flu.
You can also run ... PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue.
You clearly are not informed on the fraudulent use of PCR, as emphasized by its inventor.
There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
No experiment has ever been successful in showing that a sick person with a supposed virus could make another person sick. Never any evidence of tranmission. And there have been plenty of attempts at, for more than 100 years.
So, since that is the #1 alarm we here -- that you will "catch" a virus and get sick -- and yet NOBODY has ever proven it, well ... that should be one hell of a clue.
On a side note: I had a conversation with a biology student, who thought she knew a lot about virology and how experiments are done.
I realized that she was relying solely on her assumptions that they do things the way other biology disciplines do, which is a false assumption. I further realized that every argument she gave me had to so with what they do AFTER they mix a bodily fluid with other non-human genetic material, and NOT before.
Therefore, all of her claims were irrelevant, because she was talking not about a human fluid (with virus) experiment, but a human fluid plus other non-human genetic material, including various poisons experiment.
Once she understood that, she exited the conversation.
Since your claims are all vague and general, with nothing specific ("they use stuff other than vero cells" ... "they can see it" ... "they can use PCR and other stuff"), I have to assume that you are in the same boat she was.
You are likely assuming that you know how they do things, but not educated on the specifics of it.
I explained how virologists claim they "see" a virus. I gave you the steps they go through, and why their claims are false.
You provided nothing but, "uhh ... yeah, bro, the see stuff."
They claim to grow cultures in monkey kidney cells. They poison those cells. Once poisoned, the cells break apart and die. They CLAIM this proves the virus was there. They show photos of fragments from the experiment, and claim it was the virus.
We KNOW that is not true, because if you do the exact same experiment, and do NOT use any fluid from a human (sick or not), you get the exact same result with the exact same photos that are claimed to be a virus (from a person).
Vero is not the most commonly used either.
What are?
The papers I have seen related to SARS-CoV-2 claims all show vero cells used.
To the point: What genetic material has been used in the SARS exeriments that were used more than vero cells?
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation.
Show me a study where: (a) a human fluid sample is used, (b) it is filtered, (c) AND it is centrifuged BEFORE adding other genetic material to the mixture.
THIS is the crux of the issue. They do it with bacteria, but not with viruses.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations
EXACTLY. The fact that the SAME end result occurs with or WITHOUT any bodily fluid sample (supposedly of a person "with a virus") ... PROVES that it is the PROCEDURE of the experiment itself that causes the result. And that result is what virologists use to claim that the virus exists in the first place.
They do NOT separate the virus from everything else (the literal definition of "isolate"), because THEY say they cannot see it (find it) in the fluid sample -- after filtering. They also cannot find it by centrifuge, which is why they don't even try.
Instead, they MIX it with OTHER genetic material, and THEN perform their experiment. That is what Lanka did, and then he did a control without any fluid, and got the same result -- proving that the method used is what causes the virus to "show up" in the electron microscope photos.
f he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE
Can't prove a negative. If the virus does not exist, it is impossible to prove that virus is not causing CPE. He simply did the experiment without a fluid sample (and, therefore, without a "virus" if it existed), and got the CPE effect.
The CPE could not have been caused by a "virus" because none could have been present. The CPE is the "virus."
or if he wanted to be extra smart ...
The interesting thing is that your challenge is completely imaginary and one-sided. No virologist has ever bothered to do it, even the "extra smart" ones.
samples from uninfected individuals
And besides, there would be no way to do it in the first place, because there is no way to identify "uninfected individuals" versus "infected individuals." The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and never was. And there are no symptoms of sickness that are unique to Covid-19 that do not also occur in common cold and flu.
You can also run ... PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue.
You clearly are not informed on the fraudulent use of PCR, as emphasized by its inventor.
There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
No experiment has ever been successful in showing that a sick person with a supposed virus could make another person sick. Never any evidence of tranmission. And there have been plenty of attempts at, for more than 100 years.
So, since that is the #1 alarm we here -- that you will "catch" a virus and get sick -- and yet NOBODY has ever proven it, well ... that should be one hell of a clue.
On a side note: I had a conversation with a biology student, who thought she knew a lot about virology and how experiments are done.
I realized that she was relying solely on her assumptions that they do things the way other biology disciplines do, which is a false assumption. I further realized that every argument she gave me had to so with what they do AFTER they mix a bodily fluid with other non-human genetic material, and NOT before.
Therefore, all of her claims were irrelevant, because she was talking not about a human fluid (with virus) experiment, but a human fluid plus other non-human genetic material, including various poisons experiment.
Once she understood that, she exited the conversation.
Since your claims are all vague and general, with nothing specific ("they use stuff other than vero cells" ... "they can see it" ... "they can use PCR and other stuff"), I have to assume that you are in the same boat she was.
I explained how virology claims they "see" a virus. I gave you the steps they go through, and why their claims are false.
You provided nothing but, "uhh ... yeah, bro, the see stuff."
They claim to grow cultures in monkey kidney cells. They poison those cells. Once poisoned, the cells break apart and die. They CLAIM this proves the virus was there. They show photos of fragments from the experiment, and claim it was the virus.
We KNOW that is not true, because if you do the exact same experiment, and do NOT use any fluid from a human (sick or not), you get the exact same result with the exact same photos that are claimed to be a virus (from a person).
Vero is not the most commonly used either.
What are?
The papers I have seen related to SARS-CoV-2 claims all show vero cells used.
To the point: What genetic material has been used in the SARS exeriments that were used more than vero cells?
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation.
Show me a study where: (a) a human fluid sample is used, (b) it is filtered, (c) AND it is centrifuged BEFORE adding other genetic material to the mixture.
THIS is the crux of the issue. They do it with bacteria, but not with viruses.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations
EXACTLY. The fact that the SAME end result occurs with or WITHOUT any bodily fluid sample (supposedly of a person "with a virus") ... PROVES that it is the PROCEDURE of the experiment itself that causes the result. And that result is what virologists use to claim that the virus exists in the first place.
They do NOT separate the virus from everything else (the literal definition of "isolate"), because THEY say they cannot see it (find it) in the fluid sample -- after filtering. They also cannot find it by centrifuge, which is why they don't even try.
Instead, they MIX it with OTHER genetic material, and THEN perform their experiment. That is what Lanka did, and then he did a control without any fluid, and got the same result -- proving that the method used is what causes the virus to "show up" in the electron microscope photos.
f he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE
Can't prove a negative. If the virus does not exist, it is impossible to prove that virus is not causing CPE. He simply did the experiment without a fluid sample (and, therefore, without a "virus" if it existed), and got the CPE effect.
The CPE could not have been caused by a "virus" because none could have been present. The CPE is the "virus."
or if he wanted to be extra smart ...
The interesting thing is that your challenge is completely imaginary and one-sided. No virologist has ever bothered to do it, even the "extra smart" ones.
samples from uninfected individuals
And besides, there would be no way to do it in the first place, because there is no way to identify "uninfected individuals" versus "infected individuals." The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and never was. And there are no symptoms of sickness that are unique to Covid-19 that do not also occur in common cold and flu.
You can also run ... PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue.
You clearly are not informed on the fraudulent use of PCR, as emphasized by its inventor.
There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
No experiment has ever been successful in showing that a sick person with a supposed virus could make another person sick. Never any evidence of tranmission. And there have been plenty of attempts at, for more than 100 years.
So, since that is the #1 alarm we here -- that you will "catch" a virus and get sick -- and yet NOBODY has ever proven it, well ... that should be one hell of a clue.