Run the same tests in the same way today, you'll get the same result. There was no new virus, they were testing for something present everywhere.

I have run these exact same tests in other situations. They are common tests. It is basic biology. I am letting you know that there is evidence to the contrary. You are saying that the evidence must be wrong, despite the fact that it is basic science. You are justifying that statement with "scientists are not thinking beings anymore" etc.

Ok, is that true? in some ways I assert that yes, it is true. There is so much faith and dogma in the system and people don't know how to look past it. They have been trained to not see that the dogma even exists, while also being trained to espouse the exact opposite.

However, this lack of thinking is not true in the way you are applying it. It isn't true with respect to experiment. Experimental results are just measurements. Interpretation of those measurements relies on other things, but the other things in this particular case is other experimental measurements. What I am trying to tell you is, there is much less "interpreting" going on than you imagine. These particular isolation experiments rely on some very basic things with very solid foundations. They don't rely on believing in "germ theory," because they aren't looking for germs, they are looking for specific RNA sequences in specific areas of a cell. That they are found in some cells, and specific areas of those cells that exhibit a certain phenotype (exactly as if they were "sick" with a virus) and not in other cells or other areas of the "sick" cells is very hard to explain in any other way except that they have found a virus (foreign RNA in this case).

How do you think that RNA (which is completely foreign to humans) gets there, in the "sick" cells, and the specific areas of those cells if not by an invader (AKA a virus)?

I think you are believing what you want to believe and justifying it because if you allow yourself to think that you might be wrong about this very basic thing your whole theory falls apart. That is not investigation, and it has nothing to do with evidence. This is the appeasement of cognitive dissonance. You have a belief that must be true, and you will do whatever you can to justify it, including ignoring my arguments and evidence to the contrary.

Trust the science? Fuck no. It's all fake.

NEVER trust the science. Trust is the opposite of critical thinking. Scientists are trained to not trust the science (except when it's not science it's dogma, and that is the fraud in the system). However, if you don't listen to the arguments presented you are purposefully ignoring evidence. Listening to arguments in earnest is not in any way the same thing as trusting them. Conflating the two is a serious flaw, and immediately proves an investigation false. If you assume something is false without looking at it, you have completely derailed from an honest investigation.

There is so much fuckery in the system it is ludicrous, however, extending some is fake to all is fake is a false generalization fallacy (AKA a logically flawed argument).

Run the same tests in the same way today, you'll get the same result. There was no new virus, they were testing for something present everywhere.

I have run these exact same tests in other situations. They are common tests. It is basic biology. I am letting you know that there is evidence to the contrary. You are saying that the evidence must be wrong, despite the fact that it is basic science. You are justifying that statement with "scientists are not thinking beings anymore" etc.

Ok, is that true? in some ways I assert that yes, it is true. There is so much faith and dogma in the system and people don't know how to look past it. They have been trained to not see that the dogma even exists, while also being trained to espouse the exact opposite.

However, this lack of thinking is not true in the way you are applying it. It isn't true with respect to experiment. Experimental results are just measurements. Interpretation of those measurements relies on other things, but the other things in this particular case is other experimental measurements. What I am trying to tell you is, there is much less "interpreting" going on than you imagine. These particular isolation experiments rely on some very basic things with very solid foundations. They don't rely on believing in "germ theory," because they aren't looking for germs, they are looking for specific RNA sequences in specific areas of a cell. That they are found in some cells, and specific areas of those cells that exhibit a certain phenotype (exactly as if they were "sick" with a virus) and not in other cells or other areas of the "sick" cells is very hard to explain in any other way except that they have found a virus (foreign RNA in this case).

How do you think that RNA (which is completely foreign to humans) gets there, in the "sick" cells, and the specific areas of those cells if not by an invader (AKA a virus)?

I think you are believing what you want to believe and justifying it because if you allow yourself to think that you might be wrong about this very basic thing your whole theory falls apart. That is not investigation, and it has nothing to do with evidence. This is the appeasement of cognitive dissonance. You have a belief that must be true, and you will do whatever you can to justify it, including ignoring my arguments and evidence to the contrary.

Trust the science? Fuck no. It's all fake.

NEVER trust the science. Trust is the opposite of critical thinking. Scientists are trained to not trust the science (except when it's not science it's dogma, and that is the fraud in the system). However, if you don't listen to the arguments presented you are purposefully ignoring evidence. Listening is not trust. Conflating the two is a serious flaw.

There is so much fuckery in the system it is ludicrous, however, extending some is fake to all is fake is a false generalization fallacy (AKA a logically flawed argument).