First, there is no such thing as "debunked." The search for truth is an endless debate, all points made by any party necessarily directly addressed in rebuttal. This rebuttal process can go on forever, because there is always more evidence to show, always new points to be made that were not considered. We have been trained to believe that a single rebuttal is sufficient for truth. That is exactly how the world is controlled.

Second, I have addressed in rebuttal all of the statements by the "no such thing as isolation" crowd more times than I can count. Granted, it has been a very long time, but I will not do so here again. It falls on deaf ears every time. The reason it falls on deaf ears is because no one has any response to what I have to say. They simply lack the knowledge, and they don't have a canned "rebuttal" they can point to online, so instead they say something like "your education and experience is a fraud." To that I say, I pretty much agree, but it wasn't all a fraud.

You can't fake experiments. While I haven't ever worked with human viruses personally, I have done experiments with bacteriophage, which is a bacterial virus. I have done isolation of organelles, DNA, RNA, proteins, blebs, etc. on human cells through the exact same purification (isolation) techniques they use to isolate the virus. It's not the same techniques as what the "no isolation"-ist demand, but that's because their demanded technique of "isolation" is completely impractical. If those who say "there is no such thing as isolation" had ever done these experiments, had ever isolated organelles, much less viruses, they would understand why these experiments work, and why they are sufficient.

Again, I could go through all the biology explicitly (again), but it would be a complete waste of my time. You believe what you believe and that's fine, but what you haven't done is "debunk" anything. And it isn't because I haven't listened, or that I want my beliefs to be true. I don't give a fuck what I believe. My beliefs are completely mutable with new evidence, but if an argument can't be put forth that will match with all of the experiments, all of the evidence then they won't convince me, and I will think them likely to be disinformation campaigns.

These people, like Kaufman who "prove" these things show evidence, but they leave out a whole bunch of contraindicating evidence. Any theory that needs to leave out evidence to be "proven," is, I suggest, wrong. Or at the least, not proven.

First, there is no such thing as "debunked." The search for truth is an endless debate, all points made by any party necessarily directly addressed in rebuttal. This rebuttal process can go on forever, because there is always more evidence to show, always new points to be made that were not considered. We have been trained to believe that a single rebuttal is sufficient for truth. That is exactly how the world is controlled.

Second, I have addressed in rebuttal all of the statements by the "no such thing as isolation" crowd more times than I can count. Granted, it has been a very long time, but I will not do so here again. It falls on deaf ears every time. The reason it falls on deaf ears is because no one has any response to what I have to say. They simply lack the knowledge, and they don't have a canned "rebuttal" they can point to online, so instead they say something like "your education and experience is a fraud." To that I say, I pretty much agree, but it wasn't all a fraud.

You can't fake experiments. While I haven't ever worked with human viruses personally, I have done experiments with bacteriophage, which is a bacterial virus. I have done isolation of organelles, DNA, RNA, proteins, blebs, etc. on human cells through the exact same purification (isolation) techniques they use to isolate the virus. It's not the same techniques as what the "no isolation"-ist demand, but that's because their demanded technique of "isolation" is completely impractical. If those who say "there is no such thing as isolation" had ever done these experiments, had ever isolated organelles, much less viruses, they would understand why these experiments work, and why they are sufficient.

Again, I could go through all the biology explicitly (again), but it would be a complete waste of my time. You believe what you believe and that's fine, but what you haven't done is "debunk" anything. And it isn't because I haven't listened, or that I want my beliefs to be true. I don't give a fuck what I believe. My beliefs are completely mutable with new evidence, but if an argument can't be put forth that will match with all of the experiments, all of the evidence then they won't convince me, and I will think them likely to be disinformation campaigns.

These people, like Kaufman who "prove" these things show evidence, but they leave out a whole bunch of evidence. Any theory that needs to leave out evidence to be "proven," is, I suggest, wrong. Or at the least, not proven.