First, I want you to know I very much appreciate you taking the time and effort to state your case clearly. Also, I want you to know you have given me things to consider, but it will take time. I may respond directly later, but for now let me address one thing that stood out.

an actual "thing" called a boogeyman-virus must be proven to exist. ... calling a bacteriophage a virus is like calling a donkey a unicorn that lost its horn

If you have two batches of the same bacteria in a medium, identical in every way, but you add isolations of a bacteriophage to one and not to the other, and one dies in the same way, every time, is that not evidence of the existence of something in that isolate? I guess you are stating the isolate is not actually an "isolate" and there are other things added in, but I have personally done chain transfections, taking the supernatent from one infected set of cells and infected another set of cells producing the same results, on and on, ad infinitum.

In other words, I have made my own isolations from these infected cells. You don't need to add anything (except water), you just isolate through standard techniques (in this case centrifugation). So unless they added something from the very first isolate, and somehow that "something" continues through dilution after dilution from each subsequent isolate, your idea of "something else" doesn't add up.

Only biological material, or chemicals made by biological processes can persist through continued dilutions (because somehow it keeps getting made). Whatever that biological material is, it acts identical to virologists ideas of a virus. In addition, the function of bacteriophage proteins and the DNA that encodes those proteins contained within them has been studied in extreme detail. These studies were done with controls.

The idea that no one ever noticed bad science being done on something like a bacteriophage, which has literally millions of experiments having been done on them is ludicrous. I myself have done hundreds of such experiments. I mean, there's an entire field of bacteriology called phage typing, whereby specific phage isolates are added to bacteria samples to determine the type of bacteria present. Each time this is done there is a control.

I swear, some people seem to believe that just because biologists have been brainwashed (which I agree with, and not just biologists), that that makes them stupid. They aren't stupid. Biologists understand full well the scientific process. Some papers have problems, and not all scientists follow the scientific process as well as they should, but that is more a function of the publishing process than the scientific process. Scientists, in general, understand the process very well. They understand the importance of hypothesis and controls. They understand that their results, and more importantly, their conclusions aren't "truth." There are some that aren't as bright as they think they are, but they aren't all idiots. In fact, in my experience, the vast majority are pretty damn smart. They aren't being fooled in the way you suggest. They are being fooled in other ways (through dogma). In other words, they aren't "missing something" in their experiments (controls, stuff being added into their mediums, hypotheses, etc.), they are being restricted from looking in certain directions (dogma). THAT is how science is controlled. (That and the publication process, which is where most of the fuckery happens.)

I can't really speak to mammalian viruses because I have personally never worked on them. I have read many experimental reports however, and have not previously noticed red flags. You have given me some specific things to look for however, and I will do so.

First, I want you to know I very much appreciate you taking the time and effort to state your case clearly. Also, I want you to know you have given me things to consider, but it will take time. I may respond directly later, but for now let me address one thing that stood out.

an actual "thing" called a boogeyman-virus must be proven to exist. ... calling a bacteriophage a virus is like calling a donkey a unicorn that lost its horn

If you have two batches of the same bacteria in a medium, identical in every way, but you add isolations of a bacteriophage to one and not to the other, and one dies in the same way, every time, is that not evidence of the existence of something in that isolate? I guess you are stating the isolate is not actually an "isolate" and there are other things added in, but I have personally done chain transfections, taking the supernatent from one infected set of cells and infected another set of cells producing the same results, on and on, ad infinitum.

In other words, I have made my own isolations from these infected cells. You don't need to add anything (except water), you just isolate through standard techniques (in this case centrifugation). So unless they added something from the very first isolate, and somehow that "something" continues through dilution after dilution from each subsequent isolate, your idea of "something else" doesn't add up.

Only biological material, or chemicals made by biological processes can persist through continued dilutions (because somehow it keeps getting made). Whatever that biological material is, it acts identical to virologists ideas of a virus. In addition, the function of bacteriophage proteins and the DNA that encodes those proteins contained within them has been studied in extreme detail. These studies were done with controls.

The idea that no one ever noticed bad science being done on something like a bacteriophage, which has literally millions of experiments having been done on them is ludicrous. I myself have done hundreds, maybe thousands of such experiments. I mean, there's an entire field of bacteriology called phage typing, whereby specific phage isolates are added to bacteria samples to determine the type of bacteria present. Each time this is done there is a control.

I swear, some people seem to believe that just because biologists have been brainwashed (which I agree with, and not just biologists), that that makes them stupid. They aren't stupid. Biologists understand full well the scientific process. Some papers have problems, and not all scientists follow the scientific process as well as they should, but that is more a function of the publishing process than the scientific process. Scientists, in general, understand the process very well. They understand the importance of hypothesis and controls. They understand that their results, and more importantly, their conclusions aren't "truth." There are some that aren't as bright as they think they are, but they aren't all idiots. In fact, in my experience, the vast majority are pretty damn smart. They aren't being fooled in the way you suggest. They are being fooled in other ways (through dogma). In other words, they aren't "missing something" in their experiments (controls, stuff being added into their mediums, hypotheses, etc.), they are being restricted from looking in certain directions (dogma). THAT is how science is controlled. (That and the publication process, which is where most of the fuckery happens.)

I can't really speak to mammalian viruses because I have personally never worked on them. I have read many experimental reports however, and have not previously noticed red flags. You have given me some specific things to look for however, and I will do so.