Nicely done. Slyver is clearly new to this debate, which to those who are unaware has been raging since the early days of "HIV." "Scientists" these days have been indoctrinated in the new science of purification where you basically do the opposite and drown it in jargon, computer algorithms and a myriad of supercilious nonsense until no one knows which way is up. They sneer at Koch's postulates and other such old science that would easily pull the rug out. If Slyver is actually wondering what isolation and purification would look like to one of these old time scientists, the so called Perth Group has detailed this ad nauseum: http://www.theperthgroup.com/. The general idea is there must be a "gold standard" of isolated and purified "virus," using the classic methods of centrifuge, EM characterization, etc. Otherwise, the genome you are calling "the virus" may be something else entirely and you must resort to inference or guesswork. You further must show that it and IT ALONE can cause sickness. Otherwise there is unlimited potential for fraud and all manner of shenanigans, aka, "Virology." This is why the manufacturers of PCR tests will admit in the fine print that they do not start from said "gold standard" when sourcing the respective genetic material for replication (unfortunately without such a gold standard, we have no idea what is actually being replicated) That way if the house of cards ever falls, the blame has been shifted up the pyramid. "We used the best available commercial material, it's not our fault no one ever isolated or purified." Have you not wondered how these "viruses" can be both abundant enough to cause illness and require HAZMAT suits while at the same time being too difficult to get enough of a sample from a sick person to run a simple isolation experiment? You can't have it both ways. If we all had to wear masks to prevent the virus from spreading it stands to reason that it should be easy enough to get some mucus, run it in a centrifuge, draw material out of the band where the "virus" would be if it was there and see what you see under EM. The virus research community has somehow accepted through groupthink and peculiar reasoning that this is somehow unnecessary. Why bother, the computer software can assemble the puzzle into more grant money. And there is the crux: no official source will ever fund a gold standard experiment, and dissenters can't afford a centrifuge and EM. Also, lets be honest, even if they ran 100 trials and found no virus every time, few would hear about it and even fewer would care. The virus scam was more or less designed to be unfalsifiable, with top down funding and authority, proprietary materials and equipment, high security labs, and gleeful crushing of all opposition (just ask Peter Duesberg). You would think it would give a well meaning researcher pause when they find themselves defending an edifice constructed by the likes of Gallo and Fauci. Its amazing how much self delusion can arise from the strange alchemy of student debt and ego involvement. Publish or Perish. And no journal is going to publish anything that truly threatens the golden goose. More significantly, they are much too smart to have been fooled. The first Tarot card is the fool for good reason. You must first see yourself as the fool before you can walk the path of knowledge.
Nicely done. Slyver is clearly new to this debate, which to those who are unaware has been raging since the early days of "HIV." "Scientists" these days have been indoctrinated in the new science of purification where you basically do the opposite and drown it in jargon, computer algorithms and a myriad of supercilious nonsense until no one knows which way is up. They sneer at Koch's postulates and other such old science that would easily pull the rug out. If Slyver is actually wondering what isolation and purification would look like to one of these old time scientists, the so called Perth Group has detailed this ad nauseum: http://www.theperthgroup.com/. The general idea is there must be a "gold standard" of isolated and purified "virus," using the classic methods of centrifuge, EM characterization, etc. Otherwise, the genome you are calling "the virus" may be something else entirely and you must resort to inference or guesswork. You further must show that it and IT ALONE can cause sickness. Otherwise there is unlimited potential for fraud and all manner of shenanigans, aka, "Virology." This is why the manufacturers of PCR tests will admit in the fine print that they do not start from said "gold standard" when sourcing the respective genetic material for replication (unfortunately without such a gold standard, we have no idea what is actually being replicated) That way if the house of cards ever falls, the blame has been shifted up the pyramid. "We used the best available commercial material, it's not our fault no one ever isolated or purified." Have you not wondered how these "viruses" can be both abundant enough to cause illness and require HAZMAT suits while at the same time being too difficult to get enough of a sample from a sick person to run a simple isolation experiment? You can't have it both ways. If we all had to wear masks to prevent the virus from spreading it stands to reason that it should be easy enough to get some mucus, run it in a centrifuge, draw material out of the band where the "virus" would be if it was there and see what you see under EM. The virus research community has somehow accepted through groupthink and peculiar reasoning that this is somehow unnecessary. Why bother, the computer software can assemble the puzzle into more grant money. And there is the crux: no official source will ever fund a gold standard experiment, and dissenters can't afford a centrifuge and EM. Also, lets be honest, even if they ran 100 trials and found no virus every time, few would hear about it and even fewer would care. The virus scam was more or less designed to be unfalsifiable, with top down funding and authority, proprietary materials and equipment, high security labs, and gleeful crushing of all opposition (just ask Peter Duesberg). You would think it would give a well meaning researcher pause when they find themselves defending an edifice constructed by the likes of Gallo and Fauci. Its amazing how much self delusion can arise from the strange alchemy of student debt and ego involvement. Publish or Perish. And no journal is going to publish anything that truly threatens the golden goose. More significantly, they are much too smart to have been fooled. The first Tarot card is the fool for good reason. You must first see yourself as the fool before you can walk the path of knowledge.