But we do have a clue. We're looking for something that makes people sick, destroys enough cells/tissue to kill them, and therefore should be found in abundance in their bodies. And to accomplish this the 'virus,' whatever it is, has to be able to reproduce in numbers sufficient to kill the host organism. But it has never been found, eve…
But we do have a clue. We're looking for something that makes people sick, destroys enough cells/tissue to kill them, and therefore should be found in abundance in their bodies. And to accomplish this the 'virus,' whatever it is, has to be able to reproduce in numbers sufficient to kill the host organism. But it has never been found, ever.
Now we've been able to nail down bacteria and isolate their excreted chemical toxins pretty well, demonstrating a lethal mechanism for killing people. Why not viruses? Well, they're supposed to be really small. Okay, but we have ultracentrifugation and nanofiltration techniques that can isolate objects in the putative range of viruses. Still no viral objects from anywhere, any lab. I'm struggling with the concept that anything so elusive, so fleeting (your word), and so rare can be so lethal.
Anyway, I realize that one cannot prove a negative, but that means that the burden of proof is on those saying that viruses do exist, not that they don't. You sound like you are sincerely looking at this subject. I recommend that you take a look at the history of virology. You might be surprised at what passed for 'science'r and 'proof' in the work of Jenner, Pasteur, Montagnier, Drosden, et. al. Fascinating, depressing, and a pretty clear roadmap to where we are today. But do your own research. The truth is out there and it will shake your trust in 'science.' Cheers, and Happy New Year.
PS: Don't know what you mean by 'change this to PoV.
PPS: And Igor must have been having a bad day, resorting to accusations of 'cheap baiting' rather than addressing the issue. If you can't answer the tough questions, you better stay on the porch, big dog (Igor). [That's baiting. Sorry, I couldn't resist.]
But we do have a clue. We're looking for something that makes people sick, destroys enough cells/tissue to kill them, and therefore should be found in abundance in their bodies. And to accomplish this the 'virus,' whatever it is, has to be able to reproduce in numbers sufficient to kill the host organism. But it has never been found, ever.
Now we've been able to nail down bacteria and isolate their excreted chemical toxins pretty well, demonstrating a lethal mechanism for killing people. Why not viruses? Well, they're supposed to be really small. Okay, but we have ultracentrifugation and nanofiltration techniques that can isolate objects in the putative range of viruses. Still no viral objects from anywhere, any lab. I'm struggling with the concept that anything so elusive, so fleeting (your word), and so rare can be so lethal.
Anyway, I realize that one cannot prove a negative, but that means that the burden of proof is on those saying that viruses do exist, not that they don't. You sound like you are sincerely looking at this subject. I recommend that you take a look at the history of virology. You might be surprised at what passed for 'science'r and 'proof' in the work of Jenner, Pasteur, Montagnier, Drosden, et. al. Fascinating, depressing, and a pretty clear roadmap to where we are today. But do your own research. The truth is out there and it will shake your trust in 'science.' Cheers, and Happy New Year.
PS: Don't know what you mean by 'change this to PoV.
PPS: And Igor must have been having a bad day, resorting to accusations of 'cheap baiting' rather than addressing the issue. If you can't answer the tough questions, you better stay on the porch, big dog (Igor). [That's baiting. Sorry, I couldn't resist.]
PPPS: I am rich and (in some circles) famous.
good video taking apart voodoo virology https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/a-farewell-to-virology-part-two-dr