Clarifying the core issue of "virology"

that too many people fail to grasp yet it being so simple

I don’t know how many debates I’ve been in for the past 3 years regarding my understanding of “virology” and “viruses” with various “alternative” journalists, biochemists, and regular folks. What is clear from all of these debates is that none of the people seem to grasp the position that I have and that I am actually in full agreement with the “virologists” on the one question that matters the most, which is: Has any alleged “virus” been discovered, isolated, and purified directly from a sample taken from any sick host without the sample first being combined with other material like a tissue culture?

The answer is a resounding NO from all over the world, some even go as far as to say that it’s outside of what is possible in virology and understandably so, we can’t isolate something that doesn’t exist.

Image: FOIA request to the US CDC regarding documentation of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2

Now, the importance of that answer cannot be emphasized enough because indirectly it means that all alleged scientific experiments are working under the unproven ASSUMPTION that there is a “virus” in the samples they use, but they NEVER validate it PRIOR to the alleged scientific experiment taking place. Pointing to an effect in any alleged scientific experiment is NOT, I repeat NOT direct evidence for the existence of a “virus” any more than a destroyed backyard is direct evidence for the existence of unicorns.

What is astounding to me is how anyone can ignore this fundamental issue and brush it off as if it’s not important or a problem, or that talking about this problem is part of a psy-op. If we haven’t discovered something first directly in nature, then we can’t even attempt to isolate it, experiment with it, measure it, and what have you. This is common sense that even a small child can understand.

We can’t very well claim to have isolated a unicorn just because we found a destroyed backyard after we fired off some fireworks while spreading a bunch of poison all over it. But that is exactly the line of thought that people are having when they point to the cytopathic effect (death of tissue) in tissue cultures and claim that the effect is “evidence” of a "virus”.

Now some people use the excuse that the “virus” is too weak or fragile to be isolated, but that is like claiming a unicorn is too weak or fragile to be isolated. You can’t claim such a thing unless you have first shown that it actually exists. Sometimes the excuse is that we have to use a tissue culture to grow the “virus” to be able to isolate it, but we can’t very well put properties or needs on something we have never found. That would be like claiming a unicorn needs rainbows in order to fly and lots of roses in order to reproduce, yet has zero direct evidence of their existence.

I like to put forward a truism that should be easy enough to understand, which is that we can’t conduct any scientific experiments with things we haven’t shown to exist AND where they have been isolated and purified PRIOR to an experiment taking place. To claim otherwise would be to claim that we can conduct scientific experiments with elves, gnomes, fairies, and unicorns.

What should be quite evident by now, after reading and understanding this, is that everything downstream from this is by default false since everything depends on its existence. That means that all claims of “viral” genomes are false, including the various alleged diagnostic tests by default, where any treatment like injections and pills can only bring unnecessary harm.

I’ve never expected people to come out right and tell the world that they were wrong, but I do expect people to give this issue some serious thought and investigation. It’s time for a new health paradigm to take place because the old lacks a solid scientific foundation to stand on.