Steve, the question of whether the virus has been isolated really comes down to simple logic. How can a concoction grown in a cell culture and containing 7 or more ingredients be considered an "isolate"? It goes completely against the definition of the word isolation. Virologists claim that the cytopathic effect observed in their cell cu…
Steve, the question of whether the virus has been isolated really comes down to simple logic. How can a concoction grown in a cell culture and containing 7 or more ingredients be considered an "isolate"? It goes completely against the definition of the word isolation. Virologists claim that the cytopathic effect observed in their cell cultures is proof of the virus, this is what they call isolation, but they never purified the sample taken from the sick person (a simple step to complete using density gradient centrifugation), and they never controlled for the other steps in the culture process (the addition of gentamycin/other antibiotics known to be toxic to kidney cells and the reduction of nutrients in cell culture feeding). Given that researchers have been able to isolate, in the true sense of the word, bacteriophages and exosomes for decades, there is no reason they shouldn't be following the same process for viruses. At the very least, they could conduct a control experiment where everything remains the same, except they do not add a sample of a sick patient's lung fluid to their culture (or they add lung fluid from a healthy person), and observe whether there is still cellular breakdown. This would indicate that the procedure itself is leading to the death of the cells, not a so-called virus. I'd also like to add that being an "expert" in a field does not make someone infallible. In fact, "experts" have often steeped in their own echo chamber for so long that new information from outside perspectives threatens their ego and presents far too great a risk to their identity for them to legitimately entertain the possibility that the new perspective might have merit. To give even an inch, they might have to look back on decades of their career and admit where they were wrong (or worse, admit that their entire career is a farce). That can be a very difficult and painful process, and very few individuals are willing to go through it, but the ones with the most integrity and the deepest desire for truth will inevitably do so. Meanwhile, other educated, logical thinkers who are perfectly capable of critically consuming research, and are therefore qualified to raise objections, are also seeking the truth. Because, at its core, this is a quest for the truth. Only the truth will set us free. Not an approximation of the truth, or a part of the truth - the whole objective truth. The question of whether the virus was isolated is absolutely critical because literally everything else follows from that single premise. Isolation --> virus exists --> causes disease --> wet market/bioweapon/variants/vaccines/masks/lockdowns/etc. If the foundation is cracked, then anything we build on top will eventually crumble. We must go back to the root, in this case isolation, because if we find that the core premise is flawed, then we don't have to argue about any of the other nonsense piled on top. It all becomes irrelevant. Only then can we build something stronger that will actually serve us for generations to come. If we cling to this narrative that viruses exist and cause disease, we will continue to be trapped in the false reality Big Pharma has built for us in order to keep us sick and begging for more.
Steve, the question of whether the virus has been isolated really comes down to simple logic. How can a concoction grown in a cell culture and containing 7 or more ingredients be considered an "isolate"? It goes completely against the definition of the word isolation. Virologists claim that the cytopathic effect observed in their cell cultures is proof of the virus, this is what they call isolation, but they never purified the sample taken from the sick person (a simple step to complete using density gradient centrifugation), and they never controlled for the other steps in the culture process (the addition of gentamycin/other antibiotics known to be toxic to kidney cells and the reduction of nutrients in cell culture feeding). Given that researchers have been able to isolate, in the true sense of the word, bacteriophages and exosomes for decades, there is no reason they shouldn't be following the same process for viruses. At the very least, they could conduct a control experiment where everything remains the same, except they do not add a sample of a sick patient's lung fluid to their culture (or they add lung fluid from a healthy person), and observe whether there is still cellular breakdown. This would indicate that the procedure itself is leading to the death of the cells, not a so-called virus. I'd also like to add that being an "expert" in a field does not make someone infallible. In fact, "experts" have often steeped in their own echo chamber for so long that new information from outside perspectives threatens their ego and presents far too great a risk to their identity for them to legitimately entertain the possibility that the new perspective might have merit. To give even an inch, they might have to look back on decades of their career and admit where they were wrong (or worse, admit that their entire career is a farce). That can be a very difficult and painful process, and very few individuals are willing to go through it, but the ones with the most integrity and the deepest desire for truth will inevitably do so. Meanwhile, other educated, logical thinkers who are perfectly capable of critically consuming research, and are therefore qualified to raise objections, are also seeking the truth. Because, at its core, this is a quest for the truth. Only the truth will set us free. Not an approximation of the truth, or a part of the truth - the whole objective truth. The question of whether the virus was isolated is absolutely critical because literally everything else follows from that single premise. Isolation --> virus exists --> causes disease --> wet market/bioweapon/variants/vaccines/masks/lockdowns/etc. If the foundation is cracked, then anything we build on top will eventually crumble. We must go back to the root, in this case isolation, because if we find that the core premise is flawed, then we don't have to argue about any of the other nonsense piled on top. It all becomes irrelevant. Only then can we build something stronger that will actually serve us for generations to come. If we cling to this narrative that viruses exist and cause disease, we will continue to be trapped in the false reality Big Pharma has built for us in order to keep us sick and begging for more.