Studies Show Viruses without Cell Culture, Disproving "No-Virus"
Recently, I made a discovery of compelling evidence that showcases the direct extraction of viruses from humans and their subsequent observation using electron microscopy, all achieved without prior culturing.
The No-Virus group has made a claim that such studies are nonexistent.
Over the past three years, the No-Virus group has relentlessly upheld their argument, falsely asserting that viruses have never been witnessed without the preliminary process of culturing. To compound their position, they have adamantly denied the possibility of directly capturing photographic evidence of viruses derived from animal fluids. Moreover, they have proclaimed the absence of any studies that lend support to these contentions.
However, a discernible reality emerges, revealing that the No-Virus group has remained oblivious to the correct avenues through which to seek pertinent research. It has become evident that their lack of awareness in identifying the appropriate research materials has inadvertently shaped the core of their assertions. Consequently, their unwavering insistence over the course of three years that such studies simply do not exist has formed a substantial foundation upon which their arguments are built.
Christine Massey, for example, has consistently maintained the position that the direct observation and subsequent photographic documentation of viruses using microscopy techniques, in the absence of any culturing procedures, have never been realized or documented. Many in No-Virus share this false notion.
Now, the opportune moment has arisen for me to unveil a compelling body of evidence that effectively dismantles a substantial portion of their position, delivering a staggering blow to their prevailing ideology.
In matters of intellectual credibility, those possessing a discerning and rational mindset will readily acknowledge the weight of the ensuing evidence and its implications. Conversely, individuals lacking such credibility, including a significant number within the No-Virus group, are likely to persist in their denial, obstinately clinging to their falsehoods despite the presence of compelling evidence before them.
Having boldly asserted their claims, the onus now falls upon them to earnestly engage with the evidence presented, as it stands resolutely on its own merits. This crucial piece of evidence becomes an undeniable cornerstone that the No-Virus group must inevitably confront and address in a legitimate manner.
Viruses in the stools. - PMC (nih.gov) (1979)
Below, you see pictured viruses found in stool samples using conventional cell culture techniques. This is group I.
Below, you see pictured viruses found in stool samples using direct observation of viruses with electron microscopy (EM). This is group II.
Supporting Evidence - Study #2
Detection and identification of viruses by electron microscopy (wiley.com)
Microscopy
Patient material can sometimes be stained and viewed directly as in the Tzanck procedure (Rawls, 197911; b) fluorescence microscopy of infected cultures (Emmons and Riggs, 1977; Hsiung, 1973; WHO, 1981) and of patient material (Athanasiu et al., 1983; McIntosh, 1983); c) fluorimetry (Halonen et al., 1983); and d) electron microscopy (EM) and immune electron microscopy (IEM) (Almeida, 1980; Field, 1982; Flewett, 1978; Fong and Hsiung, 1978; Hsiung et al., 1979; Kapikian et al., 1976; McLean and Wong, 1984; Miller, 1984).
Supporting Evidence - Study #3
Viral detection by electron microscopy: past, present and future - PMC (nih.gov)
Supporting Evidence - Review/Study #4 (contains many other referenced studies)
Modern Uses of Electron Microscopy for Detection of Viruses - PMC (nih.gov)
Conclusion:
There exists a body of research documenting the direct observation and photography of viruses derived from host fluids, without relying on the traditional method of cell culture. In fact, numerous studies have been conducted in the field of plant and insect virology, which clearly demonstrate the successful purification and direct observation of viruses without the aid of artificial cell culture.
Upon further investigation, it becomes apparent that there is a robust collection of research available, with many specific studies detailing the direct observation of viruses without the need for cell culture. For a comprehensive understanding and to explore the comprehensive body of evidence supporting this claim, it is advisable to refer to the relevant literature, particularly review/study #4, where an extensive compilation of studies showcasing the direct observation of viruses can be found.
If you consider this work helpful, please consider donating or subscribing to my Substack, where I periodically release paid articles. Every bit helps me continue to produce thought-provoking articles.
Thank you for reading,
Jeff Green
How did they know what the virus particles they were looking for looked like, if the virus in question and it's particles hadnt been isolated first? How were they able to identify and distinguish the virus particle from all the other particles in the sample if they had never seen it before? How do they know those particles are actually "virus" particles? Did they just choose the funniest looking particle among all the others present and decide that was it? On what basis were these particles chosen? Are you aware of how many different types of particles appear in a stool sample? Do you really not understand why isolation necessarily has to take place first before you can identify the "virus" in other ways?
Did they do a control and make sure those particles in their pictures did not appear in feces samples of healthy humans? Did they provide pictures of their controls?
Re the isolation and purification of plant viruses see https://odysee.com/@niodagar:b/TMV:0
The fact that you think what you have set out refutes to any degree what the no-virus movement has been demonstrating shows how very very little you understand in this debate.
Congratulations on your excellent expose’ of the truth but should we to suspect that the main protagonists are disingenuous as to this factual evidence ; keeping others in ignorance be the primary objective ?