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?
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.
Your lack of understanding on the subject matter is apparent from your questions, yet you audaciously assert that I do not comprehend the debate.
The virus particles possess distinct morphology that sets them apart from their surroundings. Additionally, researchers have observed that the presence of such viruses increased during viral illness. Further investigations introduced such viruses into cell lines, where they were able to replicate and generate new viral offspring.
Since the 1940s, this has been consistently proven, and the particles continue to exhibit consistent characteristics when examined through various forms of microscopy. This holds true even with the advancements in modern technology, which enable the observation of atomic-level protein data, consistently aligning with the micrographs I presented.
The video you shared features a conversation involving Mike Stone and Dr. Bailey, both of whom are staunch members of the No-Virus group. Both of them have consistently misrepresented the available science, particularly Mike Stone, who has utterly distorted and taken studies out of context to align with the No-Virus agenda.
Even if researchers are causing harm to their subjects (they aren't if done properly), it still does not explain the emergence of distinctly structured particles that can only originate from living cells. This aligns with the fundamental role of viruses, which are produced in response to cellular stress.
Morphology is not sufficient to demonstrate viral particles. A viral particle must fulfill defined physical and biological properties, including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite, meaning it results in identical copies of itself inside a host organism.
3. Persistently refusing to acknowledge presented evidence.
4. Demonstrating a noticeable bias against acknowledging the existence of viruses.
5. Engaging in arguments in bad faith.
6. Paradoxically argues that viruses must be isolated first before they can be isolated. "Without prior isolation and characterisation of a particle..."
I avoided nothing. Given your confrontational tone, I will respond accordingly. You have presented numerous unrelated questions that divert attention from the actual topic of viral particle existence. Most of what you claim is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether viral particles actually exist, and your comments largely demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge on this subject.
1. Koch's postulates are not directly applicable to virology. If they have been used, it has always been in an adapted form to suit the unique requirements of viruses. Furthermore, discussions on pathogenicity do not pertain to the existence of viruses.
2. Viruses can be observed and many of their characteristics determined through morphology alone, using forms of electron microscopy. I linked to 100 different studies showing this. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) allows for the observation of the internal genetic structure of viruses. If you were not blinded by ignorance, you would recognize that cell debris lacks such a genetic core or morphology, and over time, other possibilities can be ruled out.
3. Viruses are not always purified using the same methods. In the main study discussed in my article, the viruses were directly observed by smearing them on a slide. Additionally, the chemicals used for virus purification and isolation are administered in minuscule amounts and pose little to no harm when used correctly. If they were detrimental, the distinct morphology of viruses would appear structurally compromised. When performed correctly, there is still sufficient visual information to identify particles as viruses. When done improperly, viruses are destroyed, making it evident.
To assert that any human-made process can generate intelligently structured particles with consistent morphology, as consistently observed across all forms of microscopy, including unstained techniques, is a display of pure ignorance.
4. Viruses cannot self-replicate. If you place viruses in a petri dish with only cells and they multiply, it proves that cells are capable of producing viruses, regardless of the reasons behind their production. The fact remains that cells can generate viruses.
5. Controls have always been done in virology where applicable. Now, controls are normally referred to as "mock infection", which are controls.
Lets do a live stream debate on this subject and allow the audience to determine who has a clue and who does not.
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 ?
It is evidence that intelligently designed particles exist. These particles are then observed, and many of their functions are characterized. It is false to suggest that researchers merely point and declare without further investigation, as they actively pursue a deeper understanding of these phenomena.
Banned for arguing in bad faith. The primary focus of the study revolves around the detection of viruses in host samples using different detection methods—not specifically examining biological functions.
Are you and the "no virus" crew not using different definitions of virus? This whole virus's do not exist vs virus's exist but are not contagious fight is surely a non entity from the offset if you are both arguing different cases. Why you all come together on the zero contagion stuff and discuss the rest amicably.
I have made efforts to communicate with those individuals, but their response has been filled with hostility and personal attacks. Aligning myself with a group that is overtly anti-science, as evident in the majority of their writings, is something I would never consider. Their lack of a proper definition for "virus" stems from their disbelief in the existence of viruses altogether, including the particles typically associated with them, which they assert to be nothing more than cell debris.
The "viruses are exosomes" topic has been extensively discussed by the individuals you mentioned, but I have consistently demonstrated that they are mistaken in their claims. Exosomes and viruses are distinct entities—they are not interchangeable, nor are they the same thing.
You consistently misrepresent the “no-virus” team by claiming they refute the existence of these particles when their claim has always been that viruses “do not exist as described”, meaning that there is no evidence that these particles are pathogenic.
If you intend to convey their assertions, you should do so accurately. It is demonstrably incorrect to claim that they simply assert viruses do not exist as described. Prominent figures within the No-Virus movement, including Kaufman, have consistently stated that viruses do not exist and that the particles observed are merely cellular debris.
Regarding your last question: The existence of particles is separate from the concept of contagion, and you are conflating the two.
Viruses are described as contagious pathogens. If they are not contagious then vaccines are unnecessary and less than useless, causing more harm and no good. I believe I have heard you claim that viruses are solvents produced by the cells. Why is this not considered useful cell debris? Those who refute the existence of contagious pathogenic viruses are not claiming there are no particles, but only that they are not the cause of disease. Are you not saying the same thing?
"No-Virus" asserts that particles referred to as "viruses" are cellular debris without structure and are mere aberrations. Initially, they claimed that viruses were exosomes, but later retracted this theory due to inconsistencies with their past and present statements. Some individuals, like Mike Stone, have created lengthy arguments denying the existence of exosomes in an attempt to maintain coherence with their current views. They now state that bacteriophages exist and have been isolated and purified (see SOVI, "Statement on Virus Isolation" by Kaufman). Cowan now claims that bacteriophages are not viruses to align with Stefan Lanka, who claims to have purified bacteriophages. Thus, No-Virus must admit bacteriophages exist. In essence, they are fabricating stories to cover their ignorance and are misleading those who are ignorant to the topics.
Cowan's bacteriophage claim, for example, can be easily disproven by noting that adenoviruses and bacteriophages share the same capsid structure, despite coming from different cell types. And, as I illustrate in my article, many viruses contain clearly defined structure that cannot be mistaken for cellular debris.
I, on the other hand, state that the particles referred to as viruses by science do exist, but that they are specific non-contagious cellular enzyme structures. These structures are produced entirely within cells to assist in cellular detoxification functions during periods of cellular toxemic stress, wherein cells are imbued with some form industrial toxicity. Furthermore, I assert that these structures have the ability to act mainly upon the same type of cell that produced them, only within the same body that produced them, and only if cell membrane stress proteins are present, allowing the virus to act upon the cell.
Yes, they have. There would not be numerous adenoviruses depicted in the micrograph if they are not replication competent. Viruses do not spontaneously materialize; rather, they are generated by cells. The presence of these distinct particles in the micrograph undeniably confirms their identity as viruses, and their discernible morphology reflects their cellular origin. This conclusive evidence, combined with contextual proofs, leaves little room for doubt regarding the nature of these particles. The overwhelming certainty that what you are observing in the micrograph are indeed viruses is nearly 100%.
The fact that there are multiple particles depicted in the electron micrograph is not evidence that the particles are the result of an alleged infection. Affirming the consequent fallacy.
You are directly presuming the conclusion which is at question in the first place, which is a begging the question fallacy aka circular reasoning.
I'm presuming nothing. The evidence is that the particles visibly emerge from cells, and it can be unequivocally proven that they are produced by cells.
So... There are particles They found and someOne called them "viruses?" And that means deadly viruses and contagion will kill Us? Or... No, the particles found and labeled "viruses" are harmless, but because someOne called them "viruses" this is proof that there are deadly ones? Or... Because they were labeled "viruses" We can dispute the work that shows no deadly particles are anywhere, and contagion, never, ever proven, is real?
I asked a series of questions, seeking what Your point is in calling essentially inert particles "viruses" when the common definition is a particle that causes disease = of which there is no proof anywhere..
I think the point is that these are neither deadly nor inert particles. To disregard them completely is to 'go backwards' scientifically, whereas Green has been trying to take us forward past the misconceptions on either side of this debate regarding their existence to better understand their function.
If our only concern is whether or not they're deadly or contagious, then there is no need to repeat the claims that they don't exist or that they're merely debris. But if we want to make claims that are supported by evidence and stand up to scrutiny, it's important to deepen our understanding of the evidence and look at it from another perspective (rather than dismiss it completely).
Viruses are defined structures with specific morphology and are unique to all other particles. Viruses are produced during the disease process. The definition of 'virus' is far more than merely "causes disease",
Well, I am not sold there. At 67, the only use I have ever encountered (and I took some biology and such when I was in school) of "virus" was something that sickened and killed.
It seems to Me that dead cell debris is being touted as "viruses" - but They don't kill You. Merely labeled as such to muddy the waters. When We say there's no viruses, We don't mean there are no particles someOne labeled "viruses," but that there is nothing that is sickening, deadly, and contagious, and warrants toxins being jabbed in Our flesh to be "protected."
Perhaps We should agree to disagree before You ban Me too...
Are you a spokesperson for 'No-Virus'? 'No-Virus' has repeatedly claimed there are no particles.
'Virus' (basic definition): "An ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nanometers in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, mainly bacteria, plants, and animals: composed of an RNA or DNA core, a protein coat, and, in more complex types, a surrounding envelope." -https://www.dictionary.com/browse/virus
No, I just have tons of research. And right there it says it's "infectious" and suggests it can replicate (would love to see footage of these particles "replicating...").
Frankly that looks like something the Pfizer folks would pay for to put on the web - that "infectious" thing is a clue...
No worries, NS. They do the circular reasoning thing. If they actually had a "virus" to produce they wouldn't be bragging about it on substack! Dr Tom Cowan & friends are willing to fork out some cash and welcome a decent case but that's nothing! If this Jeff Green is 1/1000th as smart as he says he is he'll dish his wares over at GAVI where the billionaires are chomping at the bit waiting for someone to PULLEEEEEZE show evidence of a virus. We're talking at least $100,000,000 I bet they'd pay Jeff here. He knows that. Jeff will just answer good questions like yours with bad questions like that and try to peg you as being with some organization. It's the limp dance they do till they have to ban you for making so much sense. They already have millions of people with pitchforks in their nightmares looking for the cause of these so-called pandemics and all they have is exosomes and paid-off peer reviews. People like Jeff are the problem. If they were interested in solutions they'd have something more than fancy lingo and cartoon dryer balls to justify their existence. Most people actually do stuff. Machinists have machines, animal trainers have animals, taxi drivers have taxis but virologists can't even find a virus! Seriously, Jeff. People are beginning to wonder what's going on with you and your "We got nothin" cronies and you're gonna have to sh/+ or get off the pot eventually. Last I checked pitchforks DO exist.
People who paint everything in black-and-white terms are part of the problem. The "with us or against us" mindset supported by dogmatic thinking that rejects nuance is part of the problem. It seems you don't understand Green's position at all.
The main study featured in the article deals with detection methods of viruses—not in infection. A control is therefore not necessary. Secondly, EM does NOT produce artifacts that resemble viruses, especially unenveloped adenoviruses.
Lastly, your request for "degree of purification" is a misnomer. Viruses are purified in a relatively pure form, allowing for the micrographs in the article. If this were not the case, you would not have visibly pure particles.
You showed a "paper" where some-"thing" is found directly (?) in a liquid, combined with many other things that look like what virology once has declared to be virus because of the specific shape. That's "observation", at best. There's no reference in nature, so this paper is only comparing expectation to earlier expectation wich fit the common imagination of what a virus should look like. Unicornology. Here is another author's hypothesis to have found the causative agent of conditions of the sickness inside these samples and in a specific group of particles before even testing the effect of this entity.
Pictures alone can never be proof of existence of something. As you might know these pictures can only be produced with the use of highly technical procedures wich inevitably alter the sample. Without the proper isolation and purification of the alleged virus particle you don't even have a reference to compare the condition of the particles in question before and after the procedure to be able to evaluate the grade of alteration before and after EM microscopy.
1. Your claim that previous research on virus morphology cannot be applied to future studies is false. Such utilization of previous findings is common and valid.
2. You claim that pictures do not hold evidentiary value, despite the fact that electron microscopy techniques, including cryo-EM, consistently provide evidence of the same structures. When properly employed, these techniques cause minimal damage to the sample, and any significant alterations would be visibly evident as clear damage to the normal geometric equilateral structure of viruses. Therefore, your statement is once again false.
3. Contrary to your claim, the viruses in the study were indeed purified and isolated, as the samples were pure enough for photography.
4. Your final statement is also incorrect. There are multiple existing electron microscopy methods, and each technique consistently reveals the same visible virus morphology. If any negative alterations occur, they are easily detectable, as the integrity of outer proteins, such as spike proteins, would be visibly compromised. Even in such cases, the viral structure typically remains intact.
It's technically impossible to generate a EM picture where all the spheric particles are exactly cut through the equator. To achieve this there needs to be a stable layer of specific thickness in the liquid where all the alleged particles are horizontally arranged, side by side, in only two dimensions. The density band from where the specimen comes would be invisibly thin if it held a single flat layer of virus particles with a two dimensional "size". You could not know where to suck out the pellets. And you would have to ask, where the rest of the viruses went when the band is saturated, but other density bands are not fitting the density of the particles. There should be trillions of them. Where is the volume relation ever mentioned? Why at all is point and declare needed? If the layer is not fully saturated, then again, it's technically impossible to assemble all the particles horizontally side by side so that a cut through the equator of each single one of them can be done. There would always be cuts through the peripheral areas which is obviously not the case.
This mentioned "paper" does show nothing more than it is technically possible to prepare a soup of known provenance wich helds particles of unknown provenance and to look directly into the result. The result tells you that you can see something that fits the fictional definition of things once declared as viruses, all perfectly spherically shaped and magically cut through the the middle. What are they, what is their character, what is their potential? Unknown, as long as there purified isolation has not been done. The problem is not the lack of technical skills, the problem is what the technical skills can do. And what they can't.
They're not cutting viruses through the middle. What you see are whole, intact virus particles. Where did you get this false information? Moreover, the inner structure is determined via TEM microscopy to characterize internal structure.
Furthermore, in the case of adenoviruses, they are only one type of virus. There are viruses that are not spherical.
The density band where viruses collect is made larger by adding fluids of the same density that collect along with the viral particles. This process is called density gradient layering. The layer is not as thin as you describe.
And regarding your last statement: You have egregiously misrepresented the technical skills. All the "problems" you state are not real problems and/or were overcome many years ago or were never an issue. Please provide one study that explains the supposed technical limitations as you have described.
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.
Your lack of understanding on the subject matter is apparent from your questions, yet you audaciously assert that I do not comprehend the debate.
The virus particles possess distinct morphology that sets them apart from their surroundings. Additionally, researchers have observed that the presence of such viruses increased during viral illness. Further investigations introduced such viruses into cell lines, where they were able to replicate and generate new viral offspring.
Since the 1940s, this has been consistently proven, and the particles continue to exhibit consistent characteristics when examined through various forms of microscopy. This holds true even with the advancements in modern technology, which enable the observation of atomic-level protein data, consistently aligning with the micrographs I presented.
The video you shared features a conversation involving Mike Stone and Dr. Bailey, both of whom are staunch members of the No-Virus group. Both of them have consistently misrepresented the available science, particularly Mike Stone, who has utterly distorted and taken studies out of context to align with the No-Virus agenda.
Even if researchers are causing harm to their subjects (they aren't if done properly), it still does not explain the emergence of distinctly structured particles that can only originate from living cells. This aligns with the fundamental role of viruses, which are produced in response to cellular stress.
Morphology is not sufficient to demonstrate viral particles. A viral particle must fulfill defined physical and biological properties, including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite, meaning it results in identical copies of itself inside a host organism.
Your commenting privileges have been revoked based on the following grounds:
1. Engaging in deceptive misrepresentations.
2. Grossly mischaracterizing scientific information.
3. Persistently refusing to acknowledge presented evidence.
4. Demonstrating a noticeable bias against acknowledging the existence of viruses.
5. Engaging in arguments in bad faith.
6. Paradoxically argues that viruses must be isolated first before they can be isolated. "Without prior isolation and characterisation of a particle..."
As a result, you are now banned from commenting.
I avoided nothing. Given your confrontational tone, I will respond accordingly. You have presented numerous unrelated questions that divert attention from the actual topic of viral particle existence. Most of what you claim is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether viral particles actually exist, and your comments largely demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge on this subject.
1. Koch's postulates are not directly applicable to virology. If they have been used, it has always been in an adapted form to suit the unique requirements of viruses. Furthermore, discussions on pathogenicity do not pertain to the existence of viruses.
2. Viruses can be observed and many of their characteristics determined through morphology alone, using forms of electron microscopy. I linked to 100 different studies showing this. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) allows for the observation of the internal genetic structure of viruses. If you were not blinded by ignorance, you would recognize that cell debris lacks such a genetic core or morphology, and over time, other possibilities can be ruled out.
3. Viruses are not always purified using the same methods. In the main study discussed in my article, the viruses were directly observed by smearing them on a slide. Additionally, the chemicals used for virus purification and isolation are administered in minuscule amounts and pose little to no harm when used correctly. If they were detrimental, the distinct morphology of viruses would appear structurally compromised. When performed correctly, there is still sufficient visual information to identify particles as viruses. When done improperly, viruses are destroyed, making it evident.
To assert that any human-made process can generate intelligently structured particles with consistent morphology, as consistently observed across all forms of microscopy, including unstained techniques, is a display of pure ignorance.
4. Viruses cannot self-replicate. If you place viruses in a petri dish with only cells and they multiply, it proves that cells are capable of producing viruses, regardless of the reasons behind their production. The fact remains that cells can generate viruses.
5. Controls have always been done in virology where applicable. Now, controls are normally referred to as "mock infection", which are controls.
Lets do a live stream debate on this subject and allow the audience to determine who has a clue and who does not.
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 ?
Yes, to your last question.
Pointing at particles of unknown biological function and composition is not evidence of a virus.
It is evidence that intelligently designed particles exist. These particles are then observed, and many of their functions are characterized. It is false to suggest that researchers merely point and declare without further investigation, as they actively pursue a deeper understanding of these phenomena.
The biological function and composition of the particles were not demonstrated.
That was not their topic of study.
Banned for arguing in bad faith. The primary focus of the study revolves around the detection of viruses in host samples using different detection methods—not specifically examining biological functions.
Are you and the "no virus" crew not using different definitions of virus? This whole virus's do not exist vs virus's exist but are not contagious fight is surely a non entity from the offset if you are both arguing different cases. Why you all come together on the zero contagion stuff and discuss the rest amicably.
I have made efforts to communicate with those individuals, but their response has been filled with hostility and personal attacks. Aligning myself with a group that is overtly anti-science, as evident in the majority of their writings, is something I would never consider. Their lack of a proper definition for "virus" stems from their disbelief in the existence of viruses altogether, including the particles typically associated with them, which they assert to be nothing more than cell debris.
I'd love to hear the GOATs, namely, Tom Cowan, Mark Bailey and Andy Kaufman's analysis of this.
Perhaps what you call viruses they call exosomes and they are the same things.
Full disclosure: I'm not a Dr and don't play one on TV
The "viruses are exosomes" topic has been extensively discussed by the individuals you mentioned, but I have consistently demonstrated that they are mistaken in their claims. Exosomes and viruses are distinct entities—they are not interchangeable, nor are they the same thing.
I must have missed the evidence that confirms that the objects in your photos are the cause of illness.
Did I miss that part?
Disease causation is not the point of this article.
Why not?
You consistently misrepresent the “no-virus” team by claiming they refute the existence of these particles when their claim has always been that viruses “do not exist as described”, meaning that there is no evidence that these particles are pathogenic.
Where is the evidence of contagion?
If you intend to convey their assertions, you should do so accurately. It is demonstrably incorrect to claim that they simply assert viruses do not exist as described. Prominent figures within the No-Virus movement, including Kaufman, have consistently stated that viruses do not exist and that the particles observed are merely cellular debris.
Regarding your last question: The existence of particles is separate from the concept of contagion, and you are conflating the two.
Viruses are described as contagious pathogens. If they are not contagious then vaccines are unnecessary and less than useless, causing more harm and no good. I believe I have heard you claim that viruses are solvents produced by the cells. Why is this not considered useful cell debris? Those who refute the existence of contagious pathogenic viruses are not claiming there are no particles, but only that they are not the cause of disease. Are you not saying the same thing?
"No-Virus" asserts that particles referred to as "viruses" are cellular debris without structure and are mere aberrations. Initially, they claimed that viruses were exosomes, but later retracted this theory due to inconsistencies with their past and present statements. Some individuals, like Mike Stone, have created lengthy arguments denying the existence of exosomes in an attempt to maintain coherence with their current views. They now state that bacteriophages exist and have been isolated and purified (see SOVI, "Statement on Virus Isolation" by Kaufman). Cowan now claims that bacteriophages are not viruses to align with Stefan Lanka, who claims to have purified bacteriophages. Thus, No-Virus must admit bacteriophages exist. In essence, they are fabricating stories to cover their ignorance and are misleading those who are ignorant to the topics.
Cowan's bacteriophage claim, for example, can be easily disproven by noting that adenoviruses and bacteriophages share the same capsid structure, despite coming from different cell types. And, as I illustrate in my article, many viruses contain clearly defined structure that cannot be mistaken for cellular debris.
I, on the other hand, state that the particles referred to as viruses by science do exist, but that they are specific non-contagious cellular enzyme structures. These structures are produced entirely within cells to assist in cellular detoxification functions during periods of cellular toxemic stress, wherein cells are imbued with some form industrial toxicity. Furthermore, I assert that these structures have the ability to act mainly upon the same type of cell that produced them, only within the same body that produced them, and only if cell membrane stress proteins are present, allowing the virus to act upon the cell.
So then you and those you oppose both believe these particles are not contagious, as described. Good to know. A bit long winded but we got there.
How do you know the particles are viruses? They’ve not been shown to be replication-competent.
Yes, they have. There would not be numerous adenoviruses depicted in the micrograph if they are not replication competent. Viruses do not spontaneously materialize; rather, they are generated by cells. The presence of these distinct particles in the micrograph undeniably confirms their identity as viruses, and their discernible morphology reflects their cellular origin. This conclusive evidence, combined with contextual proofs, leaves little room for doubt regarding the nature of these particles. The overwhelming certainty that what you are observing in the micrograph are indeed viruses is nearly 100%.
The fact that there are multiple particles depicted in the electron micrograph is not evidence that the particles are the result of an alleged infection. Affirming the consequent fallacy.
You are directly presuming the conclusion which is at question in the first place, which is a begging the question fallacy aka circular reasoning.
I'm presuming nothing. The evidence is that the particles visibly emerge from cells, and it can be unequivocally proven that they are produced by cells.
You presume that they are the result of an alleged infection. Affirming the consequent fallacy.
So... There are particles They found and someOne called them "viruses?" And that means deadly viruses and contagion will kill Us? Or... No, the particles found and labeled "viruses" are harmless, but because someOne called them "viruses" this is proof that there are deadly ones? Or... Because they were labeled "viruses" We can dispute the work that shows no deadly particles are anywhere, and contagion, never, ever proven, is real?
Something tells Me I may be banned here...
I've read your comment multiple times and it still makes zero sense. Try rewriting it in plain English because in its current form, it's incoherent.
I asked a series of questions, seeking what Your point is in calling essentially inert particles "viruses" when the common definition is a particle that causes disease = of which there is no proof anywhere..
I think the point is that these are neither deadly nor inert particles. To disregard them completely is to 'go backwards' scientifically, whereas Green has been trying to take us forward past the misconceptions on either side of this debate regarding their existence to better understand their function.
If our only concern is whether or not they're deadly or contagious, then there is no need to repeat the claims that they don't exist or that they're merely debris. But if we want to make claims that are supported by evidence and stand up to scrutiny, it's important to deepen our understanding of the evidence and look at it from another perspective (rather than dismiss it completely).
Viruses are defined structures with specific morphology and are unique to all other particles. Viruses are produced during the disease process. The definition of 'virus' is far more than merely "causes disease",
Well, I am not sold there. At 67, the only use I have ever encountered (and I took some biology and such when I was in school) of "virus" was something that sickened and killed.
It seems to Me that dead cell debris is being touted as "viruses" - but They don't kill You. Merely labeled as such to muddy the waters. When We say there's no viruses, We don't mean there are no particles someOne labeled "viruses," but that there is nothing that is sickening, deadly, and contagious, and warrants toxins being jabbed in Our flesh to be "protected."
Perhaps We should agree to disagree before You ban Me too...
Are you a spokesperson for 'No-Virus'? 'No-Virus' has repeatedly claimed there are no particles.
'Virus' (basic definition): "An ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nanometers in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, mainly bacteria, plants, and animals: composed of an RNA or DNA core, a protein coat, and, in more complex types, a surrounding envelope." -https://www.dictionary.com/browse/virus
No, I just have tons of research. And right there it says it's "infectious" and suggests it can replicate (would love to see footage of these particles "replicating...").
Frankly that looks like something the Pfizer folks would pay for to put on the web - that "infectious" thing is a clue...
A Post to Be Viral (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/a-post-to-be-viral
No worries, NS. They do the circular reasoning thing. If they actually had a "virus" to produce they wouldn't be bragging about it on substack! Dr Tom Cowan & friends are willing to fork out some cash and welcome a decent case but that's nothing! If this Jeff Green is 1/1000th as smart as he says he is he'll dish his wares over at GAVI where the billionaires are chomping at the bit waiting for someone to PULLEEEEEZE show evidence of a virus. We're talking at least $100,000,000 I bet they'd pay Jeff here. He knows that. Jeff will just answer good questions like yours with bad questions like that and try to peg you as being with some organization. It's the limp dance they do till they have to ban you for making so much sense. They already have millions of people with pitchforks in their nightmares looking for the cause of these so-called pandemics and all they have is exosomes and paid-off peer reviews. People like Jeff are the problem. If they were interested in solutions they'd have something more than fancy lingo and cartoon dryer balls to justify their existence. Most people actually do stuff. Machinists have machines, animal trainers have animals, taxi drivers have taxis but virologists can't even find a virus! Seriously, Jeff. People are beginning to wonder what's going on with you and your "We got nothin" cronies and you're gonna have to sh/+ or get off the pot eventually. Last I checked pitchforks DO exist.
People who paint everything in black-and-white terms are part of the problem. The "with us or against us" mindset supported by dogmatic thinking that rejects nuance is part of the problem. It seems you don't understand Green's position at all.
Agreed!!!
Where is the control experiment?
Are you aware that the EM method produces artifacts?
What is the degree of purification in these stool samples?
There's no method section in this paper.
The main study featured in the article deals with detection methods of viruses—not in infection. A control is therefore not necessary. Secondly, EM does NOT produce artifacts that resemble viruses, especially unenveloped adenoviruses.
Methods of Detection, page 2 & 5.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1145558/?page=2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1145558/?page=5
Lastly, your request for "degree of purification" is a misnomer. Viruses are purified in a relatively pure form, allowing for the micrographs in the article. If this were not the case, you would not have visibly pure particles.
You showed a "paper" where some-"thing" is found directly (?) in a liquid, combined with many other things that look like what virology once has declared to be virus because of the specific shape. That's "observation", at best. There's no reference in nature, so this paper is only comparing expectation to earlier expectation wich fit the common imagination of what a virus should look like. Unicornology. Here is another author's hypothesis to have found the causative agent of conditions of the sickness inside these samples and in a specific group of particles before even testing the effect of this entity.
Pictures alone can never be proof of existence of something. As you might know these pictures can only be produced with the use of highly technical procedures wich inevitably alter the sample. Without the proper isolation and purification of the alleged virus particle you don't even have a reference to compare the condition of the particles in question before and after the procedure to be able to evaluate the grade of alteration before and after EM microscopy.
1. Your claim that previous research on virus morphology cannot be applied to future studies is false. Such utilization of previous findings is common and valid.
2. You claim that pictures do not hold evidentiary value, despite the fact that electron microscopy techniques, including cryo-EM, consistently provide evidence of the same structures. When properly employed, these techniques cause minimal damage to the sample, and any significant alterations would be visibly evident as clear damage to the normal geometric equilateral structure of viruses. Therefore, your statement is once again false.
3. Contrary to your claim, the viruses in the study were indeed purified and isolated, as the samples were pure enough for photography.
4. Your final statement is also incorrect. There are multiple existing electron microscopy methods, and each technique consistently reveals the same visible virus morphology. If any negative alterations occur, they are easily detectable, as the integrity of outer proteins, such as spike proteins, would be visibly compromised. Even in such cases, the viral structure typically remains intact.
It's technically impossible to generate a EM picture where all the spheric particles are exactly cut through the equator. To achieve this there needs to be a stable layer of specific thickness in the liquid where all the alleged particles are horizontally arranged, side by side, in only two dimensions. The density band from where the specimen comes would be invisibly thin if it held a single flat layer of virus particles with a two dimensional "size". You could not know where to suck out the pellets. And you would have to ask, where the rest of the viruses went when the band is saturated, but other density bands are not fitting the density of the particles. There should be trillions of them. Where is the volume relation ever mentioned? Why at all is point and declare needed? If the layer is not fully saturated, then again, it's technically impossible to assemble all the particles horizontally side by side so that a cut through the equator of each single one of them can be done. There would always be cuts through the peripheral areas which is obviously not the case.
This mentioned "paper" does show nothing more than it is technically possible to prepare a soup of known provenance wich helds particles of unknown provenance and to look directly into the result. The result tells you that you can see something that fits the fictional definition of things once declared as viruses, all perfectly spherically shaped and magically cut through the the middle. What are they, what is their character, what is their potential? Unknown, as long as there purified isolation has not been done. The problem is not the lack of technical skills, the problem is what the technical skills can do. And what they can't.
They're not cutting viruses through the middle. What you see are whole, intact virus particles. Where did you get this false information? Moreover, the inner structure is determined via TEM microscopy to characterize internal structure.
Furthermore, in the case of adenoviruses, they are only one type of virus. There are viruses that are not spherical.
The density band where viruses collect is made larger by adding fluids of the same density that collect along with the viral particles. This process is called density gradient layering. The layer is not as thin as you describe.
And regarding your last statement: You have egregiously misrepresented the technical skills. All the "problems" you state are not real problems and/or were overcome many years ago or were never an issue. Please provide one study that explains the supposed technical limitations as you have described.