I don't see how it's possible without an actual photograph of the virus. Then after that, you've got to prove that the virus actually makes people sick and not being some other pathogen.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
In science there is no "proof beyond shadow of doubt", just confirming evidence.
Different people draw limit of neede evidence ar different levels.
For me it would be:
Isolate the virus from a sick (diagnosed, not rtPCR) patient biological sample
Purify the sample from other knowm contaminants (genetic)
Culture (grow) the sample of virus in a known, not contamined vero cell line (prove it is viable)
Infect known healthy animals (along with negative and positive other viral strain comtrols) with cultured sample
Watch, diagnose and observe disease progression in such animals to terminal state
Sample the live virus from such animals (repeat steps 1-3) above
Do a histological /Pathological analysis of dead animals from (5) to physically prove damage from the disease
Publish this in a reputable peer review journal and let papers survive post publication attacks
Replicate and reproduce the above steps by two independent teams at different labs using different virus isolates and animal models and publish the results of these as per 8.
To my knowledge 1-2 have been done, 3 has been done (but not in a proven uncontaminated vero line), 4 is done (without such controls), 5, 7,8 are done.
6 and 9 were not done (resampling and replication) the last time I checked the whole literature.
Currently the 1-5 is done twice on two animal models and without all my personal nit picky details.
The rest of the proof so far I have seen is genetic, but that only identifies the sequence, it doesn't prove what that "it" does (i. E. Infection damage proof from 4-5,7).
So in combination what is literature is strong enough, but not superb enough, it could be better.
However, Lanka"s proof is much less (he has half od the equation proven, not 100%).
And, no you can't do this in humans, unless Dr Mengele and you volunteer to do it on you.
You're one of the saner people on this site, from a few weeks of observation. Others exist I'm sure but many of them don't bother going against the consensus view here. Probably because it is easy to attack but takes much typing and time to explain and justify oneself. This tends to create a bubble here around some topics.
... Add sentence: "or falsifying evidence"
The "sequence" they claim to have found consists of 8 base pairs. The other 30,000 base pairs are provided by a computer.
There's no there, there.
Not true. All 30K have been fully WGS/NGS using Oxford Nanopore, BioPac, Illumina Poly Al and TF Ion Torrent methods.
Stop listening to morons who cherrypick papers they refer to.
Well I do not think I can prove it exists, I mean it's obviously fake..but.............I can say .....emmm..... : You are antisemitic for denying its existence!!!!
LOL I am sure it will work every time :D
u/Merkava_4 : It isn't important it exists or not.
People here too much concentrate about its existence (or lack of it)
What is important is real statistics. And we already know it because statistics are accessible. Those whole plandemia is overblown,overhyped. That means we were lied about it. And if we were lied we shouldn't trust any next words of proven liars.
I think it exists but how they are fearmongering and spreading propaganda is the issue.... especially when they are suppressing the simple, affordable cures.
water fasting cures cancer but the alternative clincs in usa can't claim that and /or they have to operate outside of the United States otherwise their practices are considered medical quackery.
That's not how science works. After 115 years of virology no virus has ever been isolated or proven to cause disease. It's all based on computer modeling. Kinda like "global warming".
Cant photograph or video a virus size of 100 nm (the same for extracellular vessicles) due to diffraction limits. The best of super resolution microscopes (Zeiss, Olympus, etc) get you down to 100nm horizontal, 200nm axial resolution, enough to separate two 100nm targets as two targets, but not enough resolution to show actual structure of such targets and identify them.
You can do transmission electron microscopy at higher resolution, but you end up destroying the sample, getting a structural computer image generated snapshot without distinct bilogical features and without video of it in action. These images of sars-cov-2 virus exist in published peer review papers, just go to Pubmed and search.
You can whole genome sequence the Sars-Cov-2 virus base pair RNA genome using primer-free sequencing (without NAAT, without LAMP, without standard rt-PCR silliness) using latest sequencing methods, (like Oxford Nanopore or BIOPAC). This way you can get a computer readout of the genetic fingerprint and compare it to other viruses, but not get a photo. Thousands of these exist alread. Go to NextStrain.Org.
Electro microscope probably another scam. They fake big things so they probably fake the small things too. DNA isolated out of genes probably another scam, something that used to be science fiction that suddenly become real. We know that police used to fake evidence on suspects they know is guilty, that is probably the modern version of DNA.
There are "images" of viruses, not photographs. Covid-19 is no exception. The main reason I believe it's fake is because it hasn't been Isolated or sequenced in a lab. How can you have an injection for a virus that isn't identified?
They got caught lying in the beginning. They used electron microscopy to film exosomes coming out of a cell and reversed the film to make it appear as if a "virus" was going into a cell.
One of the logical fallacies is about how people tend to believe the first thing they're told - and will then defend that belief to the death. The fake video was intended to cement the idea of "viruses" in everyone's mind and it worked.
Well, I would not start here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-08-14-sars-cov-2-never-been-isolated-purified.html
Koch's postulates
I know, right. Why do people think we need to re-invent the wheel?