"No virus" theory sets the "proof for viruses" to such level that due to the size of protein aggregates (and as such, "viruses") that no microscopy can EVER IMAGINE and thus no separation method can NEVER separate the claimed protein aggregates to the level that "NO VIRUS" camp requires.
So, as a scientific theory, it is NOT EVEN WRONG.
It may be true, may not be true, but it is NOT falsifiable AND it is not practical in helping us to avoid them poisoning us (we can call the virus protein aggregates, self-replicating peptides, m|mi|si|RNA, DNA or "viruses" - it doesn't matter - they are still poisoning us, as the statistics clearly show).
Any theory to be scientific, must be falsifiable.
"No virus" theory sets the "proof for viruses" to such level that due to the size of protein aggregates (and as such, "viruses") that no microscopy can EVER IMAGINE and thus no separation method can NEVER separate the claimed protein aggregates to the level that "NO VIRUS" camp requires.
So, as a scientific theory, it is NOT EVEN WRONG.
It may be true, may not be true, but it is NOT falsifiable AND it is not practical in helping us to avoid them poisoning us (we can call the virus protein aggregates, self-replicating peptides, m|mi|si|RNA, DNA or "viruses" - it doesn't matter - they are still poisoning us, as the statistics clearly show).