Yes it does. The only problem is that they managed to observe 1) the same pathology, 2) the same particles under a microscope and 3) got the same RNA sequence of the sars, AIDS and flu viruses WITHOUT USING AN ACTUAL SAMPLE OF INFECTED TISSUE. They used yeast RNA instead, which is neutral and doesn't cause pathology. That's why I called it a falsification of the virus theory - this should not be possible if the theory was correct.
The contradiction is they got the same results without inputting a supposed virus sample. Which means it's not the variable they call "virus" that's causing the effects observed but something else used in the culturing - the monkey kidney cell line, the bovine fetal serum, the antibiotics, the enzyme trypsin.
Yes it does. The only problem is that they managed to observe 1) the same pathology, 2) the same particles under a microscope and 3) got the same RNA sequence of the sars, AIDS and flu viruses WITHOUT USING AN ACTUAL SAMPLE OF INFECTED TISSUE. They used yeast RNA instead, which is neutral and doesn't cause pathology. That's why I called it a falsification of the virus theory - this should not be possible if the theory was correct.
Why not? What is the contradiction?
The contradiction is they got the same results without inputting a supposed virus sample. Which means it's not the variable they call "virus" that's causing the effects observed but something else used in the culturing - the monkey kidney cell line, the bovine fetal serum, the antibiotics, the enzyme trypsin.