The issue is that they take a "picture" (electron micrograph) of some neutceotide gunk from a so-called "infected" sample.

Since they assume the virus must be in among that gunk, when they spot something that looks how they expect the virus to look, they slap a big arrow on that, identifying it as the virus they were looking for.

So they have photos of something, but their "reasoning", that it is the virus they were looking for, is built on a long line of assumptions inherent in the standard techniques used to "isolate" virus.

However there is no solid evidence that that is so. It's all assumption and always has been, even since this process of "isolating" virus was first done in the 1950's. These issues were identified then but ignored for no good reason.

Virologists are taught that this process is infallible and not to question it. But those who have looked into it and questioned it have realised it's far from a solid process.

Basically it is a pseudoscientic process, done without control experiments, and taken on blind faith that this is the way "viruses" are isolated and photographed.

There is simply no way to tell if that "isolated" gunk does or doesn't belong in the body, or if it is pathogenic or harmless. Many believe these things virologists are labelling as "viruses" are actually made by the body itself and not foreign bodies at all.

Anyway, that's the bones of it.

The issue is that they take a "picture" (electron micrograph) of some neutceotide gunk from a so-called "infected" sample.

Since they assume the virus must be in among that gunk, when they spot something that looks how they expect the virus to look, they slap a big arrow on that, identifying it as the virus they were looking for.

So they have photos of something, but their "reasoning", that it is the virus they were looking for, is built on a long line of assumptions inherent in the standard techniques used to "isolate" virus.

However there is no solid evidence that that is so. It's all assumption and always has been, even since this process of "isolating" virus was first done in the 1950's. These issues were identified then but ignored for no good reason.

Virologists are taught that this process is infallible and not to question it. But those who have looked into it and questioned it have realised it's far from a solid process.

Basically it is a pseudoscientic process, done without control experiments, and taken on blind faith that it this is the way "viruses" are isolated and photographed.

There is simply no way to tell if that "isolated" gunk does or doesn't belong in the body, or if it is pathogenic or harmless. Many believe these things virologists are labelling as "viruses" are actually made by the body itself and not foreign bodies at all.

Anyway, that's the bones of it.