by Jon Rappoport
There are two types of virologists.
First, those who claim they’re isolating viruses. I’ve written many articles debunking their absurd stance. They define isolation as “swimming in a soup of many substances and never separated from the soup.” In other words, these virologists define isolated as un-isolated. You could call this Orwellian Scientific Newspeak. Sheer nonsense.
Then there are “the more sophisticated” virologists who say, “Viruses can only live in liquid inside a cell. Therefore, they can never be separated from the cell or the liquid. To demand isolation is to ask for the impossible. We can discover the genetic sequences of these viruses without isolating them. Forget isolation. Discovering the genetic sequences proves the viruses exist.”
Let’s examine this second brand of virology.
Let’s go back to the moment when scientists decided viruses existed for the first time. After all, THEY made the original claim. The burden of proof was on THEM. And they made that decision long before there was a procedure called genetic sequencing.
If isolation is impossible, if these viruses swim forever in liquid inside cells, un-isolated, then HOW DID SCIENTISTS FIRST DISCOVER VIRUSES EXIST?
On what basis did they make the claim?
Through direct observation? Certainly not, if the viruses can never be separated from the liquid in which they swim.
“We first discovered the existence of viruses that can’t be isolated by…”
By what? Singing songs? Talking to an ancestor of Antony Fauci? Finding out how much money was in the bank accounts of the Rockefeller family?
“No, look. Here’s the way it works. NOW we say isolation of viruses is impossible, because people are accusing us of not isolating them. But THEN, way back in time when scientists discovered the existence of viruses for the first time, they knew viruses HAD TO EXIST.”
“How did they know that?”
“Because all other explanations for why people were getting sick with certain diseases didn’t work, fell short.”
“I see. So there was only ONE other possibility. Viruses.”
“Do you realize what a ridiculous position that is?”
And that’s really the end of the story. There was no “original discovery” of viruses. There was only an assumption backed up by nothing.
And NOW, when virologists claim they don’t need to isolate viruses because they can lay out their genetic sequences, another ridiculous situation arises. HOW DO YOU ANALYZE THE STRUCTURE OF SOMETHING YOU CAN’T ISOLATE?
How do you describe the structure of a thing when you don’t have the thing?
You DON’T describe the structure. You PRETEND you do.
You refer to other structures which themselves are only pretenses, and you pick out pieces of those pretended structures and you cobble them together, and you say, “Here it is. Here is the genetic sequence.”
This would be like a shop owner holding out his empty hand to the mafia thugs who showed up to collect their protection money for the week. The owner says, “Here’s your four hundred dollars. Can’t you see it?”
After a thug pulls out his gun, the store owner opens his wall safe and takes out strange bills and hands them over. The bills are pieces of money from the game called Monopoly. They’re pieces from American, French, German, Italian, Spanish Monopoly money, taped together.
And THAT’S called genetic sequencing of viruses. Funny money.
I’ll cover two more points. As Dr. Tom Cowan has stated, according to the conventional hypothesis of virus infection, viruses must be breaking out of cells and traveling to other cells. Otherwise, how can infection spread throughout the body? But this description assumes that viruses CAN live and thrive outside the liquid in cells.
Therefore, the claim that viruses can’t be isolated because they always live in liquid inside cells is false.
Which would bring us back to the first type of virologist, the one who says he IS isolating viruses—but can’t prove it, because his definition of isolation is, “swimming inside soup and never separated from the soup.”
And finally, what about electron microscope photos which purport to show isolated viruses? This is a subject fraught with conflict and misunderstanding. It is far from settled science. Many so-called viruses in these photos are cells that are “budding,” as if something has not yet, but is about to break out of the cell. Virologists will arbitrarily call these somethings viruses, without visual proof.
Then there are exosomes, “microvesicles released by cells in both physiological and pathological situations.” They are mistaken for viruses. There is other genetic material which can be misidentified as viruses.
People who wish to explore this thorny problem should read the works of Harold Hillman, a foremost critic of electron microscopy methods, who was exiled from the scientific community for his findings. Hillman once wrote: “Electron microscopists have ignored the dictates of solid geometry and most of the apparent structures they have detected are artefacts of their preparation procedures…” In other words, the techniques of electron microscopy create artificial entities which are then mistaken for natural entities.
Brian Martin, emeritus professor of social sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia, writes, “In one case, Hillman gave a talk to a large audience at what he calls ‘a well known Welsh university’. The many undergraduates in the audience seemed sympathetic to his case. A lecturer stood up and claimed to have pictures from an electron microscope which showed that Hillman was wrong. After the talk, Hillman asked the lecturer to see the pictures. ‘I have not got any’, he said, laughing. ‘Why did you say you had in front of that large audience?’ ‘Because I did not want the students to be misled by you’.”
And that concludes today’s episode of Two Schools of Virology, Both Wrong, brought to you by NIH Paper Towels, the brand that mops up every spill but somehow never traps a virus.