"Does the Coronavirus named 'SARS-CoV-2' exist? Do any viruses exist?" by Mensch59, 1 February 2021

Frankly, I don't much care for arguments about the existence or non-existence of very small objects -- such as viruses or molecules or atoms -- but it seems to be somewhat of a topic of discussion here on The Digger / new levellers.

Presented are a couple points of view. Enjoy the philosophical realm called "ontology".

The non-existent virus: it undercuts all other stories
by Jon Rappoport

In this article, I continue to trace the implications of the missing virus; I’m referring to the fact the no one has proved SARS-CoV-2 exists.

Here I take a wider look at the situation.

Apparently, the notion of a virus was born when germ theorists ran out of bacteria to explain illnesses. So they claimed there had to be a smaller invisible particle, which came to be called “virus.”

Since that fateful choice, researchers have encountered various problems. Chief among them: how do you to prove, in specific instances, that these viruses exist and cause illness?

Flashing forward---two modern avenues of proof have been invented. One, twist and reverse the meaning of “isolation.” And two, sequence the genetic structure of viruses by using pre-set computer programs to build, out of thin air, without justification, collections of genetic information, ending up with nothing more than virtual entities.

In past articles, I’ve analyzed and rejected both avenues of “research.”

In the first case, there is the unjustified presumption that the virus is contained in a soup in a dish in a lab, and this is called “isolation,” when it is actually non-isolation. In the second case, there is no true sequencing. It’s all made up out of unmerited supposition and guesswork.

However, 99.9% of mainstream scientists are true believers in their own methods and fabrications. They actually accept what they’re doing as science.

Therefore, in virology labs all over the world---including bio-weapons facilities---THE RESEARCHERS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY’RE DOING. THEY DON’T KNOW HOW FAR FROM REALITY THEY ACTUALLY ARE.

THEY HAVE NO CLUE AS TO THE ABSURDITY OF THEIR OWN WORK.

They’re taken in and fooled and bamboozled by their own theories.

It’s as if explorers tasked with mapping the moon, on site, up close and personal, are carrying out their jobs in underground coal mines. And they don’t recognize there is a problem.

The tenth of one percent of the researchers who do see a problem understand they have to keep their mouths shut.

Am I claiming, with finality, that ALL “viruses” have no physical existence? No. At least, not yet. That’s an open question.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, I see no legitimate evidence for its existence.

And what’s worse, scientists are hypnotized by their own assumptions; and therefore, they’re immune from re-thinking what they’re doing.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a system trapped the practitioners working inside it.

It’s how you train humans to be robots.

At first, the humans follow the rules that define the system. Then they graduate to enforcing the rules. Their minds become excessively literal. They view alternatives as heresies.

“Sir, you have no idea what you’re doing. You think you’re discovering new viruses. You think you’re manipulating them to create new forms.”

“Don’t bother me, I’m busy.”

“You’re saying non-isolation is isolation. You’re using algorithms to invent ‘viruses’ made up of irrelevant data. They’re data constructs, nothing more.”

“You’re a blasphemer. Don’t bother me, I’m busy.”

“You’re fiddling with processes that have nothing to do with what you think they have to do with…”

“How did you get into my lab?”

“I brought a camera crew. We want to film and document every single step you take to ‘discover a new virus’.”

“Absolutely not. You’re not official. This is a high-security facility.”

“In other words, sight unseen, we have to accept your claims as if they were law.”

“Yes, that’s the rule. We’re not running a debating society. We’re doing science.”

“But you see, that’s the point. You’re NOT doing science.”

“What are you saying?”

“You have no idea what you’re doing. You THINK you’re discovering new viruses. You BELIEVE you’re manipulating them. But you’re only working with self-generated fantasies.”

“I’ll tell you what. I’ll inject you with one of these fantasies and let’s see what happens.”

“You don’t possess an actual specimen of an isolated and purified virus, separated from all other material.”

“Here it is, in this dish.”

“No. LOOK AT IT. In that dish, there’s a soup. It contains human and monkey cells, toxic drugs and chemicals, and other genetic material. It’s the furthest thing from ‘isolated’.”

“We know the virus is there. Some of the cells are dying. The virus must be doing the killing.”

“No. The toxic drugs and chemicals could be doing the killing. Furthermore, the cells are being starved of nutrients. That alone can explain their death. Think it through.”

“There’s nothing to think about. Our procedures have been verified by thousands of studies and published scientific papers.”

“Consensus is not the same thing as truth.”

“Security, come to the lab. We have a non-certified intruder. Escort him from the premises.”

“That’s your bottom line?”

“Our work is classified. You’re a civilian. We pronounce; you obey.”

“And that’s science?”

“Absolutely. Didn’t they teach you that in school?”

“YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU’RE DOING IN THIS LAB. You’re a prisoner of your own illusions.”

“Security, hurry it up. This man is a subversive…”

“Suppose you believe you’re working with viruses, but you’re only working with IDEAS AND STORIES ABOUT VIRUSES?”

“What do you mean?”

“You’re not really isolating anything. And you’re not sequencing anything. The sequences are just INFORMATION cobbled together from genetic reference libraries by computer programs. It’s all, at best, a digital metaphor for what you believe exists. You’re generating fairy tales.”

“Even if that were true, it would be the closest we could come to reality. Nothing is perfect.”

“A rock is perfect. You see it, you kick it, you sit on it.”

“Viruses are very small.”

“Even more reason to be sure you’re dealing with something actual.”

“We use PCR technology.”

“But it only looks for a piece of RNA you ASSUME comes from ‘the virus’. Since you don’t have an isolated and purified virus, you have no reason to assume the RNA comes from ‘the virus’.”

“Security, take this man to his car. Take the film crew with him. They have no right to be here. This is a government-funded facility. Private citizens have no access to government.”

CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER: “Actually, I’d like to hear the rest of the conversation. My sister just took the vaccine to protect her against ‘the virus’, and now she’s in the hospital…”
______________________________________

Source: Jon Rappoprt's Blog No More Fake News [dot] com
_________________________________________________

A couple of opposing perspectives:

History of Virology

M.B.A. Oldstone, in Encyclopedia of Microbiology (Fourth Edition), 2014

Abstract

The history of virology can be traced as the personalities involved have described their concepts and published their experimental results. Although infections we now know as, e.g., rabies, yellow fever, smallpox, etc. were clinically evident in early human history, the initial isolation of individual viruses and their assignment to specific diseases did not occur until about 1898, 120 years ago, a proverbial drop in the bucket of time. Just one lifetime ago, Peter Medawar, awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1960, defined viruses as a piece of nucleic acid surrounded by bad news.

In Loeffler’s Footsteps – Viral Genomics in the Era of High-Throughput Sequencing

Thomas C. Mettenleiter, in Advances in Virus Research, 2017

Abstract

The history of virology is a history of conceptual and technological inventions and breakthroughs. The development of filters made of porcelain or kieselgur by the end of the 19th century which withheld bacteria allowed the identification of infectious agents smaller than bacteria and noncultivable on the media known at that time and used to grow bacteria. Even finer-grain filters resulted in the observation that the ultravisible novel infectious agents are in fact of particulate nature. Infections of plants and animals were the first to be attributed to these tiny entities. Proof resulted from experimental infection of the natural hosts (including humans). Thus, of the first 30 viruses identified, 20 are veterinary viruses, i.e. infectious agents of poultry and livestock. The discovery that bacteria also have viruses in the 1910s expanded the viral universe which continues today. Filterability and ultravisibility remained a hallmark for the identification of viruses until the advent of the electron microscope in the late 1930s marking another technological breakthrough in virology. Cell culture techniques allowed virus propagation outside the infected organism. In the past decades, the advent and development of molecular biology has brought more innovations culminating in the rapid and accurate determination of genomic material of a variety of living beings including viruses in a hitherto unknown speed and depth using next-generation sequencing and metagenomic analyses. Thus, it is no surprise that new viruses are detected constantly including specimens of unprecedented size and shape. Virologists agree that the viral universe is immense, and only a small fraction has been explored yet.

____________________________________

Source: ScienceDirect, "History of Virology"

___________________________

"The exact definition of existence is one of the most important and fundamental topics of ontology, the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what things or entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such things or entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences." ~ Wikipedia (admittedly a non-reliable source of information for those expert professionals who deal with information analysis)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Digger’s Purpose and Standards

This site does not have a particular political position. We welcome articles from various points of view, and civil debate when differences arise.

Contributions of articles from posters are always welcome. Unless a contribution is really beyond the pale, we do not edit what goes up as topics for discussion. If you would like to contribute an article, let one of the moderators know. Likewise if you would like to become an official contributor so you can put up articles yourself, but for that we need to exchange email addresses and we need a Google email address from you.

Contributions can be anything, including fiction, poems, cartoons, or songs. They can be your own writing or someone else’s writing which has yet to be published.

We understand that tempers flare during heated conversations, and we're willing to overlook the occasional name-calling in that situation, although we do not encourage it.  We also understand that some people enjoy pushing buttons and that cussing them out may be an understandable response, although we do not encourage that either.  What we will not tolerate is a pattern of harassment and/or lies about other posters.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Deforestation Process

The Deep State vs The Deep Country

Elections: A Trap for Fools. by Jean-Paul Sartre, 1973