Steven Avery
Administrator
Scientists challenge fundamental precepts of virology. Do viruses even exist?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/analys...l-precepts-of-virology-do-viruses-even-exist/
Facebook - Christine Massey
https://business.facebook.com/perma...wWigHfniHvztqHyomRbFE69Xcl&id=100084768107639
7 spots discuss virus replication (and the lack of evidence)
Additionally, a viral particle must be tested to “fulfill defined physical and biological properties including, being a replication-competent intracellular parasite, meaning it results in identical copies of itself inside a host organism, and (is) also capable of causing disease in a host such as a human,” Falconer explains.
Furthermore, as stipulated in a document where Cowan is a primary author titled “Settling the Virus Debate” (SVD), the point is made that similarly described particles called exosomes “have been successfully isolated through purification [but] have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses.”
“And on that basis, they declared that there was a novel coronavirus when there’s nowhere in that paper that shows anything that replicates, that shows anything that is infectious, and there’s certainly no evidence that these genetic sequences that they published came from inside any particle that they claim to have identified,” he said.
“So this is the kind of pseudoscience we’re talking about when they are making declarations of isolation. They have done nothing of the sort, and we can only encourage Peter to read the work that all of us have done,” he continued. “We go through these [many] methodologies and show why they are unscientific and why they don’t show the existence of replication-competent intracellular parasites.”
Electron microscopy imaged particles have never been ‘shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing in nature,’ and thus cannot be said to be ‘viruses’
“They have fallen for one of virology’s oldest tricks: what we call the ‘point and declare’ scam. None of these imaged particles have ever been shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing in nature. And none of them have been characterised to see what, if any, genetic material they contain,” she explained.
Indeed, “There are no particles that have ever been shown to be replication-competent and pathogenic to fulfil this imaginary concept” of a virus.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/analys...l-precepts-of-virology-do-viruses-even-exist/
Facebook - Christine Massey
https://business.facebook.com/perma...wWigHfniHvztqHyomRbFE69Xcl&id=100084768107639
7 spots discuss virus replication (and the lack of evidence)
Additionally, a viral particle must be tested to “fulfill defined physical and biological properties including, being a replication-competent intracellular parasite, meaning it results in identical copies of itself inside a host organism, and (is) also capable of causing disease in a host such as a human,” Falconer explains.
Furthermore, as stipulated in a document where Cowan is a primary author titled “Settling the Virus Debate” (SVD), the point is made that similarly described particles called exosomes “have been successfully isolated through purification [but] have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses.”
“And on that basis, they declared that there was a novel coronavirus when there’s nowhere in that paper that shows anything that replicates, that shows anything that is infectious, and there’s certainly no evidence that these genetic sequences that they published came from inside any particle that they claim to have identified,” he said.
“So this is the kind of pseudoscience we’re talking about when they are making declarations of isolation. They have done nothing of the sort, and we can only encourage Peter to read the work that all of us have done,” he continued. “We go through these [many] methodologies and show why they are unscientific and why they don’t show the existence of replication-competent intracellular parasites.”
Electron microscopy imaged particles have never been ‘shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing in nature,’ and thus cannot be said to be ‘viruses’
“They have fallen for one of virology’s oldest tricks: what we call the ‘point and declare’ scam. None of these imaged particles have ever been shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing in nature. And none of them have been characterised to see what, if any, genetic material they contain,” she explained.
Indeed, “There are no particles that have ever been shown to be replication-competent and pathogenic to fulfil this imaginary concept” of a virus.
Last edited:
