It’s almost to the level of irony that the concept of an “immune system,” invented to explain why many are not affected by supposed pathogens, has another fantasy layer added by inventing an explanation for why “antibodies” also don’t work as theorized. It does become easy to see, if it wasn’t before, how money and professional reputation are much more important in “scientific research” than finding out how biology actually works—and being willing to have one’s ideas be proven wrong. Thanks for another revealing essay, Mike!
It amazes me how many rescue devices they have built up over the years to excuse away evidence that completely falsified their false paradigm. It's a long twisted ball of yarn that needs to be unraveled.
If you thought the vax market is big, you should see the antibody market. Another lucrative industry that has spawned from the unproven virus hypothesis. $equence$ $ATCG$
Hello Mike. I have been an avid reader of your substack and I had previously consumed every shred of information from viroLIEgy.com before I came here. I just wanted to say thanks for your great research, because for someone like me who loves only the Truth and reading/researching myself, it is needed. Especially when all the search engines have silenced any opposition voices against the overall agenda.
Good research is like life-blood to me! Have a great day!
WTF????? That's insane! If they're testing for a bacterium why are they not just looking for it with a regular microscope? I've never understood why they do all this mixing and culturing to "find" bacteria in a patient sample. It just adds layers of possible obfuscation (maybe that's the idea, so they can claim whatever results they want?)
Then, instead of looking directly for the bacteria in the kids' saliva, they "vigorously vortexed it for 20 seconds and 10 ml cultured on trypticase soy agar supplemented with 7% defibrinated sheep blood [1] and gentamicin 5 mg/l (SB7-Ghent...)" And then, "After overnight incubation at 37 degrees C and 5% CO2 [2], the SB7-Gent plates were inspected and colonies suspected to be S. pneumoniae were isolated and tested for susceptibility to optochin and bile solubility..."
Then they use a bizarre process of beating the samples with beads, centrifuging, cooling on ice, mixing with buffers, magnetic particles, washing and drying. Then, "DNA was eluted in
50 ml template volumes and stored at +4 degrees C...." (How do they come up with this stuff anyway?) Then they use PCR to "find" the DNA of the bacteria.
Outside of this being a bizarre "method" of finding a bacterium, an organism that is not invisible at normal light microscope magnification, it seems to me that the addition of sheep blood [1] would at best confound the DNA detection, since it's an additional source of DNA.
And then, the step that I've seen in so many "isolation" papers: they incubate the sample at 47 degrees C (that part makes sense, since it's body temp), at 5% CO2 [2]. Why 5% CO2? That's over 10 times the concentration of CO2 in earth's atmosphere. Is that assumed to be the CO2 concentration inside the lungs? I've never seen this addressed before. Do you know the answer, Danni? or Mike?
Well they're not looking for the bacteria because they know that the bacteria is not always present. Thats why they switched to these indirect methods of testing. And if people found out that the germ is not the cause of illness then they would be looking for the true cause and most medicine and all vaccines would be wiped out.
Not sure about the high amount of CO2 when looking for the bacteria. But I know how bacteria develop inside out body/tissue. Or in tissue of animals, fruits... All living things. Because the pioneers in fermentation/bacteriology actually told us. And their findings match everything we see today and also all their experiments done. Why they only find the bacteria later and not at first when people get symptoms.
Antoine Bechamp found out how fermentation really works. And he noticed these very small microzymas develop into bacteria under certain conditions. So if you incubate dying tissue at around 37 degrees C bacteria will develop from inside the tissue. Burdon Sanderson (another pioneer in bacteriology) found the same thing, independent of the bechamp. He said that bacteria seemed to spring out of nothing from germinal matter. And they seemed indestructable. Because they could treat it in ways that kill the bacteria with for instance high temp. But after a while, new bacteria would develop in the tissue. Burdon Sanderson also found that decomposing tissue precedes the development of bacteria. So that means the bacteria can never be the cause of the decomposing tissue, but a respons. And thats key. He elaborates: The decomposing tissue sends off ammonia from which the bacteria get nitrogen. So without the dying/decomposing tissue the bacteria don't have any "food". They are scavengers that develop to clear the poisoned/damaged tissue inside us.
Never thought to question antibodies before. Thanks for a great article. My question is (pardon my ignorance) when it comes to RH1 mothers and RH+ fetuses, the argument has always been that the mother builds up antibodies against the baby's RH+ factor and that the next RH+ baby would find that the mother's immune system, which had built up antibodies against the RH+ factor would have the mother's antibodies wreaking havoc in the unborn child. Interesting to speculate on what might be going on here.
I agree. They intentionally ignored it until they were able to devise a rescue device that allowed them to carry on with the fraudulent "immune system" paradigm.
Thanks for this, Mike. I've been wanting to know more about the antibody story for a while.
In your investigations, have you come across how/when the "Y" molecule story arose? How does one detect the shape of a molecule that's many times smaller than a virus is supposed to be? And how does one see a "Y"-shaped molecule latch onto the proteins on the outside of a particle in order to "escort" it out of the body (and how does a molecule, a simple compound of a few elements, not alive, no brain or motility system of any kind, even do such a thing)?
The section on the Y-shaped Imagery comes after the reprint of Ehrlich’s paper in the article. Basically, it is a imaginary model that is not supported by scientific evidence.
I have not looked into that specifically yet. Most of my research was on the origin and formation of the "antibody" concept traced over the decades from a timeline of pivotal moments that I found online.
I looked into ADE some time ago (regarding the 0xford/AZ quaxine), but can't find my notes ATM....so going from memory🤔.........ADE is also known as cytokine storm or V.E.D. (Vaccine Enhanced Disease), it is a known phenomenon where a person vaxxed against a disease gets a worse case of the disease than someone who WASN'T vaxxed against that disease.
0rthodoxy links ADE/VED to immune escape/antigenic drift & all other sorts of nonsense, just a cover up for poisoning via vaxxes IMH0.
1. There is no science involved in "antibody" and "viral" research.
2. It is not on me to disprove random papers. Start at the beginning with the foundational papers and show where the evidence for "antibodies" and "viruses" was derived from the scientific method.
Your point number 2 is a misrepresentation of the scientific method. This is what's so disingenuous (at best, at worst, deceitful) about returning to the foundational papers.
As I am sure you know, but most of your readers probably don't, the scientific method proceeds by disproving a hypothesis then coming up with a new one and testing it. There is no point going back to an 80 year old paper and highlighting a weakness in it and then saying 'oh, right, well that disproves ALL the science that's been carried out since then!'.
You have certainly identified a very interesting bit of scientific history, for sure, but that's all you've done. As a result of disproving a previous hypothesis, they came up with a new one. Yes, it's true, that new one was not entirely correct, but they could not have known that with the technology and knowledge available at the time. The adaptive immune system does not start with cells. It starts with biochemistry.
So you may well be able to mislead people who have no knowledge of biology or chemistry, but as soon as someone who does understand these things comes along you can't. So you are essentially deceiving laypeople. Most of your readers probably don't understand half of your article here. And they certainly won't have heard of stuff like interferon, or interleukin, to name but two.
So here's a basic summary. You can possibly argue that 'viruses' aren't living organisms, because they are on the borderline between chemistry and biology, and require a host to replicate. But you can't claim they don't exist, especially given something called a microscope. Sure, light microscopes only have a resolution down to around 200 nanometres, but electron microscopes, for example, go down to 1 nanometre. Most viruses are indeed less than 200, which essentially puts them into the realm of biochemistry rather than biology. That would certainly be an ongoing debate within the biological sciences. And ironically I would probably come down on the side that says they're not living organisms - but, they do provoke biochemical reactions, and that's the important point.
A virus is essentially a string of nucleotides. A nucleotide is itself a string of amino acids. So, you wouldn't say amino acids are alive, and you probably wouldn't say nucleotides are alive. RNA, for example, is a nucleotide, as is D-RNA (DNA). RNA being a long string of nucleotides in a single strand, DNA being a double strand. And most people wouldn't say DNA is a living organism. And since most viruses are RNA, it's easy to argue they're not living things either. Many of them use an enzyme (an enzyme is simply a chemical catalyst, essentially, which provokes chemical reactions) called reverse transcriptase, which biochemically interacts with host cell nucleotides (DNA).
In which case, what we're dealing with here is biochemistry, not biology. And this, ironically, is how the immune system functions in its initial stages. Primarily through the activation of interferon, which is a chemical reaction. Interferon is a messenger protein, that's to say it triggers further chemical reactions, which are known as downstream pathways in the immune system. Ultimately, to cut a long story short, these chemical reactions lead to the creation of cells, which are indeed living organisms. Cells like memory-B cells or antibodies of various kinds. Macrophages likewise. Most of which are, actually greater than 200 nanometres and can be seen with a light microscope. So, between the initial chemistry of interferon and antibodies there really is an extremely complex biochemical cascade.
As I say, none of this was known 80 years ago. This is why you can't just pick holes in an 80 year old experiment and say 'oh look, there's no such thing as the immune system'. That's not science. And that's why you do, in fact, have to look at very recent scientific papers and disprove them. If you ignore them, as I say you are being disingenuous at best, and you are certainly not doing any science. It would be like dismissing the Wright Brothers because they didn't build a jet engine or have a modern understanding of hypersonic aerodynamics.
The same applies to your dismissal of virus isolation. It's a misrepresentation of how it's done. Again, it's the straw man approach. Pick some weak point, don't tell your readers about the rest of it, present a false impression and there you go. You have convinced some laypeople that viruses don't exist.
And finally - if you claim that viruses don't exist then you have to also claim that RNA and DNA doesn't exist, you have to claim that chemistry doesn't lead to biochemistry which doesn't lead to biology. You have to disprove biochemistry, in other words. In which case, you effectively need to come up with an entirely new theory to explain life as we know it. Because all of it ultimately comes down to complex biochemistry. Of course your approach may work perfectly well on some alien planet, but on this one, life begins with a series of chemicals bonded together to form amino acids and then strings of amino acids and then biochemistry happens.
The study of viruses is, I would argue, the study of the boundaries and origins of life itself. If viruses didn't exist, as strings of nucleotides, then no life at all would exist on this planet.
See, it gets a bit difficult for you when you encounter someone who knows the science.
You say that "there is no point going back to an 80 year old paper and highlighting a weakness in it and then saying 'oh, right, well that disproves ALL the science that's been carried out since then!" In fact, there is a major point as the foundational papers must contain the evidence derived from the scientific method that supports the hypothesis. If this evidence is not found, then where is it? Please provide said evidence.
"So you are essentially deceiving laypeople."
Please refrain from accusations as well as speaking down to my readers who are very smart.
You say that I can't claim pathogenic "viruses" don't exist, especially given something called a microscope. If you want to correct me, please provide the absolutely necessary evidence derived from the scientific method proving the existence of pathogenic "viruses" in any foundational paper claiming the existence of said pathogenic "virus." This will include:
Do you have evidence of purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal without culturing that are then confirmed via EM?
Do you have evidence that these same purified and isolated particles were proven pathogenic naturally via adherence to the scientific method?
Eve you wrote & I quote; "it gets a bit difficult for you when you encounter someone who knows the science" As you claims you "knows the science".... could you explain to us all how "the science" chemically treats dead & decomposing matter to "isolate"
Eve, now that I've had a day to cogitate on your posts I have to conclude that you have more bravery than brains to come out with all guns blazing, chapeau.
Are you not aware of Mike's ability to hold his own? For e.g;
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/adventures-in-the-twitterverse Where Mike wrote; "........whether it is arguing over purification, isolation, or what is, or is not an experiment. They will agree to present specific evidence and then supply papers and articles that clearly do not match up with what they agreed to present. ........ I am regularly accused of having my own version of the scientific method, even though they will agree beforehand that the steps I present are the scientific method. They will throw out unrelated evidence...& I hope that anyone looking in from the outside notices the difference between how they respond and how we do......"
Anyways stating something like; (& I quote) "....life begins with a series of chemicals bonded together to form amino acids..." doesn't make it true, so if you could explain the process of isolation of nucleic acids then we'll work through the rest logically, adhering of course to the KISS principle; Keeping It Short & Simple.
It’s almost to the level of irony that the concept of an “immune system,” invented to explain why many are not affected by supposed pathogens, has another fantasy layer added by inventing an explanation for why “antibodies” also don’t work as theorized. It does become easy to see, if it wasn’t before, how money and professional reputation are much more important in “scientific research” than finding out how biology actually works—and being willing to have one’s ideas be proven wrong. Thanks for another revealing essay, Mike!
You are very welcome, Betsy. 🙂
It amazes me how many rescue devices they have built up over the years to excuse away evidence that completely falsified their false paradigm. It's a long twisted ball of yarn that needs to be unraveled.
If you thought the vax market is big, you should see the antibody market. Another lucrative industry that has spawned from the unproven virus hypothesis. $equence$ $ATCG$
Vaccines:
https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/vaccine-technologies-market-1155.html
Antibodies:
https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/antibody-therapeutics-market-178852478.html
It's all about the Benjamins, as well as selling "cures" that make us sick so that they can keep the sick cycle carousel spinning. 😉
Hello Mike. I have been an avid reader of your substack and I had previously consumed every shred of information from viroLIEgy.com before I came here. I just wanted to say thanks for your great research, because for someone like me who loves only the Truth and reading/researching myself, it is needed. Especially when all the search engines have silenced any opposition voices against the overall agenda.
Good research is like life-blood to me! Have a great day!
Thank you so much for the kind words and support, Holo Hoax! I really appreciate it. 🙂
Nice to have a "noticer" in these parts of the terrain!
Depending on the indirect test-method they use, they can take a bunch of healthy children and test 4-88% positive for streptococcus pneumoniae.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4094488/pdf/pone.0102045.pdf
The insanity....
WTF????? That's insane! If they're testing for a bacterium why are they not just looking for it with a regular microscope? I've never understood why they do all this mixing and culturing to "find" bacteria in a patient sample. It just adds layers of possible obfuscation (maybe that's the idea, so they can claim whatever results they want?)
Then, instead of looking directly for the bacteria in the kids' saliva, they "vigorously vortexed it for 20 seconds and 10 ml cultured on trypticase soy agar supplemented with 7% defibrinated sheep blood [1] and gentamicin 5 mg/l (SB7-Ghent...)" And then, "After overnight incubation at 37 degrees C and 5% CO2 [2], the SB7-Gent plates were inspected and colonies suspected to be S. pneumoniae were isolated and tested for susceptibility to optochin and bile solubility..."
Then they use a bizarre process of beating the samples with beads, centrifuging, cooling on ice, mixing with buffers, magnetic particles, washing and drying. Then, "DNA was eluted in
50 ml template volumes and stored at +4 degrees C...." (How do they come up with this stuff anyway?) Then they use PCR to "find" the DNA of the bacteria.
Outside of this being a bizarre "method" of finding a bacterium, an organism that is not invisible at normal light microscope magnification, it seems to me that the addition of sheep blood [1] would at best confound the DNA detection, since it's an additional source of DNA.
And then, the step that I've seen in so many "isolation" papers: they incubate the sample at 47 degrees C (that part makes sense, since it's body temp), at 5% CO2 [2]. Why 5% CO2? That's over 10 times the concentration of CO2 in earth's atmosphere. Is that assumed to be the CO2 concentration inside the lungs? I've never seen this addressed before. Do you know the answer, Danni? or Mike?
Well they're not looking for the bacteria because they know that the bacteria is not always present. Thats why they switched to these indirect methods of testing. And if people found out that the germ is not the cause of illness then they would be looking for the true cause and most medicine and all vaccines would be wiped out.
In my article https://zignack.substack.com/p/the-role-of-bacteria i go through a lot on their claim that bacteria cause disease.
Not sure about the high amount of CO2 when looking for the bacteria. But I know how bacteria develop inside out body/tissue. Or in tissue of animals, fruits... All living things. Because the pioneers in fermentation/bacteriology actually told us. And their findings match everything we see today and also all their experiments done. Why they only find the bacteria later and not at first when people get symptoms.
Antoine Bechamp found out how fermentation really works. And he noticed these very small microzymas develop into bacteria under certain conditions. So if you incubate dying tissue at around 37 degrees C bacteria will develop from inside the tissue. Burdon Sanderson (another pioneer in bacteriology) found the same thing, independent of the bechamp. He said that bacteria seemed to spring out of nothing from germinal matter. And they seemed indestructable. Because they could treat it in ways that kill the bacteria with for instance high temp. But after a while, new bacteria would develop in the tissue. Burdon Sanderson also found that decomposing tissue precedes the development of bacteria. So that means the bacteria can never be the cause of the decomposing tissue, but a respons. And thats key. He elaborates: The decomposing tissue sends off ammonia from which the bacteria get nitrogen. So without the dying/decomposing tissue the bacteria don't have any "food". They are scavengers that develop to clear the poisoned/damaged tissue inside us.
Never thought to question antibodies before. Thanks for a great article. My question is (pardon my ignorance) when it comes to RH1 mothers and RH+ fetuses, the argument has always been that the mother builds up antibodies against the baby's RH+ factor and that the next RH+ baby would find that the mother's immune system, which had built up antibodies against the RH+ factor would have the mother's antibodies wreaking havoc in the unborn child. Interesting to speculate on what might be going on here.
"Dr Chase discovered in 1940 that antibodies don't equate to immunity. Did science just forget?"
I think it did ... and ignored the results of so much other scientific work as well as criticisms of it.
Great work, Mike, as always.
Thank you, Petra. 🙂
I agree. They intentionally ignored it until they were able to devise a rescue device that allowed them to carry on with the fraudulent "immune system" paradigm.
Thanks for this, Mike. I've been wanting to know more about the antibody story for a while.
In your investigations, have you come across how/when the "Y" molecule story arose? How does one detect the shape of a molecule that's many times smaller than a virus is supposed to be? And how does one see a "Y"-shaped molecule latch onto the proteins on the outside of a particle in order to "escort" it out of the body (and how does a molecule, a simple compound of a few elements, not alive, no brain or motility system of any kind, even do such a thing)?
Hi Rose,
My article on Paul Ehrlich’s drawings dives into that a bit.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/05/05/paul-ehrlichs-side-chain-antibody-theory-1900-part-2-the-complement-system/
The section on the Y-shaped Imagery comes after the reprint of Ehrlich’s paper in the article. Basically, it is a imaginary model that is not supported by scientific evidence.
Thank you Mike!!!!
You are very welcome, Sirius. 🙂
Have you investigated “antibody dependent enhancement” ADE? Even the now anti vaxxers are mesmerized by these concepts.
Hi Becky,
I have not looked into that specifically yet. Most of my research was on the origin and formation of the "antibody" concept traced over the decades from a timeline of pivotal moments that I found online.
I looked into ADE some time ago (regarding the 0xford/AZ quaxine), but can't find my notes ATM....so going from memory🤔.........ADE is also known as cytokine storm or V.E.D. (Vaccine Enhanced Disease), it is a known phenomenon where a person vaxxed against a disease gets a worse case of the disease than someone who WASN'T vaxxed against that disease.
0rthodoxy links ADE/VED to immune escape/antigenic drift & all other sorts of nonsense, just a cover up for poisoning via vaxxes IMH0.
Thanks Mike for this expose.
Mike, not sure if you saw this. https://telegra.ph/Die-Fehldeutung-der-Antik%C3%B6rper-07-12 Translation is on the link - The misinterpretation of the antibodies.
You are aware that science and technology has moved on a bit in the last 80 years, yes?
Try disproving this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8093571/
Let's start there.
Hi Evelyn,
Two mistakes.
1. There is no science involved in "antibody" and "viral" research.
2. It is not on me to disprove random papers. Start at the beginning with the foundational papers and show where the evidence for "antibodies" and "viruses" was derived from the scientific method.
Your point number 1 is absurd.
Your point number 2 is a misrepresentation of the scientific method. This is what's so disingenuous (at best, at worst, deceitful) about returning to the foundational papers.
As I am sure you know, but most of your readers probably don't, the scientific method proceeds by disproving a hypothesis then coming up with a new one and testing it. There is no point going back to an 80 year old paper and highlighting a weakness in it and then saying 'oh, right, well that disproves ALL the science that's been carried out since then!'.
You have certainly identified a very interesting bit of scientific history, for sure, but that's all you've done. As a result of disproving a previous hypothesis, they came up with a new one. Yes, it's true, that new one was not entirely correct, but they could not have known that with the technology and knowledge available at the time. The adaptive immune system does not start with cells. It starts with biochemistry.
So you may well be able to mislead people who have no knowledge of biology or chemistry, but as soon as someone who does understand these things comes along you can't. So you are essentially deceiving laypeople. Most of your readers probably don't understand half of your article here. And they certainly won't have heard of stuff like interferon, or interleukin, to name but two.
So here's a basic summary. You can possibly argue that 'viruses' aren't living organisms, because they are on the borderline between chemistry and biology, and require a host to replicate. But you can't claim they don't exist, especially given something called a microscope. Sure, light microscopes only have a resolution down to around 200 nanometres, but electron microscopes, for example, go down to 1 nanometre. Most viruses are indeed less than 200, which essentially puts them into the realm of biochemistry rather than biology. That would certainly be an ongoing debate within the biological sciences. And ironically I would probably come down on the side that says they're not living organisms - but, they do provoke biochemical reactions, and that's the important point.
A virus is essentially a string of nucleotides. A nucleotide is itself a string of amino acids. So, you wouldn't say amino acids are alive, and you probably wouldn't say nucleotides are alive. RNA, for example, is a nucleotide, as is D-RNA (DNA). RNA being a long string of nucleotides in a single strand, DNA being a double strand. And most people wouldn't say DNA is a living organism. And since most viruses are RNA, it's easy to argue they're not living things either. Many of them use an enzyme (an enzyme is simply a chemical catalyst, essentially, which provokes chemical reactions) called reverse transcriptase, which biochemically interacts with host cell nucleotides (DNA).
In which case, what we're dealing with here is biochemistry, not biology. And this, ironically, is how the immune system functions in its initial stages. Primarily through the activation of interferon, which is a chemical reaction. Interferon is a messenger protein, that's to say it triggers further chemical reactions, which are known as downstream pathways in the immune system. Ultimately, to cut a long story short, these chemical reactions lead to the creation of cells, which are indeed living organisms. Cells like memory-B cells or antibodies of various kinds. Macrophages likewise. Most of which are, actually greater than 200 nanometres and can be seen with a light microscope. So, between the initial chemistry of interferon and antibodies there really is an extremely complex biochemical cascade.
As I say, none of this was known 80 years ago. This is why you can't just pick holes in an 80 year old experiment and say 'oh look, there's no such thing as the immune system'. That's not science. And that's why you do, in fact, have to look at very recent scientific papers and disprove them. If you ignore them, as I say you are being disingenuous at best, and you are certainly not doing any science. It would be like dismissing the Wright Brothers because they didn't build a jet engine or have a modern understanding of hypersonic aerodynamics.
The same applies to your dismissal of virus isolation. It's a misrepresentation of how it's done. Again, it's the straw man approach. Pick some weak point, don't tell your readers about the rest of it, present a false impression and there you go. You have convinced some laypeople that viruses don't exist.
And finally - if you claim that viruses don't exist then you have to also claim that RNA and DNA doesn't exist, you have to claim that chemistry doesn't lead to biochemistry which doesn't lead to biology. You have to disprove biochemistry, in other words. In which case, you effectively need to come up with an entirely new theory to explain life as we know it. Because all of it ultimately comes down to complex biochemistry. Of course your approach may work perfectly well on some alien planet, but on this one, life begins with a series of chemicals bonded together to form amino acids and then strings of amino acids and then biochemistry happens.
The study of viruses is, I would argue, the study of the boundaries and origins of life itself. If viruses didn't exist, as strings of nucleotides, then no life at all would exist on this planet.
See, it gets a bit difficult for you when you encounter someone who knows the science.
You say that "there is no point going back to an 80 year old paper and highlighting a weakness in it and then saying 'oh, right, well that disproves ALL the science that's been carried out since then!" In fact, there is a major point as the foundational papers must contain the evidence derived from the scientific method that supports the hypothesis. If this evidence is not found, then where is it? Please provide said evidence.
"So you are essentially deceiving laypeople."
Please refrain from accusations as well as speaking down to my readers who are very smart.
You say that I can't claim pathogenic "viruses" don't exist, especially given something called a microscope. If you want to correct me, please provide the absolutely necessary evidence derived from the scientific method proving the existence of pathogenic "viruses" in any foundational paper claiming the existence of said pathogenic "virus." This will include:
Do you have evidence of purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal without culturing that are then confirmed via EM?
Do you have evidence that these same purified and isolated particles were proven pathogenic naturally via adherence to the scientific method?
Eve you wrote & I quote; "it gets a bit difficult for you when you encounter someone who knows the science" As you claims you "knows the science".... could you explain to us all how "the science" chemically treats dead & decomposing matter to "isolate"
nucleic acids (the supposed key to life).
Eve, now that I've had a day to cogitate on your posts I have to conclude that you have more bravery than brains to come out with all guns blazing, chapeau.
Are you not aware of Mike's ability to hold his own? For e.g;
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/adventures-in-the-twitterverse Where Mike wrote; "........whether it is arguing over purification, isolation, or what is, or is not an experiment. They will agree to present specific evidence and then supply papers and articles that clearly do not match up with what they agreed to present. ........ I am regularly accused of having my own version of the scientific method, even though they will agree beforehand that the steps I present are the scientific method. They will throw out unrelated evidence...& I hope that anyone looking in from the outside notices the difference between how they respond and how we do......"
Anyways stating something like; (& I quote) "....life begins with a series of chemicals bonded together to form amino acids..." doesn't make it true, so if you could explain the process of isolation of nucleic acids then we'll work through the rest logically, adhering of course to the KISS principle; Keeping It Short & Simple.