Not sure what statistics you are referring to, but as far as a virus not being what we are told it is, that's the entire point here. I mean, the first included article is titled 'Why Everything You Learned About Viruses is WRONG'.
Those 'measurements' for the size of 'viruses' are bogus.. when the viruses haven't even been properly isolated and purified, according to the scientific method.
Doesn't necessarily mean the size of what they are looking at can't be measured. If something can be looked at, it can be measured. The isolation issue doesn't really change that. Viruses exist otherwise these photos wouldnt exist. Its just a matter of what they really are and what they really do that is what needs to be cleared up, which the article addresses.
"Viruses exist otherwise these photos wouldnt exist. Its just a matter of what they really are and what they really do that is what needs to be cleared up, which the article addresses."
Depending on the definition of the virus you chose to accept. If you're following the mainstream definition, then no, viruses don't exist, according to that definition.
If we change the definition to say they are not pathogenic in nature nor infectious, then you may say they exist.
But I'm really not that much interested in viruses that are not pathogenic and transmissible by nature.
Because the whole point for implementing lockdowns, vaccines and other measures, was to counter those kind of 'viruses'..
BTW, even 'virologists' don't agree on the definition for viruses.. 😕
Look at this another way. Say you have a jar of pennies, and in that jar are only one or two dimes that are visible. One need not remove the dimes from the jar to see that they are there. Now, you might not realize they are dimes specifically, due to being mixed in with other things, but it need not be removed (isolated) to know that something is there being that it can be observed
Sure, but if you don't pull that penny out of the jar and look at it properly, and test it, and characterise it, how do you know it's really a penny, or something else that looks like it?
How do you know what it's properties are, and what it can do?
You don't, and you can't.. That's the whole point of isolation and purification of particles.
The things that are called viruses by some are being looked at so those things exist. Its not a matter of them existing or not. Its a matter of what they are and what they do.. Something that doesnt exist cannot be observed. Like seriously, if there is a photo of it, how does it not exist?
A photo of something doesn't give you any insight over what that something is. If it's really a virus, or something that looks like a virus.
You need to purify/isolate that thing you're looking at, to be able to characterise it. Being mixed with a bunch of other stuff (sometimes, very similar in size and properties), doesn't help.. at all..
IMHO, these sort of statistics are a waste of time and resources, when a virus has not been properly isolated in the first place..
Not sure what statistics you are referring to, but as far as a virus not being what we are told it is, that's the entire point here. I mean, the first included article is titled 'Why Everything You Learned About Viruses is WRONG'.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
Those 'measurements' for the size of 'viruses' are bogus.. when the viruses haven't even been properly isolated and purified, according to the scientific method.
How did they come up with those numbers?
Doesn't necessarily mean the size of what they are looking at can't be measured. If something can be looked at, it can be measured. The isolation issue doesn't really change that. Viruses exist otherwise these photos wouldnt exist. Its just a matter of what they really are and what they really do that is what needs to be cleared up, which the article addresses.
"Viruses exist otherwise these photos wouldnt exist. Its just a matter of what they really are and what they really do that is what needs to be cleared up, which the article addresses."
Depending on the definition of the virus you chose to accept. If you're following the mainstream definition, then no, viruses don't exist, according to that definition.
If we change the definition to say they are not pathogenic in nature nor infectious, then you may say they exist.
But I'm really not that much interested in viruses that are not pathogenic and transmissible by nature.
Because the whole point for implementing lockdowns, vaccines and other measures, was to counter those kind of 'viruses'..
BTW, even 'virologists' don't agree on the definition for viruses.. 😕
Look at this another way. Say you have a jar of pennies, and in that jar are only one or two dimes that are visible. One need not remove the dimes from the jar to see that they are there. Now, you might not realize they are dimes specifically, due to being mixed in with other things, but it need not be removed (isolated) to know that something is there being that it can be observed
Sure, but if you don't pull that penny out of the jar and look at it properly, and test it, and characterise it, how do you know it's really a penny, or something else that looks like it?
How do you know what it's properties are, and what it can do?
You don't, and you can't.. That's the whole point of isolation and purification of particles.
The things that are called viruses by some are being looked at so those things exist. Its not a matter of them existing or not. Its a matter of what they are and what they do.. Something that doesnt exist cannot be observed. Like seriously, if there is a photo of it, how does it not exist?
A photo of something doesn't give you any insight over what that something is. If it's really a virus, or something that looks like a virus.
You need to purify/isolate that thing you're looking at, to be able to characterise it. Being mixed with a bunch of other stuff (sometimes, very similar in size and properties), doesn't help.. at all..