APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[ZenMode]

No, though I frequently take breaks from this thread entirely. I generally find it positively demoralizing to be the sole person in a forum arguing one side of a debate. If it weren't so important, I would have stopped long ago.



A paper can claim to be based on the scientific method without actually being based on the scientific method. I just found a paper on this that I find interesting, because it introduces a fictional virus, that is, one that -definitely- doesn't exist, but when "scientific references" are used, it is believed by many anyway. I've only read the abstract, but I think that's enough for my argument here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000871

What do you think had to happen for the entirety of the scientific/medical world (public and private, on every continent) to get together and manufacture the lie of biological viruses?

 

[Scott]

No, I'm inclined to look for the most compelling evidence. The most compelling evidence isn't always the one that most people of aware of. I'm sure you're aware that at one point in time, most people thought the world was flat.

No. You are not inclined to look for the most compelling evidence.

You're big on unsubstantiated assertions in this thread.

 

[Scott]

Right. You believe all of those things because, for whatever reason, you are inclined to seek out fringe sources who push fringe ideas.

No, I'm inclined to look for the most compelling evidence. The most compelling evidence isn't always the one that most people of aware of. I'm sure you're aware that at one point in time, most people thought the world was flat.

So, how much of the evidence supporting the existence of biological viruses have you researched?

I've found that the evidence supporting the existence of biological viruses to be a house of cards. As to why I came to that conclusion, I suggest you take a good look at the opening post of this thread.

 

[Scott]

Right. You believe all of those things because, for whatever reason, you are inclined to seek out fringe sources who push fringe ideas.

No, I'm inclined to look for the most compelling evidence. The most compelling evidence isn't always the one that most people of aware of. I'm sure you're aware that at one point in time, most people thought the world was flat.

And they also thought that bacteria and viruses didn't exist, then science happened and we were all enlightened.

Some people -still- believe that the earth is flat -despite- the fact that the scientific method has been around since at least the 17th century, according to Wikipedia. There is solid scientifc evidence that bacteria exist, but this has never been true for biological viruses. Mike Stone recently wrote a good article on virology's false induction into the scientific field back in the 50s recently. Quoting from the introduction of said article below:
**
In the 1950s, virology began to emerge as a distinct discipline, separating itself from bacteriology. For the first time, it was (falsely) recognized as a legitimate scientific field. This shift was largely due to the introduction of the cell culture technique by John Franklin Enders in 1954. This method, still used by virologists today, asserts “viral” presence based on lab-created, artificial effects observed in cultures of human and animal cells.

Around the same time, electron microscopy became more widely available, allowing researchers to peer into unpurified culture soup and label random particles from the destruction of these cells as “viruses.” After decades of vagueness, in 1957, French microbiologist André Lwoff offered a consensus definition for the invisible entities virologists claimed to be studying. Journals were launched to publish the work of these newly anointed experts. It was a decade of enormous “progress” for the pseudoscientific field.

Emboldened by these tools and techniques, “virus” hunters began “discovering” new “viruses” with remarkable ease—despite never having the actual agents in hand to study. But in their rush to interpret indirect, nonspecific, and artificial lab effects as proof of “viral” entities, virologists set the field on a path of misinterpretation, speculation, and pseudoscience.

This pattern soon played out across a range of illnesses in need of a theoretical “pathogen.” One prominent example was hepatitis. According to the editorial Candidate Viruses in Hepatitis, researchers had previously relied on serologic “antibody” testing and human volunteer inoculation in an attempt to prove a “viral” cause for the disease, but the invisible culprit remained elusive. Results that appeared promising for one group were often not reproducible by others—a direct violation of a foundational principle of the scientific method. Yet despite lacking a purified “virus” and failing to replicate findings, researchers still labeled these mysterious agents as “candidate viruses,” signaling nothing more than an unproven suspicion of causation.

“Identification as an agent likely related to hepatitis in turn has relied mainly on serologic (neutralization) tests and inoculation of human volunteers followed by reproduction of clinical features of the disease. A problem precluding maximum accomplishment has been the inability of different research laboratories to reproduce the same results. In addition, essential as repeated isolations from the original material by any given laboratory might seem, this has not always been the case.”

The first “candidate virus” for hepatitis was “discovered” by Werber Henle in 1954 using Maitland-type chick embryo tissue cultures. However, his attempts to demonstrate an “infectious virus” failed: the inoculated volunteers showed no serologic response, and no “immunity” could be observed upon re-challenge.

“The first culture-derived observations on infectious hepatitis were reported by Henle, working with Maitland-type chick embryo tissue cultures. Serological findings in volunteer subjects inoculated with the fluid remained negative, and no immunity could be demonstrated in subsequent challenge with the original agent.”

Over the next decade, numerous labs claimed to isolate “candidate viruses” from hepatitis patients using a variety of human and animal tissue cultures. These included:

• Rightsel and Boggs: Claimed hepatitis-like illness was caused by injection of “infected” culture fluid.
• Davis: “Isolated” the so-called San Carlos agents (“adenoviruses”) from children’s stool, but no direct link to hepatitis was found.
• Chang: Reported a “lipovirus” from hepatitis patients’ blood, but could not classify it or establish any association.
• O’Malley: “Isolated” the “A-1 virus” from serum; results were inconsistent, and serologic relationships were unclear.
• Bolin et al.: Claimed “isolation” of a “virus” from volunteers given a known serum hepatitis sample.
• Hillis: Observed cell damage from hepatitis patient serum, but the effect was lost in serial passage.
• Hsiung et al.: Found a “myxovirus” (DA “virus”) in a fatal case, but refrained from claiming causation.
• Schneider et al.: Detected agents in both chronic and acute cases using canine lung tissue.
• McKees: Claimed to “isolate viruses” on monkey kidney tissue from hepatitis patients, reportedly transmissible to suckling mice.

Despite these numerous claims, no consistent or definitive evidence ever established a direct causal link between any of these agents and hepatitis. Researchers experimented with various tissue and cell cultures, hoping to find a formula that would recreate the disease and produce the expected indirect signs of “infection.” When a particular result appeared to match their expectations, they rushed to assume a “viral” cause. They would name a supposed “virus” and then treat it as if it had been proven to cause the artificial, lab-created effects they had generated. In doing so, they engaged in fallacious reasoning—such as affirming the consequent and post hoc fallacies—deceiving themselves into believing that the invisible culprit was in hand.

Fortunately, some researchers were honest enough to acknowledge when the evidence failed to support early assumptions of a “viral” cause. In many cases, the indirect findings not only fell short of being sufficient—they ultimately pointed away from the “viral” hypothesis altogether. One notable example comes from the work of Dr. Robert Shihman Chang, a pioneer in cell culture. He was among the first to establish immortalized lymphoid cell lines using the “Epstein-Barr Virus,” focusing primarily on developing cell lines that could support “viral” growth for in vitro study. During his investigations into hepatitis, which led to the emergence of the so-called “lipovirus” in 1960, he inadvertently demonstrated how reliance on indirect evidence—such as CPE, “antibody” tests, and electron microscopy—paired with fallacious reasoning can lead researchers to mistakenly believe they’ve discovered a new “virus,” only to later realize the trail of pseudoscientific breadcrumbs led nowhere. This is the story of how a virologist was both misled by assumptions and deceived by the very methods believed to prove a “viral” cause.
**

Full article:

The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 1: The “Lipovirus”

How a speculative agent with no direct evidence was framed as a causative "virus."

mikestone.substack.com

 

[Scott]

Yes. About the best thing I can say of Scott is that at least he's civil even when challenged. The world could use more of that. But less silliness like viruses aren't real Trump cares about Americans, and weed is evil. lol

We agree that civility is a good thing, regardless of one's points of view. I certainly think Trump cares about -some- Americans, but you should know by now that I'm not one of his fans. I've certainly never said that "weed is evil".

 

[Scott]

I only quoted the part of Mike Stone's article that I believe provided evidence for the assertion that Louis Pasteur didn't follow the scientific method to confirm his germ hypothesis. If you found any errors in his evidence, by all means point it out.

Did you even read what I quoted? Mr. Stone never said that one of Pasteur's flaws was in not seeing biological viruses under a microsope. Instead, he provided a plethora of evidence that Pasteur didn't use the scientific method to confirm the germ hypothesis.

And here you are again, not actually presenting any evidence or science to support your claims. I have already pointed out many errors in Mike Stone's "evidence" and you simply disappear for a couple of months instead of addressing the errors in his evidence and then you reappear and pretend that we are starting all over.

Error number 1 - Whether Pasteur did or didn't use the scientific method doesn't show that viruses don't exist.

I can certainly agree that whether or not Pasteur used the scientific method doesn't in an of itself prove that viruses don't exist. That being said, if his methods weren't scientific, it certainly makes his theory that viruses caused certain illnesses suspect. Quoting a passage relevant to this point from an article by Mike Stone that I've quoted previously:
**
While Pasteur had this idea of how diseases were caused by microorganisms as early as the 1860s, he didn't put his hypothesis to the test until the late 1870s. In an 1878 lecture The Germ Theory And Its Applications To Medicine And Surgery read before the French Academy of Sciences on April 29th, 1878, Pasteur had already hypothesized that there was a “virus” (i.e. some form of chemical poison as the word didn't mean an obligate intracellular parasite at that time) in the solutions of the bacterial cultures that he was working with. He then went on to claim that this poison would accumulate within the body of the animal as the bacteria grew. Interestingly, he then noted that his hypothesis presupposes the forming and necessary existence of the bacteria, thus admitting that his hypothesis was not based upon any observed natural phenomenon.
**

Full article:

The Germ Hypothesis Part 1

Pasteur's Problems

substack.com

 

[Scott]

Error number 2 - Relying solely on Pasteur completely ignores the 150 years of science since then.

I've never relied solely on Pasteur's work to make the case that virology is pseudoscientific. He's just one of the first examples of authoritative men using pseudoscientific means to push theories that ultimately played a large role in current mainstream beliefs regarding biological viruses.

 

[Scott]

Error number 3 - Viruses are not bacteria.

I've never said they were. Unlike biological viruses, I believe that evidence that bacteria exist is solid.

 

[Scott]

Virology has done a good job of trying to make it impossible to falsify the existence of biological viruses, but the fact of the matter is, there is no solid evidence that any biological viruses were ever discovered, which is what Tom Cowan et all point out in the statement referenced in the opening post of this thread.

Another absurd argument from you that attempts to pretend we have not discussed this before.

It is easy to falsify the existence of viruses. You only need to provide a better explanation that includes all the facts.

From what I've read, I think that's already been done. The problem is that current mainstream beliefs in biological viruses are so strong that these explanations aren't given much airtime. Some good articles that get into the details:

The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 1: The “Lipovirus”

How a speculative agent with no direct evidence was framed as a causative "virus."

substack.com

The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 2: SMON Says

"Act like a virus!"

substack.com

 

[Scott]

Virologists have a unique way of defining the term isolation. This is highlighted in the 2 page statement made by various doctors and other researchers that I quoted from and linked to in the opening post. Quoting from it:
**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

[unhelpful insults removed]
Please provide your evidence that there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology.

I just quoted part of the statement from the opening post of this thread, a statement published back in 2022. If you can find a single example where the commonly accepted definition of isolation has actually been used in virology, by all means present it.

 

[Scott]

What Dr. Tom Cowan et al argue is that no scientific evidence has ever been found for the existence of biological viruses, and they then go explaining what tests -could- be done to try to provide evidence for these alleged biological viruses. Honestly, I think at times it's kind of liking trying to look for unicorns. I mean, yes, I suppose they could exist, but there's never been any solid evidence for their existence, unless we acknowledge that their origins are probably the rhino and the narwhals for the shape of their horns. In other words, the unicorns the way they've been described in many stories never actually existed.

What Dr Tom Cowan is ignoring is 99.9% of the science.

On the contrary, Dr. Tom Cowan and his companions in the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement are pointing out that virology is a pseudoscience.

When Dr Tom Cowan refutes one sentence in this science article get back to me... (It shows how to isolate viruses and how to test for them.)

Virus Detection: A Review of the Current and Emerging Molecular and Immunological Methods - PMC

Viruses are ubiquitous in the environment. While many impart no deleterious effects on their hosts, several are major pathogens. This risk of pathogenicity, alongside the fact that many viruses can rapidly mutate highlights the need for suitable, ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As I've mentioned before, virologists have their own custom definition of isolation. As Tom Cowan et al stated in the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, it's general agreement that biological viruses have never been isolated in the common definition of the term.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

We agree that civility is a good thing, regardless of one's points of view. I certainly think Trump cares about -some- Americans, but you should know by now that I'm not one of his fans. I've certainly never said that "weed is evil".

Excellent! Some do believe that nonsense about the holy herb. Just means there's more for us who don't. lol

 

[Scott]

Why would no one pay for such a study since if it succeeded it would be world changing and likely result in a Nobel prize?

I've re-read the discussion that led to your question and come to the conclusion that this whole thing has been framed wrong. The article doesn't cite studies because it's not attempting to prove that biological viruses exist, but that there is no proof that they -do- exist. Here's the introduction to the article linked to and partially quoted in my previous post:

So your argument is that if you make a circular argument then that circular argument has validity?

No clue how you came to that conclusion. As I stated, I re-read the discussion that led to your question and came to the conclusion that you missed the point- that being that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. Since most governments believe they -do- exist, it's up to them to provide solid evidence that this is the case. So far, they've been unable to do so.

 

[Scott]

**
The "Yes Virus" narrative is the most important of them all. It matters more to The Regime than even their beloved climate change story.

Why? Because while most people don’t lose sleep over CO₂ levels they do fear viruses. That fear—the belief in invisible and “infectious” enemies lurking everywhere and in everyone—is the ultimate control mechanism. The ring to rule them all.

And yet, it’s a fiction.

Yes, I too can see the pictures of “viral” particles just like everyone else. But there is no evidence that these particles cause the diseases they’ve been accused of causing.

Cause is the real issue, not whether something exists or can be seen, and cause has most definitely not been proven.

I've already reviewed and summarized Mark Gober’s excellent book, The End of Upside Down Medicine, [linked here]. But if you want the most concise, devastating dismantling of the Yes Virus position, look no further than Chapter 2 of that book. It is the best single-source compilation of arguments and scientific challenges to virus theory’s central dogma.

This summary and Q&A are drawn entirely from Chapter 2—with gratitude to Mark Gober.
**

Full article:

The Virus Cult – A Religion Built on Fear, Not Science

40 Q&As on Virology’s Fatal Flaws

unbekoming.substack.com

There is very clear evidence that viruses are the most likely cause for the diseases.

I've seen no such evidence.

There is very clear evidence that viruses are the most likely cause for the diseases. The disease spreads by infection which is shown by the way the disease spreads which requires contact with someone/something with the disease.

If what you say is true, you should be able to provide at least one study that actually shows that solid evidence that an alleged virus is spread by infection. I've already provided links to articles that show the fraudulent nature of virology, but once more:

The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 1: The “Lipovirus”

How a speculative agent with no direct evidence was framed as a causative "virus."

mikestone.substack.com

The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 2: SMON Says

"Act like a virus!"

mikestone.substack.com

 

[Scott]

I've re-read the discussion that led to your question and come to the conclusion that this whole thing has been framed wrong. The article doesn't cite studies because it's not attempting to prove that biological viruses exist, but that there is no proof that they -do- exist. Here's the introduction to the article linked to and partially quoted in my previous post:
**
The "Yes Virus" narrative is the most important of them all. It matters more to The Regime than even their beloved climate change story.

Why? Because while most people don’t lose sleep over CO₂ levels they do fear viruses. That fear—the belief in invisible and “infectious” enemies lurking everywhere and in everyone—is the ultimate control mechanism. The ring to rule them all.

And yet, it’s a fiction.

Yes, I too can see the pictures of “viral” particles just like everyone else. But there is no evidence that these particles cause the diseases they’ve been accused of causing.

Cause is the real issue, not whether something exists or can be seen, and cause has most definitely not been proven.
**

Full article:

The Virus Cult – A Religion Built on Fear, Not Science

40 Q&As on Virology’s Fatal Flaws

unbekoming.substack.com

That has to be one of the funniest attempts to move goalposts that I have ever seen. You have thrown out the "viruses don't exist" argument to simply claim viruses don't cause disease.

For starters, "viruses don't exist" isn't an argument, it's a statement. -We- are engaged in an argument, wherein you believe that biological viruses exist and I don't. But I have never stated that I have -proof- that biological viruses don't exist, just as I have never stated that I have proof that unicorns don't exist. The issue is whether there is any solid -evidence- that biological viruses exist. I have yet to find any.

 

[Scott]

What alleged evidence are you talking about?

I post links to multiple scientific papers that show how viruses are isolated and sequenced and your response is to disappear for a couple of months and then come back pretending no such evidence was ever presented.

Why do you not disprove the science with your own evidence? Why do you simply repost the same 2-3 sources over and over and over?
Why have your sources never addressed any of the hundreds of scientific articles I could cite?

Here is the post where I cited 20 science articles that you have ignored. [https://justplainpolitics.com/threads/do-biological-viruses-actually-exist.230003/post-6425433]

I didn't ignore that post, I just hadn't gotten to it when you wrote your post. My response to your post is here:

APP - Post in thread 'Do biological viruses actually exist?'

May 24, 2025

Unsubstantiated assertion on your part. There is a lot of solid evidence that a lot of microbes fit the definition of biological viruses. There is a lot of evidence including aver a thousand years of circumstantial evidence that viruses exist.

Alright, show me this evidence then.

Let me know when Mike Stone, Dr Bailey or you have refuted any of the following -
Then I can get to the next 20 -

Structure and Organization of Virus Genomes - PMC

This chapter provides an in depth study on the structure, composition, and organization of viral genomes, their classification into double stranded and single stranded DNA viruses, positive and negative stranded RNA viruses with and their genome ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Once again, I'd like to point out that no one has said that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist. What the...

• Scott

And yes, I know you responded to it in post #209. Barring my leaving this thread, I should get to it in time.

 

[Scott]

I post links to multiple scientific papers that show how viruses are isolated and sequenced and your response is to disappear for a couple of months and then come back pretending no such evidence was ever presented.

Why do you not disprove the science with your own evidence? Why do you simply repost the same 2-3 sources over and over and over?
Why have your sources never addressed any of the hundreds of scientific articles I could cite?

Here is the post where I cited 20 science articles that you have ignored.

Because his entire argument is that one study wasn't done well enough for him, therefore no studies that confirm the theory could ever be conducted.

No clue where you got that idea. It's actually the reverse- I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real. There are many badly done studies. As I've mentioned previously, Mike Stone has written articles getting into them. 2 can be seen here:

The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 1: The “Lipovirus”

How a speculative agent with no direct evidence was framed as a causative "virus."

mikestone.substack.com

The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 2: SMON Says

"Act like a virus!"

mikestone.substack.com

 

[Scott]

Virologists define isolation in a way that no one else does. To see where this all started, we need to look at the work of Franklin Enders. Quoting from an article that gets into his work:
**
View attachment 45906

For over 60 years, virologists struggled to convincingly demonstrate that they were working with actual pathogenic “viruses” in their experiments. In fact, there wasn't even consensus on what a “virus” was until 1957. However, in 1954, virologist John Franklin Enders, while supposedly working with the measles “virus,” introduced an illogical experimental setup that allowed researchers to claim that they were working with the entities that they believed were present in the fluids of sick patients. This was the cell culture experiment, which began with the assumption that the unseen “viruses” were already present within a sick patient's fluids. When these fluids were added to a Petri dish containing kidney cells from African green monkeys, along with various chemicals and foreign additives, Enders observed what he referred to as the cytopathogenic effect (CPE). This effect was then attributed to “viruses” and used as evidence that these invisible entities are present within the sample, thus completing the illogical circular loop where the effect was taken as proof of the cause. This experimental method was fundamentally flawed, as it was based on the fallacy of begging the question. This basic illogical premise is ingrained in all virology research that has proceeded afterwards.

[snip]

In these cases, people are assuming a connection between two events simply because they occurred one after the other or closely together in time. This same flawed reasoning is evident in the cell culture experiments performed by virologists. They assume that adding unpurified lung fluid or nasal mucus from a sick patient to a culture of monkey kidney cells, followed by the observation of CPE, implies that a “virus” was present in the sample and ultimately caused the CPE. This reasoning ties back to the fallacy of begging the question regarding the existence of the “virus” in the first place, as well as affirming the consequent by using the effect (CPE) as proof of the supposed cause (the “virus”). It's a tangled web of circular reasoning, with no direct proof of any entity described as a pathogenic “virus” before any experiments or observations take place.

This fallacy was utilized by John Franklin Enders in his original 1954 paper establishing the cell culture experiment when he assumed that the CPE that occurred in his “infected” cultures was evidence that he has “isolated” the cause of the effect in the measles “virus.”

Directly after this passage, Enders did concede to other possible causes of the observed CPE. However, he still maintained that the CPE caused by these other “viral” agents or unknown factors resembled the CPE that he was already attributing to a measles “virus.”

Enders would ultimately conclude that the findings in his paper of the cytopathogenic changes supported his presumption that they are caused by the measles “virus.”

Why Enders would initially believe that the cytopathogenic changes observed in tissue and cell cultures were caused by a “measles virus” is puzzling, especially given his own acknowledgments in a paper titled Cytopathology of Virus Infections: Particular Reference to Tissue Culture Studies, published the same year as his measles paper. In this work, Enders made some revealing concessions regarding the interpretation of CPE. He explained that CPE can be triggered by many harmful agents, and that, on its own, this observation could not be conclusively attributed to “viral” activity. Despite this, Enders asserted that an observer familiar with the specific CPE patterns attributed to a particular “virus” might tentatively conclude that a “virus” is responsible.

[snip]

Enders conceded that cytopathogenic changes observed in the lab are influenced by numerous factors—some known, while others remain undefined. He attempted to correlate certain susceptible cell lines with “viral replication,” but he noted that this correlation did not always hold true, and that the opposite was sometimes observed:

Enders tried to argue that certain “viruses” specifically target certain cell types, but he also admitted that there is no absolute relationship between cytotropism in vivo and in vitro:

[snip]

Moreover, Enders admitted that the conditions under which the assumed “virus” has been propagated prior to its study in tissue culture can influence the intensity and degree of CPE. He acknowledged that serial passaging might enhance moderate or weak cytopathogenicity, showing that the researcher's approach can directly influence the observation of CPE:

Finally, Enders recognized that environmental factors—both known and unknown—within the culture can also enhance or suppress cytopathogenic activity. He pointed to the composition of the medium, the temperature of incubation, and the period of cultivation of the cells before the addition of any “virus” as factors that influence CPE:

Thus, it is evident that John Franklin Enders was aware of various factors unrelated to the presence of any “virus” that could cause the cytopathogenic effect he attributed to the “virus.” Given that he had no direct evidence pertaining to the existence of, and actually working with, a pathogenic “virus” (begging the question) and that he used an observed effect to assert the existence of its cause (affirming the consequent), it becomes clear that Enders committed a false cause fallacy. There were multiple known factors capable of producing the same effect, making the explanation of a “virus” unnecessary and entirely illogical.
**

Full article:

ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies

The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers.

mikestone.substack.com

Wow... It seems you think that if you dispute a method used to isolate the measles viruses over 80 years ago it will just negate the next 80 years of science that includes genetic sequencing.

You don't understand- there has never been any isolation of any biological virus, at least in the traditional definition of isolation in science, which is separating something from everything else. Since no alleged biological virus has never been truly isolated, it means that any "genetic sequencing" of the soups they sequence doesn't in any way prove that such sequences are coming from an actual biological virus.

And here you go again. Making the same claims without pointing out any errors in the 20 papers I linked to.

Again, you don't understand. The method developed by Enders to "isolate" alleged biological viruses is the same one used today. This is why it's so important to understand how his method was pseudoscientific, as it firmly establishes that virology as a whole is pseudoscientific.

 

[Scott]

There are 3 ways to isolate viruses.

Again, microscopic particles alleged to be biological viruses have never been isolated by the common definition of the term. The "Settling the Virus Debate" statement I quote and link to in the opening post points this out.

 

[Scott]

You argue that there is only one way to isolate a virus

No, I and the signatories of the "Settling the Virus debate" 2 page statement referenced in the opening post have argued that biological viruses have never been isolated in the common definition of the term. Instead, virologists have modified the term isolation to mean something other than what it means for any other scientific field.