Thread by @AlisonBlunt

1. Great explanation by John Blaid (a thread):

2. "If we take a snapshot of a building that is on fire you'll see a lot of different people there including firemen. The bigger the fire the more firemen we see but does that prove that the firemen is the cause of the fire? To prove that the firemen causes the fire we...' ..

3. ..'would have to isolate a fireman and put him in front of a building that is not on fire and see if he will actually start a fire or if he is simply a result of the fire. This has never been done with any claimed "virus" where the particle has been isolated and purified..' ..

4. ..'and put into a healthy subject and demonstrated to cause any illness.
Now there are studies out there that claim isolation in their title and abstract which is false because' ... [wait for it, haha] ..

5. ..'what "virologists" call isolation is not isolation in the every day sense of the word meaning the separation from everything else. They call the death of the cell (cytopathic effect) in cell cultures an isolation which is a problem because they use impure..' ..

6. ..'samples in a cell culture and always introduce toxins and starve the cells of nutrients and they never take this into account. Not only that but by adding toxins and various agents to an impure sample can't possibly isolate anything.' ..

7. 'Now another analogy to show the absurdity of gene sequencing is...you mix all of the various DNA from people, animals, plants, bacteria, fungus etc & you take pieces of short gene sequences from that soup of DNA & stitch them together & claim..' ..

8. ..'that your whole new gene sequence is connected to Mr Smith. Now the only way to prove that the DNA actually belongs to Mr Smith is to isolate Mr Smith from everything else and only take his DNA, that is how we prove that the DNA we see is connected to Mr Smith.' ..

9. 'In "virology" they never take the full genome, they only take small pieces of RNA and piece them together and that is purely self deception which they seem to be unable to recognize. It's like throwing a bomb into a living room where you take a piece of the TV, sofa,..' ..

10. ..'table and piece it together and call it "X" like it exist in reality as a whole which it never did.
So if you have not proven that X causes Y and isolated and purified the claimed "virus" then everything else is entirely meaningless where you are left with useless data.'

11. 'It doesn't matter how impressive people's credentials may be or how long they have worked within "virology", scientific fraud is still scientific fraud and everyone can and should understand that. There is no reason to argue about PCR tests either since..' ..

12. ..'the false positive is 100% due to the fact that the claimed "virus" has never been isolated and purified and demonstrated to cause any illness.
You can't test against something which you have not even proven to exist and you can't claim anyone have fallen ill and died..'..

13. ..'of something that has never undergone the experiment to demonstrate that. People getting ill and even dying is not proof of a "virus", it is just proof that something made them ill and die and what that is needs to be looked at.' ..

14.'I would also ask this, how can we possibly prevent future illness and deaths if we do not investigate the true causes of illness and death!
Dr Stefan Lanka interview, July 2020 "Virologist", molecular & marine biologist. The existence of ANY "virus" refuted.'

15. [The article interview mentioned by John Blaid can be found here in original German and with a roughly translated English version, both available to download, please save and read and share archive.org/details/lanka-…]

And here's a previous thread quoting the Lanka interview