Someone sent me an email to comment, stating:
[This guy says and is willing to bet people that viruses exist, even covid 19. What do you answer to that? Thanks, If viruses don’t exist, then how can we see them? (link)]
I sent my response (below). I thought it might be helpful to visitors to my blog as well.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is very difficult to argue with such people if they work with a self-developed definition (named “virology definition”). For example, saying.
“Instead, they are misled into thinking that because they claim that “no virus particle has been isolated” based on the dictionary definition of isolation (instead of the virology definition), that that is proof that viruses don’t exist.”
It is like saying the color of the sky is green (based on atmospheric science definition).
Changing the definition to make his point is a clear indication or proof that Mr. Steve Kirsch is indirectly accepting that the virus has never been isolated in the true sense of the meaning of the word and science. So what is left to debate? Nothing! He has already lost it and should be thankful for saving his award money.
About photographs, they have no scientific meaning or relevance. If the claim is that virus is a particle, then it has to be isolated, and the sample should be available in its native/pure form in a tube or vial. Period!
ATCC samples are not virus samples but gunks. Sorry, they lack subject understanding (link).
People have seen pictures of many things that do not exist, e.g., the tooth fairy or unicorn (link). I will be happy to participate in the debate if required. However, the judge or moderator has to be from an independent third party, preferably having knowledge or experience in isolation and separation science.
I hope this will help.