> And I'm willing to change my mind on it, or at the very least give the yes-virusists the benefit of the doubt, but show me actual scientific evidene and hard proof of a live isolate, which even the WHO, CDC, and the other institutions to this day claim not to have.

> Because if you can't prove its existance, it just doesn't exist, this used to be common sense prior to November 2016, then they slandered Russia for 4 years only to then turn out that whatever they said was not true, and that there was no evidence to back up their slandering.

I think I linked this before as an reply.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221126160225/https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-viruses-dont-exist-then-how-can

--
"Claiming isolation is required to prove viruses exist is like saying the Higgs Boson doesn’t exist because you can’t isolate it. Yet all the theory and the observations are consistent with the Higgs Boson. It took 40 years to “prove” it exists."

"It’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist because you cannot isolate it."

"Creating an experiment that is hard to pull off technically is not proof of non-existence. It is simply proof that some things are harder to do than other things. If I cut up a newspaper into tiny pieces the size of a letter and then ask you to prove that a newspaper existed by re-assembling the pieces, that would be extremely difficult to accomplish, but it doesn’t prove that the newspaper that was torn up never existed."
--

I hope it is not their excuse but I have heard it's been impossible to extract pure substances. Or how about this?
https://web.archive.org/web/20220117032232/https://www.atcc.org/products/vr-1881

I think it'd be logically funny if you think they have been doing nothing for real in the field and in the labs and just trick people to buy their products. No-virus supporters use "toxins" to refer the "virus". Maybe it's just "toxins"? So the problem is we want the name "toxin-ology" rather than "virology"? The whole thing looks more like about semantics to me.

All the things are about modeling of concepts, just like in the past people probably use god to model the phenomena they see, though I'm not sure whether "toxins" or "virus" describe certain phenomena better here.

I think the gravity argument summaries the isolation thing. Probably similarly they will say "gravity" is not real because we can't isolate gravity, so it doesn't exist. But what is that "something"? There is never a "real" truth because we are constrained to our understanding and skills, but there can be a model that currently describe something the best. The no-virus supporters have to give a better explanation, otherwise it would be at best just about semantics.