For the remainder of the article I'll categorize as:
Yes camp = yes-virus people are right.
No camp = no-virus people are right.
Middle camp = both sides have a point.
Mystery camp = can't confirm the claims, so neither side gets a point.
Accusation = just an accusation to make no-virus people look stupid with no evidence or receipts to back it up.

> 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.

Not really sure on the terminology, and no further explanation is provided.
So remains no camp until an explanation can be provided.
No camp.

> Further, they require that the isolated particles are used to infect “test subjects” which I assume are lab animals. But it’s a human virus. So why are we testing it on lab animals? We won’t be able to get an IRB to approve infecting humans. And infecting humans is hard and would require a huge quantity of virions to achieve success; very likely more virions that can be successfully harvested and preserved for the experiment.

It doesn't prove any side right or wrong, but I'd say benefit of the doubt at best.
Middle camp.

> Even worse, they require each test subject to have identical sickness. Virology requires no such thing. My wife and I are completely different. We have different immune systems. I’m male, she’s female. We have different immune histories. We have different health issues. She got COVID first and lost her taste. I picked it up from her, and didn’t lose my taste. So this proves virology doesn’t exist?!?!

Doesn't prove the yes camp right, but has a good point.
No camp.

> And finally, the next impossible challenge. The virus isolated from test subjects must be identical to the original particles. I can guarantee you this is never true. This virus mutates in everyone and everyone gets many mutations. If virus in=virus out as they claim, there wouldn’t be any variants at all.

I can't remember this to even be claimed by anyone to begin with.
Neither the yes-virusers nor the no-virusers made the everyone is equal or different claim from all I know.
Mystery camp.

> So their challenge is based on a fairy tale world that virology works they way they think it does. They don’t understand virology, so they make these rookie errors.
> Did you notice that they have no test whatsoever to validate that their replacement hypothesis is true? Whoops! A slight oversight!
> The test for their hypothesis is simple: fit the observations over the last 100 years better than the current hypothesis.
> They can’t do this at all.

Could you though? (And by you I of course mean the writer of the article.)
The only reasonble thing I've seen thus far as the monetary part, of which no receipts even exist.
Accusation.

> They want you to cast aside 100+ years of scientific studies, all of which are consistent with the “virus theory” because they can’t find an experiment which meets their requirements.

Show me your experiment then.
I already did long ago when I pointed out that just blowing my nose until my throat is cleared immediately cured me, which only proves the "detox" """theory""" to be correct.

> Science doesn’t work that way. Science is a “best fit” of a hypothesis to data.

yup.

I'll skip the rest of the "bottom line" part simply because it's just silly.

> Nobody does the isolation work today because nobody needs an “isolated virus” to develop assays.

"Nobody does the calculation work today because nobody needs simple mathematics to develop X/Y/Z co-ordinates in 3D video games."

Sorry, but I'm not convinced.
It's all writing and making a fool of his opposition, and no actual evidence of people not challenging his theory, nor any actual evidence of the no-virus camp to be wrong.
The Mark Twain quote works in both directions, same can be said to the yes-virus camp.

I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt at first on the livestream debate part, but all he showed is people not responding to him.
To me it doesn't necessarily prove them being shy.
But he is right on 5G, junk food, and covAIDS relation being false, but that's because it was a counter-propaganda attempt by the same glowies who created the "virus will kill us all" propaganda.

The other thing he doesn't seem to answer is why they launch a major scamdemic once every 10 years?
And how comes they've already planned the next one for 2029?