The person's naming what they observed, viruses, were looking for proof of viruses.
That they concludes what they photographed were viruses is a chicken or egg conundrum.
It is quite possible all they photographed were extracellular exosomes after a person has symptoms which were incorrectly attributed to a virus.
Now how can anyone say this?
Because every known set of symptoms attributed to any particular virus, has at least one other input which will cause ye same symotoms and extracellular exosome response.
Without an hour by hour observation of not only the exact time these “viruses” appeared, and without ruling out every other possible toxic burden, stress or malnutrition input?
These alleged photos of viruses as proof are just assumptions….a case of a claim looking fot proof, and claiming to have found it.
You say viruses have been photographed.
But that claim may be a false identification.
The person's naming what they observed, viruses, were looking for proof of viruses.
That they concludes what they photographed were viruses is a chicken or egg conundrum.
It is quite possible all they photographed were extracellular exosomes after a person has symptoms which were incorrectly attributed to a virus.
Now how can anyone say this?
Because every known set of symptoms attributed to any particular virus, has at least one other input which will cause ye same symotoms and extracellular exosome response.
Without an hour by hour observation of not only the exact time these “viruses” appeared, and without ruling out every other possible toxic burden, stress or malnutrition input?
These alleged photos of viruses as proof are just assumptions….a case of a claim looking fot proof, and claiming to have found it.