I agree with Jon Rappoport -- the virus has not been isolated, and any "sequences" have been inferred through bioinformatic algorithms and gene database searches. So how can there be a "photo?"
People often say -- "the common cold has never been cured." Well, one major reason is that viruses are extremely small and hard to see. In all the top medical labs, they are equipped with high powered electron microscopes. All of the types used, instantly kills everything under it. So, on a microscope slide or Petri dish, they are viewing dead carcasses of parasites. Live viruses have not ever been viewed and studied. Even if a live virus was to be seen, how it spreads and infects other people is outside the capability and confines of a Petri dish or laboratory.
We are being conditioned like Pavlov dogs to respond with dread and horror whenever the word virus is used. You ever wonder about all these Zombie movies? What is the pathogen that produces Zombies?
There is no such thing as a live virus, it is just an RNA or DNA sequence with a hull around. To study a virus, you study the RNA/DNA. RNA/DNA sequencing is done since the seventies. Crispering the virus RNA/DNA or deactivating parts of it helps identifying the function of different parts of the RNA/DNA. This was done so often that there are now databases full of sequences and their function.
The process of the infection can be studied by extracting the proteins produced by the cells in the process. Studying the infection of a whole organism can be done with the help of luciferase: They crisper luciferase creating RNA or DNA into the virus RNA or DNA. If a cell gets infected, it starts to produce the luciferase and begins to glow. By this, they can literally see the process of infection in a living organism (they see which organs glow first, and if the glowing vanishes if they apply the medication they test).
>"There is no such thing as a live virus, ..."
Correct. It is said a virus is neither alive or dead. The point I'm making is that the electron microscopes used in these labs are incapable of seeing a 'live' virus. I'm using this word loosely, instead of something like 'un-dead", even if technically "live" is erroneous. Other science articles use the word 'live' as well. For example, the recently invented "microsphere nanoscope" (nanoscope) can see live viruses for the first time. The article -- "'Nanoscope' makes live viruses visible for first time" discusses it in detail.
>"Luciferase"
Good old luciferase. Just as the doctor (Bill Gates) ordered. I read the patent he has on it. Science understands less than 1% of how the human immune system works. Vaccines has its origin in eugenics and it is a very plausible argument that vaccines have never been a benefit to stemming disease. In fact, vaccines have caused more deaths and maiming of individuals than the disease itself. Good nutrition, sanitation, and hygiene has done more to strengthen the immune system of individuals than vaccines will ever do.
(post is archived)