>>12907401youre going about this the wrong way, because ppl who deny viruses, are using the "you cant isolate a virus and observe it"
>>12907400Heres the thing, a virus isnt a living thing. as much as microbiologists get pissy about that, they are making 1 key mistake.
In a zombie movie (yes, im going there) a "zombie" is not the same as "the virus".
A "Host" infected by the virus, isnt the same thing as the virus itself.
When ppl "observe a virus under a microscope" they arent observing the virus, but the host effected by the virus.
a virus cant reproduce, eat, sustain itself, etc. It only does that, after a host has been high jacked, and 99% of the work is in the hosts natural behavior.
A good example, is if you burn a CD with a virus. The virus isnt doing anything. its just a line of code(s). But when a running PC get it, and reads the code, then the computer does all the work, as the code just so happens to make the PC do all sort of incorrect things, based on its own natural inner workings. The PC is doing all the work/heavylifting.
If i were to say "point to a PCvirus under a microscope" you cant. you can point to a PC, or a CD, or something else, in which the PC virus code is apart of. Its the same thing with a real life virus. Its just microscopic material that literally does nothing, but once a lifeform comes in contact with it, the lifeform starts to behave abnormally. If the lifeform behave in a manner that does not recreate the material. its not a virus. but if the lifeform actually recreate the material (basically recreating itself, as its current state) then its a "virus"(host).
this is why ppl think viruses dont exist. and why scientists say dumb shit like "its alive".
