Part 2- The Variants in Virology.

In  Part 1  covered briefly  genetic virology, in silico genome and the NGS technology used to manufacture theoretical viruses.

"To this day, no virus has been seen in or isolated from humans, animals, nor plants or their fluids. It has not even been possible to isolate a nucleic acid that would correspond to the length and composition of the genetic strands of the claimed disease causing viruses, although the isolation, presentation and analysis of the composition of nucleic acids of this length has long been possible using the simplest standard techniques."
(https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-virologists.pdf - Dr Stefan Lanka)

Dr Stefan Lanka has put forward 7 argument ,  each on its own is sufficient to refute the existence claims of all 'pathogenic viruses .'

ALIGNMENT

1. The fact of Alignment
Virologists have never isolated a complete genetic strand of a virus and displayed it directly, in its entire length. They always use very short pieces of nucleic acids, whose sequence consists of four molecules to determine them and call them sequences. From a multitude of millions of such specific, very short sequences, virologists mentally assemble a fictitious long genome strand with the help of complex computational and statistical methods. This process is called alignment.
The result of this complex alignment, the fictitious and very long genetic strand, is presented by virologists as the core of a virus and they claim to have thus

2. The fact of the lack of control experiments for alignment
Virologists have never performed and documented an alignment using equally short nucleic acids from control experiments.

3. Alignment is only done by means of mental constructs
In order to be able to mentally/computationally assemble the very short sequences of the nucleic acids used into a long genome, the virologists need a template to align the short sequences into a very long, supposedly viral genome strand.

4. Viruses have never been seen in a human/animal/plant or in liquids thereof.
To date, however, not a single virus has been photographed in saliva, blood or other places in human/animal/plant or fluids, although electron microscopic imaging is now an easy and routine standard technique..

5.The composition of the structures that are claimed to be viruses has never been biochemically characterized

6. Electron microscopic images, which are output as viruses, are known typical artifacts or cell- specific structures
Virologists publish a large number of electron microscopic images of structures that they pass off as viruses. They do not mention the fact that ALL of these images are typical structures of dying cell cultures or are laboratory-produced protein-fat soap bubbles and have never been photographed in human/animal/plant or liquids from them.

7. the animal experiments of the virologists refute the virus- existence assertions.
It is clear from every single publication in which such animal experiments have been conducted that the way the animals are treated produces exactly the symptoms that are claimed to be caused by the virus. In each of these publications, it is clear that no control experiments have been performed where the animals would have been treated in the same way with sterilized starting material.
(https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-virologists.pdf) 

 
So how come there are variants in virology( if viruses refuted)  and  also such an increase in variants especially  in the last two decades?
Are we basing theory on theory and refining theories to fit the originally disproved theories ?   Are scientist  aware  and discussing the inconsistancies and scrutanising their work and that of their colleagues in an ethical scientific way?

The  origin of RNA viruses , the quasispecies theory  of species the new computer NGS  sequencing technology and emergence of bioinformatics seem to have  given rise to the escalation of variants in virology. 
Some background on retroviruses and quasispecies.

 
Retroviruses

http://whale.to/a/lanks13.html- Dr Stefan Lanka

Retroviruses were postulated as being that species of micro-organism which caused reverse transcription to occur, which, as a working hypothesis at the time in the early 1970s, was entirely reasonable. The mistake was to elevate the hypothesis to a dogma. Early gene detection techniques lent some credence to the existence of an entity that could be transmitted from one cell to another, which was unfortunate, because this, too, turned out to be wrong. Errors of this kind occur whenever technology makes available for general use a new experimental procedure, which propels a whole army of researchers into mass producing experimental data, heedless of what the biological significance, if any, of their work might be. Even worse, is the habit of making countless ad hoc adjustments to the original theory, which completely distort the original hypothesis. Correct science demands that there should be a radical re-think when this happens. If there isn't, as in this case, a fundamentally flawed concept goes haywire ending in disaster.

To the astute observer, it should have been apparent as early as 1973 that the working hypothesis of ascribing the experimentally observed phenomenon of reverse transcription to retroviruses had become untenable, when it became known that reverse transcription was anything but rare; by 1980 at the latest, the hypothesis should have been abandoned by everyone. Indeed, the extraordinarily artificial and circumscribed conditions under which reverse transcription could be induced in the laboratory should have alerted everyone to the extreme improbability of such exclusively laboratory conditions having any bearing whatsoever on naturally occurring phenomena. All the more so, as no retrovirus was ever shown to exist-for example, by being able to isolate and characterise it, and to demonstrate its transmissibility. These failures (obviously not for want of trying) should have sufficed to kill off the whole concept. It may be hard to believe that all maps purporting to represent a whole retrovirus, including HIV, are always compilations, many bits and pieces cobbled together by their authors to the best of their beliefs. They are collages. No complete retrovirus nor its RNA in its entirety has ever been proved to exist either in vivo or in vitro.

A further difficulty for the hypothesis was that it had never proved possible to show that the experimental observations attributed to retroviruses were exogenous to the cells used in experiments, i.e. that they came from outside of the cell; indeed, all the evidence pointed to the opposite, i.e. that they were endogenous (inherent) to the cells themselves.

History furnishes an unhappy precedent for this form of research. At the turn of the century experiments were conducted using highly in-bred laboratory animals. Under strictly circumscribed conditions, these displayed higher disease susceptibilities than animals which were not in-bred; the phrase 'highly in-bred' was forgotten about, and generalisations about viral infectivity were made which turned out to be wrong, from which medicine has not recovered to this day. 

In like manner, experiments are nowadays performed with cell cultures instead of whole animals, for the very good reason that they greatly speed up experiments. The disadvantage is that this limits experimentation to just one of a few cell lines, which are always cancerous, because only they will grow continuously in the laboratory. History is repeating itself: generalisations are made about the behaviour of normal cells on the basis of results obtained from highly abnormal cells.

 Such cells can incorporate extraneous pieces of DNA (into their own DNA) when added to growth medium (as normal cells can, too, only more slowly). Cells, which have incorporated such DNA, will obviously manifest characteristics for which the DNA coded, making it appear that a virus had been at work, when nothing of the sort had happened. It is easy to see, therefore, how the bizarre notion of 'infectious' DNA arose, and to conclude (wrongly) that a virus, in the conventional use of the word, is involved. The whole argument collapses, however, when it can be shown that non-viral DNA can be made to do this too, both in vivo and in vitro. If that DNA happens to be DNA arbitrarily defined to be HIV DNA (or part thereof), then clearly the cell, which has incorporated the DNA, will behave as if it had been infected by HIV.

The rules demonstrating the existence of HIV (and retroviruses in general) were never adhered to by those who devised them nor were they ever validated.

They clearly had a slight worry at the back of their minds all along that the term was used in retrovirology rather as in Alice in Wonderland-"it means what I say it means."

Until AIDS was invented, retrovirologists were a minority sect who were happy to accept each others' flights of fancy without being too critical. They could fiddle around to their hearts' content, safe in the knowledge that "retroviruses were the least dangerous of all viruses." Well-meaning and credulous colleagues, as well as aspiring virologists, journalists and, through them, laymen were mesmerized by incomprehensible jargon into believing that the mass of data on HIV and retroviruses somehow meant something. Each property relating to HIV, and retroviruses generally, can be shown to pertain to the cells used in the co-cultivation experiments. At no time have there ever been any credible grounds for thinking that these properties and components had anything to do with viruses in general, nor with "HIV" in particular.

 
Quasispecies

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/quasispecies

Quasispecies Theory and the Behavior of RNA Viruses