Virus theory debunked

How can "virologists" assert that "viruses" require cells to replicate if they have never found what they think are "viruses" in samples taken directly from human beings. Wouldn't you first have to find what you think are "viruses" in order to determine such thing, so to claim that something requires something you would first have to show that your something exists right? The "virologists" always assume that "viruses" are in the samples taken from human beings without ever proving it hence thereby showing that they are not scientific in their approach. They admit their lack of scientific foundation when they state this: "The definition of 'isolation' provided in the request is outside of what is possible in virology". "Virology" rise and fall on one big assumption https://steemit.com/science/@johnblaid/virology-rise-and-fall-on-one-big-assumption

There is no virus, none, absolutely no virus whatsoever. It has never been isolated. What is the vaccine for then?

Germtheory originates from the talmud?

On virus shedding from vaccines: "First show us "virus" isolated, purified, characterized. Not done. Then show it is exogenous, not produced inside the body. Not done. Then prove it is pathogenic. Not done. Then prove infectivity and transmissibility. Not done. Jumping way down the line to humans becoming virus making factories after an experimental injection that we have no idea what harm it will cause to proclaiming they will be shedding "virus" to others? The assumptions are never ending, mind bending." Written by friend Lynn Wright,