The principle holds. ~4B years of evolution has attempted every potential mechanism to reproduce not only living things, but molecular mechanisms. However I disagree anyone has proven bacteria, fungi or etc. exist. As unlikely as it may be, what we think are these things can still be proven to be misunderstood, and to be something else entirely, just as some posit the entire universe is just a simulation. It can't be proved that something is what we think it is, no matter how many times we test it, because the next test might disprove it. This is why I mention Newton, because that theory resisted being disproved for centuries, and many, many very smart people considered it absolutely proven - until it was disproven. It is impossible to prove a positive. You can only ever disprove something. That is how science works. Everything we think we know can only be provisional, because what we think we know can always be disproven by some means we haven't before considered.
The title of the second link above claims to disprove that such mechanisms exist. Right away in the body of the post, however, that claim is modified.
"I have come to the logical conclusion that we have indeed proved that VIRUSES DON’T EXIST..."
The rest of the sentence changes everything.
"...well the ones we have crossed off our list at least!"
I kept reading. I am unsurprised to find a fallacious claim underlies the (false) boast in the headline.
"...we managed to find particles with the exact appearance, Size, Shape, Inclusions and Coatings as THREE “pandemic/epidemic” causing “viruses”. The only counter to this evidence possible are the rescue devices of, Immunostaining , PCR or Sequencing verification. But in doing so they are admitting that the PHYSICAL APPEARANCE of the particle in question does not define what a “virus” is...they have to admit that if there are particles that look identical to viruses in places where it was not possible for a virus to be, then it is not the PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES that define it. Therefore it DOES NOT EXIST."
This is utterly false. It's literally nonsense. Repeated false claims that only such and so are possible, therefore the only conclusion is that viruses don't exist. That's not at all how science works. That's just silly. No scientist I am aware of has ever claimed that viruses can only appear as whatever the author of the post claims to see - whatever that is. Viruses have never, ever been defined by their appearance, as he later admits in the post when he points out that viruses were claimed to exist long before they could potentially be imaged.
I haven't independently verified their claims at all, so don't even address whether or not images that look like viruses (that they claim can ONLY BE what are claimed to be viruses, which is completely insuperable) are in fact availed them. The claim that EMS is so clear and probative doesn't jibe with EMS pics I've seen.
The constant chortling that disproving the statement 'you can't prove a negative' is some kind of feat is bizarre, because that disproving things is all that science can do. In fact, you can't prove a positive, such as that those images have to be what scientists claim are viruses. That is what can't be proved. This entire post is simply irrational and demonstrably ignorance of the scientific method.
The fact you cannot prove that, say, the speed of light is always 300k/second, is why the claim that the speed of light is 300k/second in a vacuum is a theory. It's not a fact. The speed of light has not yet been proven to be anything other than 300k/second in a vacuum, and that is why the theory is widely accepted and used as if it were a fact, but it's not claimed by actual physicists to be a fact because it could still be disproved. New tech and mechanisms to test things are created every day. It's blatantly obvious that some new means can enable some new way to disprove the speed of light.
The other posts don't indicate any attempt or claim to disprove viruses, so I'm going to go do something productive. However, I hope you acknowledge that I do not refuse to read relevant information to the discussion. You just aren't providing any for me to read. I hope you understand the points I made in this comment, so that we can actually address the issues with reason and logic that enable agreement, because reasonable people agreeing on evidence is the basis for knowledge: science.
I appreciate you providing a claim I actually agree was relevant, however, the title of the post was misleading, and the muddle of confusion in the post itself proved only that the author doesn't understand knowledge at all.
Thanks!