Where's the centrifugal section?
The first paper, the 'Isolation of Virus' and 'Transmission Electron Microscopy' sections.Your last link is the most damning of all of them. It talks about how many times the reports were cited. The citing is the method for making the whole thing foundational. When other authorities agree with something that is incomplete, they are assuming that the original work was done properly, and they are telling the world that it was.
I would say that if a paper has been cited 7,000 times, then it's unlikely the paper is wrong, because it means that thousands of different experts have followed up with thousands of other experiments that corroborate and build on the results of the first. This is how science progresses, building on what has gone before. I kind of understand your point, but we have to an extent to assume that experts are experts, if all (or almost all) other experts agree with them. Everything is there to be disproven... but if there is no countervailing evidence, then I think that is a strong indication that the paper's conclusions are correct. We can argue that a paper is incorrect, but I think we are on shakier ground if we try to argue that 7,000 follow-up papers have been written by 7,000 'experts' who are actually incompetent fools.However, thanks for trying.
