Are you sure about that? I'm describing his experiment where he pretty much invented the technique to create small RNA viruses (like polio) from a DNA sequence using transfection.
And that's what it produced, garbage. I asked you how. How is it possible, if the virus itself hasn't ever been isolated? Provide proof of isolation, then we can talk.
Well, for that we'd have to establish that said virus even exists. So a virologist can say that they have the virus in less concentration, as long as there isn't proof of this, it doesn't really matter.
I don't have anyone I can ask it for. Care to share this certain site?
Oh, please. Why would I even consider reading anything you suggest when you're not willing to do the same? I think I'll pass, especially when all that has already been mentioned in the essay I spent months translating.
It does matter, I just want an alternate hypothesis that explains the results of a plaque assay (self-controlling against accidental CPE, due to how it compares between titrations). I'm sure you spend a long time translating the essay, but plaque assays are a major crux that makes the debate a lot easier.
It was actually Simon Flexner who claimed to isolate this "virus". And the methodology he used, unsurprisingly, was injecting monkeys' brains with the diseased spinal chord tissue of a dead boy who had supposedly died of "polio". When a one of the monkeys fell ill they took the diseased spinal chord tissue of said monkey and injected it into the brains of several other monkeys.
Not really. The procedures of virologists carry no significance of any kind, as long as they're not able to establish that whatever they're doing has a reliable foundation, i.e: virus isolation. If there is no virus, you can say that you've "infected" whatever, it doesn't matter. If there is no evidence of said infection, your whole procedure is completely meaningless, and only serves to obfuscate things more.
Good thing that isn't actually the logic being used, since if I use your logic I can disprove literally anything under the sun. Fortunately in virology, chickens will develop the exact same symptoms every time based on which virus they're being exposed to? The symptoms for Marek's disease and bird flu are not the same, but somehow if you expose a chicken to Marek's disease you will get a chicken with Marek's disease and not one with bird flu. Even if you get say 20% asymptomatic (which isn't just a virus thing since many non-viral diseases like typhoid and cholera cause asymptomatic infections), that will still get 80% infected.
1,200 people lived in iron lungs in the US in 1959. In 2004, only 39 did. All of them are very elderly. I guarantee you that you have never met a person paralyzed from polio in your life, because polio has been extinct in the developed world for decades. Sure is weird why the virus just up and decided to leave everyone alone one day, even in shithole countries like Pakistan. You can't even blame sanitation for it, since your average Pakistani lives in conditions far filthier than 1950s America yet the entire nation records a few dozen (maybe a few hundred if you presume bad statistics) cases a year. The US had 58,000 cases of polio in 1952.
I'm not playing your word games with "isolation", since you can't accurately define what you mean by "isolation" or say why it actually matters to viruses which by definition must be grown in a cell culture. Not very different than the sort of culture required to grow bacteria.
You whine about intellectual dishonesty but here you go triggered by the very word "vaccine." The onus is on you to explain why smallpox and polio have declined to extinct and practically nothing respectively when the apparent cause is mass vaccination campaigns which rely on the tenets of virology being correct. What else can explain why dirt poor slum dwellers in Niger and New Yorkers (be it hood dwellers or rich Manhattan Jews) alike have zero cases of smallpox per year and single-digit polio cases? It can't be wealth, sanitation, or anything else, but seems to correlate with mass vaccination campaigns.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. A polio-infested part of a monkey injected into another monkey is creating polio. It is not creating SIV (monkey AIDS) or ebola. If you inject anything else into a monkey brain, it won't get the symptoms we call polio. Once again, a clear cause and effect, therefore the logical explanation is that the particles you see under a microscope of everyone who has polio are the causative agent rather than some magical "cell stress".
For the sake of the argument I won't debate earlier "claimed isolations" as you call them. I'm going with Vincent and his DNA.
That's not how inference works. Unless you want to go deep into Kolmogorov complexity and Solomonoff induction you're pretty much going to have to trust me, but essentially you need to propose a pragmatic and predictive model, one that does not include viruses, that explains how a plaque assay gets the results it does. Including a plaque assay using cloned virus.
And how are they being "exposed" to these "viruses"? By getting their brains injected with shit? Why is it that virologists never seem to be able to get the animals (that they treat so nicely) sick through natural means? If all these viruses are contagious, why not just expose them to them through natural means, like spraying them with a fluid said to contain them? Why is it that they only ever get them sick with the most invasive and heinous of procedures, that would literally never happen in nature?
Nice articles, but I'm afraid none of that is proof of isolation. I asked you for that and you weren't even capable of producing a single study? Okay, Science
, am I right?Of course I can define it. Isolation of bacteria is performed all the time, directly from human fluids. You don't even need human fluids, you can take a piece of skin, literally whatever you want, and you'll find bacteria in it. No need for antibiotics, or any other chemicals. You can directly see bacteria in a microscope.
Are you sure about that? You can infect a ferret with influenza sprayed up the nose.
How convenient, and all of it "for the sake of the argument". Thank goodness we're not having an argument about the existence of viruses. Vincent and his DNA is the direct result of those earlier claimed isolations, so it really is nonsensical to overlook that. But I find this all the time with those of you who seem hellbent on defending virology. "Let's ignore the inconvenient facts and move on to whatever else".
Nah, I'm not gonna have to trust you. I already said it, if you don't like it, it really isn't my problem, I won't get into any of that until you're capable of proving the existence of viruses, since that's the foundation of everything else. It really shouldn't be that difficult, after all virology, virus, get it? It's in the name. If can get into that stuff you should have literally zero problems finding evidence of the existence of viruses.
It's a medical discussion (sort of) so I can't bring up Occam's razor. However, I can explain a standard titrated plaque assay as a self controlling experiment of CPE, with a higher dilution of the virus solution producing less plaques. You continue to search using efficient methods (something close to a modified binary search) for the titration that gives a reliable but still descrete (so not overlapping or filling the whole plate) set of plaques, and then write down the dilution that gave you that result. Viruses in the original solution cause the plaques. The viruses can be cloned, giving high confidence you have the right one. As you said before, you don't trust computer methods, but using modern computer squencing methods you can actually check the viruses on the plate, to make sure the sequence hasn't changed too much. I want an explanation for this process that does not require viruses being real. Remember, cloning prevents things like prions and bacteria from contaminating the original solution, and the titrations control for experiment caused CPE, as you'd get no signal if that was all there was.
Thank you, it's honestly very refreshing to see that at least one person appreciates this information. It's really nice that you've been able to talk to your father about this, and potentially save him a world of pain or worse.
"Sprayed up the nose." How they "spray up the nose" of monkeys, literally pouring liquid directly into their lungs? Even then, spraying up someone's nose isn't a natural occurrence. But can you provide proof of this claim, or at least a link?
I think you didn't quite get my response. Either read A Farewell to Virology or find evidence of virus isolation that you can submit. Modern computer sequencing methods are just another of virology's many scams (as detailed in AFtV), but it ultimately relies on the false premise of virus isolation, so I reiterate what I said.
This one's the wrong way: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-753/ "The ferret nose where the virus goes"
You didn't answer the question. Why does Marek's disease only occur when exposed to the virus causing it. Why shouldn't avian influenza occur instead? Of course you also don't know that they inject substances into animals through lots of different means, but that's to be expected from you. Once again dude, stick to making tacos.
Sure you can, your body has hundreds of trillions of viruses in it, mostly bacteriophages. Phage therapy is a highly effective form of treatment which again, according to you should not work at all yet has been used since the 1940s.
This is the same argument that creationists use to say evolution is evil because Hitler supported evolution and used Darwinian tenets to govern society and kill people. The reason why the only place for you is the clown show is precisely because the public health freaks want to lump in everyone who opposes their silly mRNA vaxx (which is not a vaccine) or its accompanying mandates together with people like you. I oppose mRNA vaxx, mask mandates, and lockdowns because they are scientifically proven to be invalid. You oppose them because you believe in silly nonsense. It's like how I oppose the Artemis Program because it's a waste of taxpayer money for little scientific gain but a flat earther opposes it because they don't believe anyone can travel to space.
I conceded that point for the sake of argument, that's why I'm pointing to Vincent's manual alignment of films.
If you manage to find something that isn't a 1 hour 45 minute video, and instead is, for example, a scientific paper demonstrating infection with the
