Even though bacteria are very real, I don't think bacterial infection is a thing, since the bacteria accused of infection have inevitably been shown to exist in the human body at all times, even when we are perfectly healthy. Claiming that bacteria are the cause of illness, just because we see a proliferation of them in the effected area, is a leap of faith.
The elephant in the room, however, is to wonder what actually causes diseases if all these are ruled out. Although I should mention, I'm not so ready to dismiss bacteria as causing infections as I am viruses. What about gangrene or sepsis?
Only answer I've found is that microbes that cause gangrene or stuff like necrotizing fasciitis are not pathogens. By "pathogens" what we're referring to are microorganisms that have been engineered by nature to prey upon people and animals. In other words, people and animals are not their natural environment and only under extraordinary circumstances do they end up inside a body in sufficient numbers to do the kind of damage that they do.
So, based on my understanding, this would be entirely different from germ theory, which claims that these organisms evolved over millions of years to do bad shit to us. There is also "Terrain Theory" which indicates there, indeed, harmful microbes that can cause disease and death if they end up where they do not belong.
Illness often has multiple causes, from my understanding, from emotional wounds, environmental factors (such as polution, chemtrails, etc.), poor nutrition, sedentary lifestyle, lack of Sunlight, etc.
In my opinion it's a very juvenile idea, to actually expect every illness to be caused by one particular organism each, yeah, life would be a lot simpler if that were the case, we'd just pop some pills into our mouth and go back to our bad habits/toxic lifestyle.
Actually cheddarblade raises a somewhat interesting idea here, though I don't really understand the distinction between microorganisms being engineered by nature to be harmful to macroorganisms and microorganisms evolving over generations to be harmful to macroorganisms. If the former happens, as he claims, then why does the latter beggar belief?
Unfortunately he's being a big, weepy vagina about things, so I'll never know his rationale. Also he should really make an alt named Cheddarblade if he ever loses his current account.
Aether Witch on the other hand seems to believe in some naturalistic pseudo-hindu theory of health, where disease is caused by impurities such as an unhealthy lifestyle, pollution and preservative chemicals in food, things which certainly can contribute to disease. But there are so many people who live horribly unhealthy lifestyles who nevertheless live long and happy lives relatively unmolested by disease. Meanwhile you have perfectly healthy people who'll drop dead at the drop of a hat if they receive an undercooked chicken.
I know this is anecdotal and a bit of a powerlevel, but I'm not exactly a paragon of healthy living and I've always had a very strong immune system. I'm a fat, athsmatic, insomniac fuck and I think I've only been bedridden by disease twice in my entire life. Meanwhile, my mother who eats heathily and tries her hardest to exercise in between her job and other commitments has difficulty getting out of bed if she so much as catches a cold.
What an ambiguous platitude that could be a response to anything. I'm gonna assume this is about the ignore button thing. The difference is that I don't have any reason to ignore you because I'm enjoying myself. I'm a little annoyed I'll admit, but that's mostly due to just how frankly dumb you are and how you seem to take pride in your own obstinance.
Seriously this is like narcissistic predictive programming.
But the hilarity of your grandiosity outweighs the annoyance of your retardation. Whenever I think about you "letting me off easy" and how I completely spoiled my "one chance" to be taken seriously by you, as if your opinion possessed some intrinsic value, I'm incredulous, bemused, and amused that anyone could revere themselves as much as you appear to do. It's clear you're taking this much more seriously than you should and it's equally clear that you aren't having fun, which is the most important part of any good, wholesome shitflinging contest. In short; u mad bro.
Unless of course you do have me on ignore and you're just posting stock phrases into the thread to get me to respond. In which case that'd be legitimately pretty funny.
Anyway, with Goudaglaive's seething out of the way, here's a clip from Trash Humpers to shake things up a bit.
I'll drop all the figures ahead of time in case anyone's interested in seeing them before I get to the relevant passage. Probably should've done this earlier.
Viral propagation and quantitation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patient with coronavirus disease, United States, 2020. A) Two virus passage 4 stocks (black and gray circles) were quantified by using plaque assay at day 2 (solid circles) and day 3 (open circles) postinfection of Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. B) Plaque morphology for virus on Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 at day 2 and day 3 postinoculation. C) Cell monolayers 2 days postinfection of Vero E6 (top) and Vero CCL81 (bottom) at 3 dilutions. Original magnifications ×40.
Cell lines from patient with coronavirus disease, United States, 2020, susceptible to SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Cell lines were infected with a high multiplicity of infection (>5), washed after adsorption, and subsequently harvested 24 h postinfection for viral titer and protein lysates. A) Viral titer for SARS-CoV-2 quantitated by plaque assay on Vero E6 cells 2 days postinoculation. Infected cell protein lysates were probed by using Western blotting with B) rabbit polyclonal anti-SARS N antibody or C) anti–SARS-CoV S protein antibody. Full-length spike protein (SFL) and spike protein S1 (S1) are indicated. N, nucleocapsid; S, spike protein; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Multistep growth curve for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patient with coronavirus disease, United States, 2020. Vero CCL81 (black) and HUH7.0 cells (green) were infected at a multiplicity of infection of 0.1, and cells (solid line) and supernatants (dashed line) were harvested and assayed for viral replication by using TCID50. Circles, Vero CCL81 cells; squares, Vero CCL81 supernatants; triangles, HUH7.0 cells; inverted triangles, HUH7.0 supernatants. Error bars indicate SEM. TCID50, 50% tissue culture infectious dose.
We used isolates from the first passage of an OP and an NP specimen for whole-genome sequencing. The genomes from the NP specimen (GenBank accession MT020880) and OP specimen (GenBank accession no. MT020881) showed 100% identity with each other. The isolates also showed 100% identity with the corresponding clinical specimen (GenBank accession no. MN985325).
After the second passage, we did not culture OP and NP specimens separately. We passaged virus isolate 2 more times in Vero CCL-81 cells and titrated by determining the 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50). Titers were 8.65 × 106 TCID50/mL for the third passage and 7.65 × 106 TCID50/mL for the fourth passage.
We passaged this virus in the absence of trypsin. The spike protein sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has an RRAR insertion at the S1-S2 interface that might be cleaved by furin (16). Highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses have highly basic furin cleavage sites at the hemagglutinin protein HA1-HA2 interface that permit intracellular maturation of virions and more efficient viral replication (17). The RRAR insertion in SARS-CoV-2 might serve a similar function.
Link and link. My lack of knowledge still prevents me from penetrating this paper, but I think all that's being said here is that the 'Rona appears to have a structure akin to avian flus that makes it more virulent? I can't begin to confirm or deny any of this, so check the links if you'd like to do some independent verfying.
Again it's all so prosaic that there's nothing much for me to say. They aren't trying to convince me of their results through rhetoric so I can't comment on how improper it feels to use rhetoric in a scientific paper.
We subsequently generated a fourth passage stock of SARS-CoV-2 on VeroE6 cells, another fetal rhesus monkey kidney cell line. We sequenced viral RNA from SARS-CoV-2 passage 4 stock and confirmed it to have no nucleotide mutations compared with the original reference sequence (GenBank accession no. MN985325). SARS-CoV has been found to grow well on VeroE6 cells and MERS-CoV on Vero CCL81 cells (18,19). To establish a plaque assay and determine the preferred Vero cell type for quantification, we titered our passage 4 stock on VeroE6 and VeroCCL81 cells. After infection with a dilution series, SARS-CoV-2 replicated in both Vero cell types; however, the viral titers were slightly higher in VeroE6 cells than in Vero CCL81 cells (Figure 2, panel A). In addition, plaques were more distinct and visible on Vero E6 cells (Figure 2, panel B). As early as 2 days postinoculation, VeroE6 cells produced distinct plaques visible by staining with neutral red. In contrast, Vero CCL81 cells produced less clear plaques and was most easily quantitated by staining with neutral red 3 days postinoculation. On the individual plaque monolayers, SARS-CoV-2 infection of Vero E6 cells produced CPE with areas of cell clearance (Figure 2, panel C). In contrast, Vero CCL81 cells had areas of dead cells that had fused to form plaques, but the cells did not clear. Together, these results suggest that VeroE6 cells might be the best choice for amplification and quantification, but both Vero cell types support amplification and replication of SARS-CoV-2.
Morecitations. I'm having difficulty seeing any of the things Bailey alleged about this article, though that's entirely my own shortcoming and I get the feeling that people in the know would get more out of this than I am. I'll say Bailey's essay is more gripping compared to this one, though I don't know if that's a compliment or a criticism.
Because research has been initiated to study and respond to SARS-CoV-2, information about cell lines and types susceptible to infection is needed. Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. We also examined an available big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B) for SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity. Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h postinfection (Figure 3, panel A). No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to >107 PFU at 24 h postinfection. In contrast, HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems, including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs, are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication (20–22). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in bat EFK3B cells, which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines.
Having established robust infection with SARS-CoV-2 in several cell types, we next evaluated the cross-reactivity of SARS-CoV antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2. Cell lysates from infected cell lines were probed for protein analysis; we found that polyclonal serum against the SARS-CoV spike protein and nucleocapsid proteins recognize SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 3, panels B, C). The nucleocapsid protein, which is highly conserved across the group 2B family, retains >90% amino acid identity between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Consistent with the replication results (Figure 3, panel A), SARS-CoV-2 showed robust nucleocapsid protein in both Vero cell types, less protein in HUH7.0 and 293T cells, and minimal protein in A549 and EFK3B cells (Figure 3, panel B). The SARS-CoV spike protein antibody also recognized SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, indicating cross-reactivity (Figure 3, panel C). Consistent with SARS CoV, several cleaved and uncleaved forms of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were observed. The cleavage pattern of the SARS spike positive control from Calu3 cells, a respiratory cell line, varies slightly and could indicate differences between proteolytic cleavage of the spike proteins between the 2 viruses because of a predicted insertion of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 (16). However, differences in cell type and conditions complicate this interpretation and indicate the need for further study in equivalent systems. Overall, the protein expression data from SARS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike protein antibodies recapitulate replication findings and indicate that SARS-CoV reagents can be used to characterize SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Surprisingly no citations to link, as I've already linked the one in this passage previously.
Finally, we evaluated the replication kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 in a multistep growth curve. In brief, we infected Vero CCL-81 and HUH7.0 cells with SARS-CoV-2 at a low multiplicity of infection (0.1) and evaluated viral replication every 6 h for 72 h postinoculation, with separate harvests in the cell-associated and supernatant compartments (Figure 4). Similar to SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 replicated rapidly in Vero cells after an initial eclipse phase, achieving 105 TCID50/mL by 24 h postinfection and peaking at >106 TCID50/mL. We observed similar titers in cell-associated and supernatant compartments, which indicated efficient egress. Despite peak viral titers by 48 h postinoculation, major CPE was not observed until 60 h postinoculation and peaked at 72 h postinoculation, indicating that infected monolayers should be harvested before peak CPE is observed. Replication in HUH7.0 cells also increased quickly after an initial eclipse phase but plateaued by 24 h postinoculation in the intracellular compartment at 2 × 103 TCID50/mL and decreased after 66 h postinoculation. Virus was not detected in the supernatant of infected HUH7 cells until 36 h postinoculation and exhibited lower titers at all timepoints (Figure 4). Major CPE was never observed in HUH7.0 cells. These results are consistent with previous reports for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, which suggested similar replication dynamics between the zoonotic CoV strains (23,24).
And we come to the end of this article and itscitations. I think it proves something but I'm too much of a chimpanzee to make sense of it. I do feel kind of bad that I don't have much to say here. I recognize words and roots in the language but the context confounds me.
On another note, with all the figures and the text I've put out I gotta ask: what constitutes an "appropriate control culture" and how does this article/study fail to exhibit one, if it does indeed fail to do so? Have they indeed failed to get the 'Rona cells to infect the relevant cell type, like Bailey claimed? Or is Bailey mistaken/full of shit?
A further embarrassment for virology is that alleged viral particles that have been successfully purified have not been shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing by themselves. In other words, what have been physically isolated can only be said to be extracellular vesicles (EVs). In May 2020, a publication appeared in the journal Viruses that claimed, “nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension.” ‘Nowadays’ means in contrast to the past and it is unclear how such an observed technical change may be reconciled with biological laws. It appears more likely that the virologists are distancing themselves from their own techniques in order to avoid refutation of their own postulates. They may have to accept that the reason differential ultracentrifugation is not able to separate viruses from other vesicles is because their assertion that viruses are present in the sample is ill-founded.
The virologists are clearly distracting from the foundational issue of isolaton as they have been unable to deliver on this front. Instead of addressing the problem honestly and scientifically, they have obfuscated the language. In 2017, The Perth Group pointed out in their magnum opus, “HIV - a virus like no other” that, “in virology, while purification retains its everyday meaning, ‘isolation’ is an expediential term virologists assign to data they claim are proof a particular virus exists.” In other words, it is convenient and practical but with regard to the claims that are made and the subsequent actions that are carried out against humanity, it should be viewed as improper and immoral. In the same essay, The Perth Group documented the following examples of virologists adapting the scientific language, as suited, for their own purposes:
HIV expert Jay Levy defines virus isolation as a "sample of a virus from a defined source", White and Fenner as the ability to "identify a totally unforeseen virus, or even discover an entirely new agent". Montagnier and Weiss as "propagating them [viruses] in cells in culture". The 2013 sixth edition of Fields Virology defines isolation as "Viruses can be isolated from an infected host by harvesting excreted or secreted material, blood, or tissue and testing for induction of the original symptoms in the identical host, or induction of some abnormal pathology in a substitute host, or in a cell culture...Once the presence of a virus has been established, it is oben desirable to prepare a genetically pure clone". It goes without saying that if virus isolation is to "take a sample of a virus from a defined source", or "propagating them in cells in culture", one first must have proof the virus exists in "a defined source" or "in cells in culture". Neither is virus isolation "induction of some abnormal pathology" or "once the presence of a virus
has been established".
It is a travesty that this state of affairs exists and the grossly misleading practice renders virology’s many claims of isolation as unsubstantiated. But do the virologists themselves offer any explanation for their relentless abuse of the English language? In 2021, veteran virologist Professor Vincent Racaniello explained, even with regard to the definition of fundamental terms such as ‘isolate’ that, “what happens is you’re trained in someone’s laboratory and you hear them say things and you associate a meaning with them and that’s what you do, and they may or may not be right.” In the same presentation, Racaniello himself didn’t appear to notice a problem with his own definition of what are supposed to be scientific terms when he went on to say, “an isolate is a virus that we have isolated from an infected host and we have propagated that in culture.” Ironically, in a 2015 article, regarding appropriate scientific terminology and the word ‘transfection’, Racaniello stated, “if you view the English language as a dynamic means of communication that continually evolves and provides words with new meanings, then this incorrect use of transfection probably does not bother you. But scientists must be precise in their use of language, otherwise their ability to communicate will be impaired.” An analysis of Racaniello's presentation on viral isolation and the misuse of language in science has been dealt with previously by Dr Samantha Bailey in, “The Truth About Virus Isolation.” It is illustrative of the problem where multiple generations of virologists appear trapped in a world of semantic circular reasoning, albeit with differing degrees of insight.
A further embarrassment for virology is that alleged viral particles that have been successfully purified have not been shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing by themselves. In other words, what have been physically isolated can only be said to be extracellular vesicles (EVs).
No apparent evidence that this is the case, again maybe this is meant to be common knowledge. I done a little bit of research into EVs, and they seem to be some kind of structure that allows cells to communicate with each other somehow. It's notable that EVs are apparently involved in the development and spread of cancer in the body, but the "how" of it all goes over my head.
In May 2020, a publication appeared in the journal Viruses that claimed, “nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension.”
The citation here leads to the article being mentioned. Here's the full paragraph the quote is taken from:
The remarkable resemblance between EVs and viruses has caused quite a few problems in the studies focused on the analysis of EVs released during viral infections. Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.
I guess this suggests that it's possible that EVs could be the root cause of infection rather than viruses? I don't know. It does provide a bit of evidence to Bailey's persistent claims that viruses have never been isolated if it's so nigh-impossible to separate viruses from EVs. But unless I'm missing something there's nothing to suggest that viruses aren't in these samples.
and it is unclear how such an observed technical change may be reconciled with biological laws. It appears more likely that the virologists are distancing themselves from their own techniques in order to avoid refutation of their own postulates. They may have to accept that the reason differential ultracentrifugation is not able to separate viruses from other vesicles is because their assertion that viruses are present in the sample is ill-founded.
I guess that's a fair assessment. It does seem odd that it somehow became harder to separate EVs from viruses in recent years, but it could just as likely be due to a change in methodology or the equipment used. Maybe previous "separations" don't line up with modern standards? Perhaps instead of viruses being misidentified as EVs it's the other way around?
The virologists are clearly distracting from the foundational issue of isolation as they have been unable to deliver on this front. Instead of addressing the problem honestly and scientifically, they have obfuscated the language. In 2017, The Perth Group pointed out in their magnum opus, “HIV - a virus like no other” that, “in virology, while purification retains its everyday meaning, ‘isolation’ is an expediential term virologists assign to data they claim are proof a particular virus exists.”
Link as always to the relevant article.
What's interesting is that I don't think Bailey has provided a definition for what "isolation" is meant to mean, simply assuming that everyone agrees on what the word is supposed to mean. So let's go to Encyclopedia Britannica to give ourselves a baseline.
technical : to separate (something, such as a chemical) from another substance : to get (something) or an amount of (something) that is not mixed with or attached to anything else
Scientists have isolated the gene/virus that causes the disease.
— often + from
The chemical/compound was originally isolated from a kind of seaweed.
How very apropos. While this uneducated layman still can't see any proof that a virus has never been isolated according to this definition, it does bring the previous bit about EVs into question.
In other words, it is convenient and practical but with regard to the claims that are made and the subsequent actions that are carried out against humanity, it should be viewed as improper and immoral.
Loaded language here again. I agree that using "isolation" as a quick and easy bypass to doing any actual science would be both improper and immoral, the way it's described here makes it sound as if mankind is being sterilized en masse like in that Utopia show. Not to mention there's been no proof so far that "isolation" is being used for expediency or its definition is being changed to fit a desired outcome. Maybe we'll get some of it later on?
In the same essay, The Perth Group documented the following examples of virologists adapting the scientific language, as suited, for their own purposes:
HIV expert Jay Levy defines virus isolation as a "sample of a virus from a defined source", White and Fenner as the ability to "identify a totally unforeseen virus, or even discover an entirely new agent". Montagnier and Weiss as "propagating them [viruses] in cells in culture". The 2013 sixth edition of Fields Virology defines isolation as "Viruses can be isolated from an infected host by harvesting excreted or secreted material, blood, or tissue and testing for induction of the original symptoms in the identical host, or induction of some abnormal pathology in a substitute host, or in a cell culture...Once the presence of a virus has been established, it is oben desirable to prepare a genetically pure clone". It goes without saying that if virus isolation is to "take a sample of a virus from a defined source", or "propagating them in cells in culture", one first must have proof the virus exists in "a defined source" or "in cells in culture". Neither is virus isolation "induction of some abnormal pathology" or "once the presence of a virus has been established".
That's a lot of gobbledygook both from the Perth Group and the people they're criticizing, but the criticism is clear; all of these various scientists can't agree on what "isolation" means, and that their definitions don't seem to line up with the technical definition provided earlier either. It remains to be seen if this is the result of a widespread conspiracy or negligent practices, or if indeed this inability to stick to a single definition is as universal as the Perth Group and Bailey claim.
It is a travesty that this state of affairs exists and the grossly misleading practice renders virology’s many claims of isolation as unsubstantiated.
I might just be dumb but, does it? The examples provided are a fairly small sample size, albeit all supposed experts. I guess it's ridiculous to expect either party to list every single virologist and whether their definition of "isolate" lines up with the one in Encyclopedia Britannica.
What's interesting is the Perth Group's paper provides more compelling evidence of this than Bailey's does:
The difficulty virologists have defining virus isolation can be judged from the following: In his documentary House of Numbers Brent Leung asked Nobel laureate David Baltimore to explain the difference between isolation and purification. Baltimore struggled, was unable to provide a coherent answer, then became visibly exasperated and concluded "Why should I do all of this...This is all textbook stuff you are asking me...I don't want to be your textbook. I've got other things to do". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Li9MO3RfCQ Time: 4:48.
Even more interesting is that directly after Baltimore's evasion, the unfortunately named Flossie Wong-Staal provides a much more coherent explanation of isolation at 6:00.
Isolation is essentially getting the virus from the patient and being able to transmit this virus to another cell to reproduce the infection, and to have a continual supply of the virus...
Doesn't quite line up with the definition I posted earlier or anyone else's, but it sounds reasonable.
I'm getting sidetracked, let's get back to Bailey.
But do the virologists themselves offer any explanation for their relentless abuse of the English language? In 2021, veteran virologist Professor Vincent Racaniello explained, even with regard to the definition of fundamental terms such as ‘isolate’ that, “what happens is you’re trained in someone’s laboratory and you hear them say things and you associate a meaning with them and that’s what you do, and they may or may not be right.”
That sounds like an incredible copout from Professor Racaniello, but it is also a quote taken out of context, so here's the link to said presentation in case you're interested in sinking your teeth into it.
In the same presentation, Racaniello himself didn’t appear to notice a problem with his own definition of what are supposed to be scientific terms when he went on to say, “an isolate is a virus that we have isolated from an infected host and we have propagated that in culture.”
I don't notice the problem either, if I'm honest. For starters this doesn't seem like it's meant to be a definition, more like an informal statement. Secondly, even if I was to take that as a definition, it seems consistent with the explanation Wong-Staal provided earlier, if not the definition provided by EB. Maybe Bailey will point out the flaw in that statement to me?
Ironically, in a 2015 article, regarding appropriate scientific terminology and the word ‘transfection’, Racaniello stated, “if you view the English language as a dynamic means of communication that continually evolves and provides words with new meanings, then this incorrect use of transfection probably does not bother you. But scientists must be precise in their use of language, otherwise their ability to communicate will be impaired.”
An analysis of Racaniello's presentation on viral isolation and the misuse of language in science has been dealt with previously by Dr Samantha Bailey in, “The Truth About Virus Isolation.” It is illustrative of the problem where multiple generations of virologists appear trapped in a world of semantic circular reasoning, albeit with differing degrees of insight.
Relevant video is here. Though I don't know why you can't run through that refutation again in this paper? Maybe that's a nitpick but I shouldn't have to watch your wife's video just to get the gist of why this guy is allegedly full of shit.
As for the other thing, from the evidence provided it does seem like virology is more of a guessing game than an empirical science. Though my lack of education in this area drives me to skepticism if only because I'd have no idea whose claims held more water. Plus the fact that the essay seems thus far more interested in persuasion and airing grievances against the people who disagree with/openly mock them makes me suspicious. Why wouldn't you just exhibit the facts? All the mockery in the world shouldn't be able to stand up to raw factual evidence.
Anyway, to quote that one movie critic who pretends to be drunk all the time; that's all I've got for today. Gough awee nauw.
Of course, Bailey doesn't provide proof that these cells are at all susceptible to the aforementioned "toxic insults" and instead carries on to both proclaim and snipe:
He does. If you read the whole paper, there's a mention of Stefan Lanka's research, which has proved that these "CPEs" are caused by the laboratory process itself. Which is what Bailey denounces throughout the whole paper, the fact that the virologists always avoid doing the simple control experiments that would prove them wrong.
Anyway, don't expect me to post much here anymore, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this site.
I'm still open to the idea that viruses exist. I've just read enough to the contrary that I cannot deny an obligation to doubt the veracity despite what is insisted by the mainstream.
It's a real shame most of the people who insist on the mainstream don't actually have anything to contribute other than ad homina, straw-manning, false equivalencies, and circular reasoning. Seems to me if truth was on your side, you ought not stoop to being a nigger about it.
Funny thing was the thread actually started out quite thoughtfully and then people decided to niggersplain why believing anything contrary to what is widely believed is some kind of science blasphemy.
I'm still open to the idea that viruses exist. I've just read enough to the contrary that i casnot deny an obligation to doubt. It's a real shame most of the people who insist on the mainstream don't actually have anything to contribute other than ad homina, straw-manning, false equivalencies, and circular reasoning. Seems to me if truth was on your side, you ought not stoop to being a nigger about it.
I've actually thought during the pandemic to organize some tours for local skeptics, including some microscopy and viral research labs. Sadly few have my autistic dedication to convincing others, and I just made peace that it will never happen unless you're a medicine student at the very least, plus the pandemic went away so nobody really cares anymore.
I've actually thought during the pandemic to organize some tours for local skeptics, including some microscopy and viral research labs. Sadly few have my autistic dedication to convincing others, and I just made peace that it will never happen unless you're a medicine student at the very least, plus the pandemic went away so nobody really cares anymore.
Was the pandemic even here, though? And where did the flu go?
Regardless, it another aspect about the level of backlash Aether Witch and I get here. What I mean is, I don't think either of us really gain or lose anything for being right or wrong about this. We just believe what we want to believe.
The most striking thing to me is how dogmatic some people are if you simply don't buy into commonly accepted beliefs. It really just makes me that much more determined to double down.
Was the pandemic even here, though? And where did the flu go?
Regardless, it another aspect about the level of backlash Aether Witch and I get here. What I mean is, I don't think either of us really gain or lose anything for being right or wrong about this. We just believe what we want to believe.
The most striking thing to me is how dogmatic some people are if you simply don't buy into commonly accepted beliefs. It really just makes me that much more determined to double down.
It's impossible to argue with you about this because you wouldn't believe my personal "lived experiences", and you also distrust scientific publications, so there is no data that I could ever provide to you to make you change your mind, especially online without a hospital nearby. And even then, now it's too late. You would've had to be here in like Nov-Dec 2021 and just see for yourself. And even then, you would've still missed a reference winter with just the flu, so to you it might've looked just normal without having the previous knowledge.
It is what it is. It's not like I can explore NASA's labs to make sure they are actually working on all those advertised projects.
It's impossible to argue with you about this because you wouldn't believe my personal "lived experiences", and you also distrust scientific publications, so there is no data that I could ever provide to you to make you change your mind, especially online without a hospital nearby. And even then, now it's too late. You would've had to be here in like Nov-Dec 2021 and just see for yourself. And even then, you would've still missed a reference winter with just the flu, so to you it might've looked just normal without having the previous knowledge.
It is what it is. It's not like I can explore NASA's labs to make sure they are actually working on all those advertised projects.
For what it's worth, I worked in a lab for a time and did some testing on various human fluids. I did things by the book and trusted that what I was doing was working the way I was told it was working.
In hindsight I couldn't really tell you what kind of impact any of it actually had on anything. For all I know, I phlebotomized thousands of people for no reason at all and was simply performing a practice that nobody has questioned in decades.
It was only after the plandemic and all the inconsistencies coming from the WHO and the CDC that I started looking into the veracity of our modern practices.
I'm not as good as articulating back what I've heard as @Aether Witch is, but I've heard enough to keep me skeptical.
I don't inherently trust or distrust "scientific publications." For one, not every scientist is on the same page as the next, especially in terms of their politics. At best, I am wary of all mainstream information because I know many publications are driven by monetary gain. Scientists are incentivized to push particular narratives, despite the biases.
To be fair, I'm not that great either. It's just some things stuck because I'm really interested in the topic and spent lots of time submerging myself in it.
He does. If you read the whole paper, there's a mention of Stefan Lanka's research, which has proved that these "CPEs" are caused by the laboratory process itself. Which is what Bailey denounces throughout the whole paper, the fact that the virologists always avoid doing the simple control experiments that would prove them wrong.
I am reading section-by-section so I'm sure I'll get to that point eventually, if I haven't already missed it. But thank you. Peer-review is important even in an autistic setting.
I've considered abridging the whole thing because it really is quite long, but whenever I do I receive visions of the future where the same old arguments are thrown my way; "you pulled this out of context" or "you ignored this passage, are you REALLY arguing in GOOD FAITH?" If you think it's "xD" or "" or ".__." that I've decided to undertake this autistic effort, I'll take that under advisement and urge you to imagine me happy.
At the very least I find that it's good writing practice.
Funny thing was the thread actually started out quite thoughtfully and then people decided to niggersplain why believing anything contrary to the mainstream is some kind of science blasphemy.
Your first action in this thread was to call everyone who disagreed with Aether Witch a cultist. Funnily enough, when you imply that people on the opposite end of an argument are all brainwashed sheep they tend to respond poorly.
Anyway, apologies to all three of you who've actually been reading my effortposts and enjoying them, I'm working on the next part of my autistic SA let's play shit but it's slow going. I've been a little under the weather and focusing on anything more complex than shitposting and what you're currently seeing is taxing. I thought about posting a long, unhinged, poorly-thought-out screed about inaccessibility in science and how the impenetrability confounds any proper understanding but trying to do that requires more thought and effort than I'm willing to spare, so have some more trash humpers.
To be fair, I'm not that great either. It's just some things stuck because I'm really interested in the topic and spent lots of time submerging myself in it.
I probably would have if I had continued a career in medicine. Nowadays I'm more interested in health food and (ironically) whiskey.
Also, not sure what the skull pfp faggot is on about since I never refer to any group as "cultist." That's a modern colloquialism that completely ignores the etymology of the word.
But, damn, if I was someone else trying to prove I said something, I'd probably be smart and actually pull up the quote. Too bad KF doesn't let you do that, right?
" or ".__." that I've decided to undertake this autistic effort, I'll take that under advisement and urge you to imagine me happy.