CV 19 -U.S. Deaths & Cases; Interactive Heat Map

[Shrewd Manager]

You scientists, with your knowledge and experience, what do you know? I'm going with the opinion of the anonymous internet weirdo.

Anonymous! That's harsh.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

um...but...you appear to be quite happy with Koch. His work was based on colorized microscope images of bacteria. Why do you accept that, but not this?

I don't accept his findings, but that's not the point. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's his '4 principles' that are the basis of scientific method in the microbiology area.

Purifying virus is not that hard. I have done it numerous times.

Here's the sucrose gradient method that I have used.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ous-20-to-50-sucrose-gradients_fig7_318732392

So why is nobody doing it here, or using control experiments? It's 101 stuff. Should be a red flag.

 

[Tanj]

I don't accept his findings, but that's not the point. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's his '4 principles' that are the basis of scientific method in the microbiology area.

They are a bit outdated, largely because we now have a broad swath of unculterable micro organisms, and far more sophisticated inference tools.

So why is nobody doing it here, or using control experiments? It's 101 stuff. Should be a red flag.

All of that is being done where appropriate. If you read the methodology of the actual papers, you will see it there. What's not getting done is said work getting reported. There are two reasons for this.

1) Most lay people, like yourself, get their science from the media. Now that can be done well and it can be done really badly, but the one thing they all have in common is that they are media in the current age, They want something attention grabbing and punchy, and there's not much grabby in describing the precise methodology of particular finding.

2) It's routine. It's as you say 101 stuff. Who reports on the 101 stuff? It's so routine and basic to scientific endeavour that it would be the equivalent of explaining how one puts on trousers every time you talked about clothing. This doesn't mean it is not done.

And to reiterate, I am not talking about stuff I read or stuff people told me, I'm talking about stuff I have actually done. I've been off the bench for some time, but my PhD is in viral epidemiology.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

All of that is being done where appropriate. If you read the methodology of the actual papers, you will see it there. What's not getting done is said work getting reported. There are two reasons for this.

1) Most lay people, like yourself, get their science from the media. Now that can be done well and it can be done really badly, but the one thing they all have in common is that they are media in the current age, They want something attention grabbing and punchy, and there's not much grabby in describing the precise methodology of particular finding.

2) It's routine. It's as you say 101 stuff. Who reports on the 101 stuff? It's so routine and basic to scientific endeavour that it would be the equivalent of explaining how one puts on trousers every time you talked about clothing. This doesn't mean it is not done.

And to reiterate, I am not talking about stuff I read or stuff people told me, I'm talking about stuff I have actually done. I've been off the bench for some time, but my PhD is in viral epidemiology.

Unlike you, I have little faith in the scientific establishment, so have spent some time researching the literature and listening to experts on both sides of this issue. From what I can see, there are no published results of any scientific experiments showing the supposed virus has (a) been purified and/or (b) causes any disease.

If you can point me to the source documents, and their methodology is in accordance with sound principle, I'll repent and shut up. I'd suggest the research/ review would also be a valuable exercise for you, if for nothing more than to dispel doubts raised in this here thread.

 

[LostMarbels]

FOX 35 INVESTIGATES: Florida Department of Health says some labs have not reported negative COVID-19 results

ORLANDO, Fla. - After FOX 35 News noticed errors in the state's report on positivity rates, the Florida Department of Health said that some laboratories have not been reporting negative test result data to the state.

Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate, which means every single person tested was positive. Other labs had very high positivity rates. FOX 35 News found that testing sites like one local Centra Care reported that 83 people were tested and all tested positive. Then, NCF Diagnostics in Alachua reported 88 percent of tests were positive.

How could that be? FOX 35 News investigated these astronomical numbers, contacting every local location mentioned in the report.

FOX 35 INVESTIGATES: Florida Department of Health says some labs have not reported negative COVID-19 results

 

[LostMarbels]

 

[Tanj]

Unlike you, I have little faith in the scientific establishment

Doesn't require faith.

From what I can see, there are no published results of any scientific experiments showing the supposed virus has (a) been purified and/or (b) causes any disease.

As I said...actually as you said, this is 101 stuff. No-one publishes such basic stuff as an endpoint. It just forms a part of actual experiments.

If you can point me to the source documents

Sigh. Sure. here you go.

Here's one paper which has in it's methodology the amplification of the virus in cell culture
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States

Here's a paper describing a purification methodology
Purification of Coronavirus Virions for Cryo-EM and Proteomic Analysis

Here's a paper on it causing disease
Simulation of the clinical and pathological manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in golden Syrian hamster model: implications for disease pathogenesis and transmissibility

You might like this last one, given it says
"Besides satisfying the Koch’s postulates...."

I'll repent and shut up.

I guess we'll see.

I'd suggest the research/ review would also be a valuable exercise for you, if for nothing more than to dispel doubts raised in this here thread.

You saw the bit where I said I was a viral epidemiologist by training, right? I'm engaged as we speak in some COVID research. You haven't raised any doubts.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Doesn't require faith.

If you say so. Some nobody named Max Planck might dare to differ:

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realises that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'

'Seriously engaged' lol, who does he think he is!

Here's one paper which has in it's methodology the amplification of the virus in cell culture
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States

Well, there's your first problem - you put the specimen in Vero culture plus antibiotics and what are you gonna get? Cytopathic effects and RNA induction. So you then isolate what particles? Lab-made artefacts, monkey kidney cell protein particles. The cell culture needs to be host cells (Koch, Rivers).

Here's a paper describing a purification methodology
Purification of Coronavirus Virions for Cryo-EM and Proteomic Analysis

Again with the vero cultivation before 'purifying'. You'll just get particles of dead monkey cells. Is this Chinese Monkey Magic?

Here's a paper on it causing disease
Simulation of the clinical and pathological manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in golden Syrian hamster model: implications for disease pathogenesis and transmissibility

You might like this last one, given it says
"Besides satisfying the Koch’s postulates...."

It's great when they say things. Just poison a few hamsters and proceed to manufacture the desired DNA via RT-PCR amplification. It's really disgusting how many animals are tortured and killed in labs to advance the careers of the wicked.

What do you think of this article by Dr Lanka, the German microbiologist who won his Court of Appeal case in support of his 100k euro challenge to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus?

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi-1Mrhv8_qAhURXisKHbV5DLUQFjAAegQIAhAB&url=http://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1zmvmn9eGhe3ebShpgA8GC

 

[Tanj]

Well, there's your first problem - you put the specimen in Vero culture plus antibiotics and what are you gonna get? Cytopathic effects and RNA induction.

What? I think it's about time you started backing up your claims with evidence, right? I mean, you asked me to do so and I did, so it's your turn. Lets start with evidence that antibiotics in the amounts used in the paper I referenced cause CPE and RNA induction in Vero cells.

And it goes without saying that if their methodology is in accordance with sound principle, I'll repent and shut up.

What do you think of this article by Dr Lanka, the German microbiologist who won his Court of Appeal case in support of his 100k euro challenge to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus?

I agree with the court ruling, which stated that since Lanka was offering an award, he got to decide if the conditions had been met. That's it.

"The judges said their decision was purely a legal judgement and did not make any statement on the existence or nonexistence of the measles virus.".

But that's it. Until you back up your refutations, starting with the first one, I'm done.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

What? I think it's about time you started backing up your claims with evidence, right? I mean, you asked me to do so and I did, so it's your turn. Lets start with evidence that antibiotics in the amounts used in the paper I referenced cause CPE and RNA induction in Vero cells.

It's sufficient that these results can occur for the onus to be placed on those conducting the experiments to address them. Not for me to do their homework. It's simple logic that any stress on cells by means of foreign pollutants can result in a reaction, in this case induction and death. That's why a control group/ experiment, if they're ever done, might be of some value.

I agree with the court ruling, which stated that since Lanka was offering an award, he got to decide if the conditions had been met. That's it.

His conditions were not overly onerous or unclear, he just wanted SCIENTIFIC proof of the existence of the virus. The import of the judgment was that the respondent had failed to meet the test criteria, para 122:

As a result, the appeal, in so far as it is permissible, is in any case successful because the plaintiff did not meet the criterion of claiming to prove the existence of the measles virus through 'a scientific publication'.

I note that when he was unsuccessful at first instance, the mainstream literature was quick to crow about his substantive failure and essentially defame him eg A vaccine denier bet $100,000 the measles virus 'doesn't exist.' He lost.. Double-standards much?

If you take the time to read and follow up on the article I linked instead of 'knee jerking' as though Lanka is the enemy of all that's bright and beautiful, you'll see his objections to the 'standard procedures' of viral isolation, which seem pretty sound to a layperson like me, and are more relevantly supported by many dissident subject-matter experts.

Indeed, these deficiencies are visible in the methods set out in the primary scientific papers claiming Sars Cov 1 and 2 (which I'm happy to link, if you like). Not sure why you wouldn't feel you have an ethical duty to regard these criticisms seriously, as a disinterested scientist with current involvement in the area, and all that.

 

[LostMarbels]

Doesn't require faith.

Interesting point of view. Where does matter/existence come from? Can you offer empirical proofs of your belief?

faith

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. a strongly held belief or theory.

tenet
: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true

doctrine
1a: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun
proselytize
advocate or promote (a belief or course of action)

religion
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Please, by all means explain how nonreligious scientists are not. Got their own systems of beliefs, tenets, doctrine, evidences... they even proselytize their own belief as the one truth above any other.

You saw the bit where I said I was a viral epidemiologist by training, right? I'm engaged as we speak in some COVID research. You haven't raised any doubts.

I'm interested in the comingling of antibody testing for types 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1 coronaviruses with covid-19 diagnostic testing. How is one to accurately discern a covid-19 specific mortality/infection rate when antibody testing of viruses that cause 20% of all common colds are included in that figure?

 

[Tanj]

Interesting point of view. Where does matter/existence come from? Can you offer empirical proofs of your belief?

Doesn't require belief either.

I'm interested in the comingling of antibody testing for types 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1 coronaviruses with covid-19 diagnostic testing. How is one to accurately discern a covid-19 specific mortality/infection rate when antibody testing of viruses that cause 20% of all common colds are included in that figure?

What's the methodology for the experiment? Which antibodies? What's there affinitiy and specificity? Monoclonal? Polyclonal? What's their target? Who uses antibodies to determine covid19 specificity?

Science doesn't require belief. It does help to have some understanding of the field though.

 

[Tanj]

It's sufficient that these results can occur for the onus to be placed on those conducting the experiments to address them.

No it isn't. There's absolutely no evidence the results you describe can occur. Not 1 shred. You just made it up, right there, on the spot. You asked me for evidence, I obliged. Very unfair for you not to do like wise.

 

[LostMarbels]

Science doesn't require belief. It does help to have some understanding of the field though.

All this fluff... It doesn't really matter if it cloned itself from one cell or many clones.

You have 5 petri dishes, you cross-contaminate the fifth dish with all 5 samples but only label it is one conclusive result. How can one get a definitive result like that?

Per usual, we have to try and confuse things because we can't answer head on.

 

[LostMarbels]

Doesn't require belief either.

Semantics? When are people like unto yourself going to understand it doesn't work? You don't make yourself sound any smarter by completely overcomplicating a readily understood notion, or sentiment. It sounds like dodgy avoidance.

Do you give it credence? That's a synonym.

• 
  synonyms
  opinion · view · viewpoint · point of view · attitude · stance · stand · standpoint · position · perspective · contention · conviction · judgment · thinking · way of thinking · thought · idea · theory · hypothesis · thesis · interpretation · assumption · presumption · supposition · surmise · postulation · conclusion · deduction · inference · notion · impression · sense · feeling · fancy · hunch

 

[Tanj]

All this fluff... It doesn't really matter if it cloned itself from one cell or many clones.

It doesn't do the cloning. Also, it really does matter. I mean, really, like, alot. There's a host of fundamental differences between polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies, especially in the area of cross-reactivity.

You have 5 petri dishes, you cross-contaminate the fifth dish with all 5 samples but only label it is one conclusive result. How can one get a definitive result like that?

Beats me. What's in the petri dishes? What does this have to do with the use of antibodies? Why didn't you answer any of my questions?

 

[Tanj]

Semantics?

Semantics matter.

When are people like unto yourself going to understand it doesn't work?

When are people like unto myself going to understand what doesn't work?

You don't make yourself sound any smarter by completely overcomplicating a readily understood notion, or sentiment. It sounds like dodgy avoidance.

And that sounds like projection.

 

[LostMarbels]

It doesn't do the cloning. Also, it really does matter. I mean, really, like, alot. There's a host of fundamental differences between polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies, especially in the area of cross-reactivity.

It has nothing to do with the question posed. What next? We discuss the differences between genetic drift, speciation, and genetic mutation as if this is a TOE conversation?

Beats me. What's in the petri dishes? What does this have to do with the use of antibodies? Why didn't you answer any of my questions?

Because you are purposely trying to obfuscate my point. I am nowhere near as think as you dumb I am.

 

[Tanj]

It has nothing to do with the question posed.

It has everything to do with the question posed, which was the ability to distinguish between different strains of coronavirus with antibodies. It's like, central to the entire question.

What next? We discuss the differences between genetic drift, speciation, and genetic mutation as if this is a TOE conversation?

Doesn't seem particularly relevant to the conversation.

[Because you are purposely trying to obfuscate my point.

No, I am not. Your point was about antibody differentiation of similar virus strains. I was entirely on topic.

 

[LostMarbels]

Semantics matter.

Sounds like a T-shirt.