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

[LostMarbels]

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.

Not 'with' antibodies. The antibodies 'of' 4 coronaviruses comingled with the diagnostic testing of covid-19. Then all five findings being presented as covid-19 active cases.

How is one to differentiate the 5 different tests to reach a definitive result that covid-19 in fact represents X amount from/in that conglomerate?


It's not even a conglomerate in all truth, because a conglomerate still has distinct entities. What is this with no delineations? A hodgepodge?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

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.

It's well-known and obvious. You're the expert, research it.

Here's how Dr Lanka sums up the situation:

To this day the virologists involved point out that this evidence has not yet been provided:

a. no intact, infectious virus can be detected, but at most fragments that are attributed to the virus;

b. cannot differentiate between the body's own or foreign substances.

Science please, maybe start with control experiments.

 

[Tanj]

Not 'with' antibodies. The antibodies 'of' 4 coronaviruses comingled with the diagnostic testing of covid-19. Then all five findings being presented as covid-19 active cases.

You are posting stuff without reference to an actual event. Can you give specifics? As I said, with monoclonals, generating strain specific antibodies is not that difficult.

It's well-known and obvious

Neither of those things is true.

You're the expert, research it.

I did. Neither of those things is true.

Here's how Dr Lanka sums up the situation:

To this day the virologists involved point out that this evidence has not yet been provided:

a. no intact, infectious virus can be detected, but at most fragments that are attributed to the virus;

b. cannot differentiate between the body's own or foreign substances.

Science please, maybe start with control experiments.

Dr Lanka is flat out wrong. Regardless, "evidence" is not what some guy said, irrespective of who that guy is.

Link to the actual studies. You asked me to do so and I obliged. Your continuing refusal to reciprocate is uncivil.

At any rate, none of that has anything to do with your claim that the doses of the antibiotics I referenced cause either CPE or RNA induction. Nor have you in any way explain why RNA induction would be relevant, nor have you explained why CPE based artefacts would in any way shape or form be confused with virus particles (beyond Dr Lanka said so)

And finally, the study I presented on hamsters INVOLVED CONTROL EXPERIMENTS!!!

From the (freely available) PDF....
"Mock-infected animals were challenged..." That's animals that received everything the other animals received EXCEPT the virus.

 

[Tanj]

Sounds like a T-shirt.

Black Semantics Matter.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Dr Lanka is flat out wrong. Regardless, "evidence" is not what some guy said, irrespective of who that guy is.

The German Appeal Court agreed that the papers presented in support of the alleged measles virus were unscientific for those reasons, they failed to prove the existence of a pathogenic virus. He's not the only one. Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test, knew there was no link between alleged HIV and AIDS. He died a year ago, I don't believe in coincidences.

Still the mainstream beats the same old drum, it's zombified procession lurches on. Mate, no sale. It's a big lie. Sadly you can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

Therefore provide evidence that:

a. an intact, infectious virus can be detected, more than merely fragments that are attributed to the virus;

b. differentiates between the body's own or foreign substances.

 

[Tanj]

The German Appeal Court agreed that the papers presented in support of the alleged measles virus were unscientific for those reasons

No, they didn't

they failed to prove the existence of a pathogenic virus. He's not the only one. Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test, knew there was no link between alleged HIV and AIDS. He died a year ago, I don't believe in coincidences.

He's flat out wrong as well.

Therefore provide evidence that:

a. an intact, infectious virus can be detected, more than merely fragments that are attributed to the virus;

b. differentiates between the body's own or foreign substances.

You still refuse to provide evidence to back up your claims, despite me having done so. You have not responded to the point regarding CPE, the fact that control experiments have been conducted, but instead, over and over, repeat the same quotes from 2 people, whilst requiring solid scientifc evidence from me. That's just not fair.

I'm not letting it go. I am not following your goal post moving van. Respond to the points I have already raised.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

No, they didn't

Yes they did, again, at para 122 of the decision, they say:

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'.

He's flat out wrong as well.

Of course he is, who's Kary Mullis anyway? Just the inventor of the PCR test. How about you, what have you contributed to science lately?

You still refuse to provide evidence to back up your claims, despite me having done so. You have not responded to the point regarding CPE, the fact that control experiments have been conducted, but instead, over and over, repeat the same quotes from 2 people, whilst requiring solid scientifc evidence from me. That's just not fair.

If you're going to reject everything else I put to you, I can hardly expect an unbiased response to the particulars.

Why use Vero culture and antibiotics if you don't have to, they only introduce new variables into the equation? Why not just use filtration and density gradient centrifugation, as per the Lanka article, apparently the textbook approach?

 

[Skewpoint]

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

Was he still giving you way too much credit?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

He's flat out wrong as well.

And while you're at it, you might want to disprove the exosome theory, ie that the so-called viruses are actually RNA particles released by the cells to fight the poison (this is kind of where Lanka et al also sit, I think). That would explain why your mock-challenged guinea-fowl or whatever aren't getting crook. Or are the authors of this paper dunces in your book too?

When is a virus an exosome?

 

[Tanj]

Yes they did, again, at para 122 of the decision, they say:

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'.

That doesn't mean the measels virus doesn't exist. It means the plaintiff did not meet some criterion.

Of course he is, who's Kary Mullis anyway? Just the inventor of the PCR test. How about you, what have you contributed to science lately?

How is the fact he invented the PCR test relevant? He's not some God. We have taken the PCR test far far beyond what he first envisaged. That's the nature of good inventions. Peolple build on them.

If you're going to reject everything else I put to you, I can hardly expect an unbiased response to the particulars.

Well that's ironic. You reject scientific papers I have presented because "it's obvious" and Dr Lanka said so, and I'm the one rejecting stuff.

This isn't rocket science. Just put up evidence like I did. That's no being unfair.

Why use Vero culture and antibiotics if you don't have to

Because you do have to.

they only introduce new variables into the equation?

Which are controlled for via the control experiments.

Why not just use filtration and density gradient centrifugation, as per the Lanka article, apparently the textbook approach?

Because one of the other papers I linked to that you rejected did exactly that. I mean seriously, that was exactly the process I was describing.

At anyrate, like I said, not letting it go. For the umpteenth time, you claimed contamination due to antibiotic driven CPE. Show evidence this can happen.

And while you're at it, you might want to disprove the exosome theory, ie that the so-called viruses are actually RNA particles released by the cells to fight the poison (this is kind of where Lanka et al also sit, I think). That would explain why your mock-challenged guinea-fowl or whatever aren't getting crook. Or are the authors of this paper dunces in your book too?

When is a virus an exosome?

I told you I am not following your goalpost moving van. You address the questions I asked before I'll address any more of yours.

 

[Tanj]

How about you, what have you contributed to science lately?

Of the papers I've had published in the last year 3 have been concerned with the ontogeny of DC cells, there's a few on the role of monocytes in infection a couple on the tumor microenvironment, and a couple on the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the elderly.

I mean, I did say I actually am a scientist, remember?

But I'm not going to ask you the same question, since it's irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That doesn't mean the measels virus doesn't exist. It means the plaintiff did not meet some criterion.

Correct, and the criterion was that the papers were held to not be scientific publications!

How is the fact he invented the PCR test relevant? He's not some God. We have taken the PCR test far far beyond what he first envisaged. That's the nature of good inventions. Peolple build on them.

He was a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist, who happened to also be an honest guy. So when he was sent to find a paper which proved that HIV causes AIDS, he was able to shirtfront all the main guys - Gallo, Montagnier, Fauci et al, and NONE of them could give him anything. There's an interview with Mullis floating around YT where he describes this process.

Well that's ironic. You reject scientific papers I have presented because "it's obvious" and Dr Lanka said so, and I'm the one rejecting stuff.

This isn't rocket science. Just put up evidence like I did. That's no being unfair.

At anyrate, like I said, not letting it go. For the umpteenth time, you claimed contamination due to antibiotic driven CPE. Show evidence this can happen.

Ok, here's the results of a 'quick and dirty' search on antibiotic induction of RNA/ DNA/ exosome viral particles from cells.

Use antibiotics in cell culture with caution: genome-wide identification of antibiotic-induced changes in gene expression and regulation | Scientific Reports

Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA | Scientific Reports

So what's your PCR test doing? Probably just amplifying endogenous RNA that are made by dying cells to fight off the foreign substances. Just cause you see firefighters around a fire, doesn't mean they lit the fire, right?

Because you do have to.

And why's that? Is that procedure necessary to meet the Koch/ Rivers postulates?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Of the papers I've had published in the last year 3 have been concerned with the ontogeny of DC cells, there's a few on the role of monocytes in infection a couple on the tumor microenvironment, and a couple on the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the elderly.

I mean, I did say I actually am a scientist, remember?

But I'm not going to ask you the same question, since it's irrelevant to the conversation.

Congratulations. I hope it benefits the ill.

 

[Tanj]

Correct, and the criterion was that the papers were held to not be scientific publications!

Right, so in this case this guy didnt do what he said. It says nothing about measles or other scientific publications, just the one the plantiff produced.

He was a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist

That's nice for him.

who happened to also be an honest guy. So when he was sent to find a paper which proved that HIV causes AIDS, he was able to shirtfront all the main guys - Gallo, Montagnier, Fauci et al, and NONE of them could give him anything. There's an interview with Mullis floating around YT where he describes this process.

There's nothing honest about being an HIV-AIDS denier and being indirectly responsible for 100s of 1000s of deaths. Nothing.

Ok, here's the results of a 'quick and dirty' search on antibiotic induction of RNA/ DNA/ exosome viral particles from cells.

Use antibiotics in cell culture with caution: genome-wide identification of antibiotic-induced changes in gene expression and regulation | Scientific Reports

Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA | Scientific Reports

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? I mean, you have provided no evidence of the CPE you claimed originally, but hey, at least it's actual evidence of something. Well done.

So what's your PCR test doing? Probably just amplifying endogenous RNA that are made by dying cells to fight off the foreign substances.

That's not how PCR works. The PCR primers are specific, they recognise unique sequences, not any old thing. Any endogenous RNA present wouldn't bind and trigger the cascade.

And why's that? Is that procedure necessary to meet the Koch/ Rivers postulates?

It's necessary to generate enough material to do something with. Koch worked with bacteria and used petri dishes, but it's the same concept.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Right, so in this case this guy didnt do what he said. It says nothing about measles or other scientific publications, just the one the plantiff produced.

No, Bardem produced 6 allegedly scientific papers that would ordinarily have been referenced to prove the measles virus. His lawsuit was backed by some rich and powerful interests. Lanka succeeded in showing the papers were unscientific.

That's nice for him.

Fact remains, nobody could produce any evidence HIV causes AIDS.

There's nothing honest about being an HIV-AIDS denier and being indirectly responsible for 100s of 1000s of deaths. Nothing.

Get off your soapbox.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? I mean, you have provided no evidence of the CPE you claimed originally, but hey, at least it's actual evidence of something. Well done.

Dodge duck and weave mate. Gotcha. Antibiotics known to damage cells.

Bactericidal Antibiotics Induce Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Oxidative Damage in Mammalian Cells

Antibiotic drug piperacillin induces neuron cell death through mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative damage - PubMed

I don't see any of the covid papers excluding the possibility of contamination by the production of exosomes in dying cells.

That's not how PCR works. The PCR primers are specific, they recognise unique sequences, not any old thing. Any endogenous RNA present wouldn't bind and trigger the cascade.

Don't PCR primers only latch on to about 100 nucleotides? The supposed novel coronavirus is 30,000 nucleotides. So if you're looking for a leopard by a tooth, a claw and a spot, how do you know you haven't found an ocelot?

It's necessary to generate enough material to do something with. Koch worked with bacteria and used petri dishes, but it's the same concept.

It's different, because you can visualise the live bacteria.

 

[Tanj]

Don't PCR primers only latch on to about 100 nucleotides?

18-21.

The supposed novel coronavirus is 30,000 nucleotides. So if you're looking for a leopard by a tooth, a claw and a spot, how do you know you haven't found an ocelot?

Because there's 4 possible bases, A, G, C,T. So there are 4^21, which is to say ~ 280 trillion combinations for a 21mer, Or to put it another way, the possibility of a random 21mer hitting the human genome (4 gb) is 1/70 000, and the chance of it hitting coronavirus is ~ 1/90 billion. So unless you thing 1/90 billion is good odds, it means you found a leopard.

And, of course, we don't do random. We have the human genome, so we can design primers we know are specific to Corona.

It's different, because you can visualise the live bacteria.

With a microscope, which is what we use to visualise viruses. The only difference is the technology (light vs electrons)

 

[Shrewd Manager]

And, of course, we don't do random. We have the human genome, so we can design primers we know are specific to Corona.

Not without a gold standard. You're catching fragments of firemen and blaming the fire on them.

With a microscope, which is what we use to visualise viruses. The only difference is the technology (light vs electrons)

So how hot is a transmission electron microscope? It zaps everything dead so you can't watch the action.