So the challenges of disease research are too great to be able to isolate a virus properly?
Basically yeah. Viruses are too small to be isolated and observed in the way larger organisms like bacteria could be. Best you could do was get a still shot of them with an electron microscope, no way to observe their behavior directly. So, circumstantial observation and deduction had to be accepted as scientifically valid methods towards understanding viruses, otherwise they were at a dead end scientifically.
The first step in proving existence of a virus is to isolate it, and they way it's been done is fraught with error and inaccuracy.
There has been plenty of error and inaccuracy with bacteria, which can be isolated, as well. Further, error and inaccuracy are part of science- you mess up and correct, and over time you mess up less. Demanding perfection out of the gate is demanding that scientific progress come to a halt.
But we are talking about this novel coronavirus. Which has never been photographed by electron microscope.
But, its genetic code has been isolated, and compared to natural corona virus by many scientists independently.
To do a sequence, you need to start with an isolated pure sample, which was never obtained.
I did not claim it was "sequenced," I said it was analyzed. Although indeed a perfect sequence cannot be obtained, using statistical analysis (computer models, if you will) you can achieve near absolute certainty with sufficient sample sizes. If it was significantly inaccurate, then the observation of HIV splices into corona virus base code would not be a repeatable result, but it has been replicated half a dozen times (on record, probably many more stay silent).
Correct. And explaining why that's not proof that viruses don't exist, and explaining the proof that viruses do exist, and explaining why isolation was a barrier to understanding due to insufficient tools, and why isolation was an arbitrary limitation in the first place. The lack of isolation is not a good argument for tossing out scientifically advancement and possible cures for disease.
A virus is a thing and can be separated from everything that is different from it.
Yes, but not with our current technology. Just because we cannot do it today does not mean that viruses do not exist.
Current methodology is fucking ridiculous
On that we 100% agree.
Why use such contaminated supernatant?
To create poison. Why else?
It's genetic code has been manufactured, not isolated.
Fair enough, it has not been isolated. But, it was neither manufactured. Statistical analysis is not voodoo. Sequencing a clump of many viruses and figuring out their DNA from that is not a wholly invalid approach to overcoming the inability to isolate a single virus' DNA.
At best they've identified a few primer sequences of around 18 base pairs
The odds of those matches being coincidental are vanishingly small. I understand that there is still some possibility that they are wrong, but it is a repeatable process that nets the same results reliably.
We absolutely have the technology and ability to do a much better isolation, but we don't. Why do you think that is?
I was under the impression we do not. If that is true, same reason as above, to create poison.
requesting records of Covid-19 isolated from a human, which has yielded zero results.
I would say that's because we do not have the technology to do so, thus the question is a trap.
How is it possible the CDC can issue policy yet not even possess a sample of the virus, according to the CDC itself?
Sample and isolate are different standards. But, the CDC are the enemy, they have no need to be consistent or honest. They can issue policy by the whim of their malice with no just reason whatsoever. That they do not have an isolated sample is immaterial, both to the real world actions they take and to the truth of whether or not viruses exist.
In order to claim something exists, you should be able to observe it as a unique entity.
Viruses have been observed as unique entities. We have many electron microscope photos of them. However it cannot be observed in real time with your own eyes.
Science claims viruses exist as definite things that can be isolated and studied.
They can be, and are, just not in the particular way you (and others) are arbitrarily saying they must be to be valid.
If we can engineer machines on a nano scale, I'm pretty sure we have the technology to study things on the scale of a supposed virus.
That's not a logical assumption. First of all, the smallest nano machines are about 10 times the size of the largest virus, and that's not a trivial difference. As well, its not like we have nano machines just roaming around performing technological miracles, they're basically still a completely undeveloped technology just beginning to emerge from theory. Second, you might be able to build nano scale structures with a completely controlled environment, but you cannot find viruses in controlled environments.
Again, without isolation you are assuming what you have in your soup are viruses.
No, you can see them, you know there are tiny little things there. You just can't see them clearly enough in real time, and control them precisely enough, to isolate a single one of them.
you have no idea where they came from
If you swab them from the mucous of a sick person you can be 99.99999999% sure they came from that sick person.
What you do have is the debris from the cellular breakdown caused by starvation and nephrotoxic drugs.
Scientitsts know what those compounds look like, and it is not a realistic expectation that they would mistake them for viral DNA.
evaluated using Koch's or River's
Koch's second postulate, that the organism must be isolated and grown in culture, is not possible with viruses, as they are too small to independently grow. Koch came up with that well before viruses were discovered.
Obviously, they are matching those of other viruses which were generated (not sequenced) the same way.
That's not a rational explanation. Gene sampling is pretty well established technology, used in many applications besides attempting to identify viruses, and it is well proven.
What I am suggesting is not that viruses are not a "thing", rather, that they may represent an entire class of "things" such as exosomes or pleomorphic bacterial phages, products of the cell in response to disease, as opposed to invaders that cause disease, as described by Bechamp.
But, viruses have been observed to do exactly what they are purported to do. They latch on to a cell, the cell bloats then dies and falls apart, and out spring many new copies of the virus. The mechanisms by which they do this, injecting RNA, has also been observed via genetic sequencing techniques finding genetic sequences that are not found in human DNA.
pleomorphic bacterial phages
That would be a virus specialized in infecting bacteria.
Basically yeah. Viruses are too small to be isolated and observed in the way larger organisms like bacteria could be. Best you could do was get a still shot of them with an electron microscope, no way to observe their behavior directly. So, circumstantial observation and deduction had to be accepted as scientifically valid methods towards understanding viruses, otherwise they were at a dead end scientifically.
There has been plenty of error and inaccuracy with bacteria, which can be isolated, as well. Further, error and inaccuracy are part of science- you mess up and correct, and over time you mess up less. Demanding perfection out of the gate is demanding that scientific progress come to a halt.
But, its genetic code has been isolated, and compared to natural corona virus by many scientists independently.
I did not claim it was "sequenced," I said it was analyzed. Although indeed a perfect sequence cannot be obtained, using statistical analysis (computer models, if you will) you can achieve near absolute certainty with sufficient sample sizes. If it was significantly inaccurate, then the observation of HIV splices into corona virus base code would not be a repeatable result, but it has been replicated half a dozen times (on record, probably many more stay silent).
Correct. And explaining why that's not proof that viruses don't exist, and explaining the proof that viruses do exist, and explaining why isolation was a barrier to understanding due to insufficient tools, and why isolation was an arbitrary limitation in the first place. The lack of isolation is not a good argument for tossing out scientifically advancement and possible cures for disease.
Yes, but not with our current technology. Just because we cannot do it today does not mean that viruses do not exist.
On that we 100% agree.
To create poison. Why else?
Fair enough, it has not been isolated. But, it was neither manufactured. Statistical analysis is not voodoo. Sequencing a clump of many viruses and figuring out their DNA from that is not a wholly invalid approach to overcoming the inability to isolate a single virus' DNA.
The odds of those matches being coincidental are vanishingly small. I understand that there is still some possibility that they are wrong, but it is a repeatable process that nets the same results reliably.
I was under the impression we do not. If that is true, same reason as above, to create poison.
I would say that's because we do not have the technology to do so, thus the question is a trap.
Sample and isolate are different standards. But, the CDC are the enemy, they have no need to be consistent or honest. They can issue policy by the whim of their malice with no just reason whatsoever. That they do not have an isolated sample is immaterial, both to the real world actions they take and to the truth of whether or not viruses exist.
Viruses have been observed as unique entities. We have many electron microscope photos of them. However it cannot be observed in real time with your own eyes.
They can be, and are, just not in the particular way you (and others) are arbitrarily saying they must be to be valid.
That's not a logical assumption. First of all, the smallest nano machines are about 10 times the size of the largest virus, and that's not a trivial difference. As well, its not like we have nano machines just roaming around performing technological miracles, they're basically still a completely undeveloped technology just beginning to emerge from theory. Second, you might be able to build nano scale structures with a completely controlled environment, but you cannot find viruses in controlled environments.
No, you can see them, you know there are tiny little things there. You just can't see them clearly enough in real time, and control them precisely enough, to isolate a single one of them.
If you swab them from the mucous of a sick person you can be 99.99999999% sure they came from that sick person.
Scientitsts know what those compounds look like, and it is not a realistic expectation that they would mistake them for viral DNA.
Koch's second postulate, that the organism must be isolated and grown in culture, is not possible with viruses, as they are too small to independently grow. Koch came up with that well before viruses were discovered.
That's not a rational explanation. Gene sampling is pretty well established technology, used in many applications besides attempting to identify viruses, and it is well proven.
But, viruses have been observed to do exactly what they are purported to do. They latch on to a cell, the cell bloats then dies and falls apart, and out spring many new copies of the virus. The mechanisms by which they do this, injecting RNA, has also been observed via genetic sequencing techniques finding genetic sequences that are not found in human DNA.
That would be a virus specialized in infecting bacteria.