I am also very doubtful that it is really a pandemic, but at least I can recognize that the virus exists in the Wuhan Virus Research Institute.
In any case, since it was the Wuhan Institute of Virology that first discovered SARS-Cov-2 and registered its genetic information in GenBank, there is no inconvenience whether the virus exists or not.
"Also, tell me which non-PCR test can detect this supposed virus."
Talking about the reliability of detection tests is not the same thing as talking about proving the existence of viruses. Please do not confuse the two.
Very few people believe in the reliability of PCR tests. Did I mention the 94% false positive rate?
Therefore, the following is my current conclusion.
SARS-Cov-2 is present in at least one test tube in the Wuhan laboratory.
The pandemic is a scam created by PCR testing and twisting of the rules through emergency measures.
I'd like to add that I know exactly how you feel.
It was a natural question for a conversation. Thank you.
But facts and proofs, like coffee, must be carefully extracted and handled.
Every feeling is the cause of a preconceived notion, an impurity that must be removed with a coffee filter.
Coffee with impurities will only be drunk by those who "like" it.
We are in the midst of suffering from this very obstacle every day, aren't we?
The taste barrier can be replaced by ideology and a feeling of belonging.
That’s not how this works. “Proof” from an untrustworthy source isn’t proof at all—it’s just fake news. Show us proof from someone who is not in the pockets of the deep state.
A computer composed genome is not the virus. It is a compositions assembled from sampled RNA fragments and pulled from genome databases pieced together by bioinformatic algorithms and heuristics. It does not exist in reality.
I see.
Fragmented RNAs can be tagged by technologies such as blockchain, but there are problems with the accuracy and threshold of reconstruction. So it's not like that.
"bioinformatic","heuristics"
These two are not for getting a "precise" solution.
"They are not suitable for a subject that needs to be "fully specified.
This is it. This is the kind of proof I want to see.
Now my "Reasons to Believe" has been updated.
However, there are not many perverts like me who completely ignore emotional abuse and concentrate only on extracting proofs in their conversations.
The current reaction of many of you is that you are either offended or scared, and people will leave early before you can talk to them.
As a result, you've been forced into your current position.
I spent a year of my comp sci PhD in bioinformatics. Learned a fair bit of molecular biology, and also that a lot of it is hand waving. The sequences you get to fill in the gaps in your composition of fragments depend on what queries you use to mine the genome databases. Of course exactly what construction you end up with depends on the heuristics choose.
The markers selected to identify this "virus" sequence are short fragments, not unique, and few. They can appear in many cornaviruses, exosomes, and even human chromosomes. This is why the PCR can't distinguish between CV and flu, there is too much overlap (not to mention that the CV sequence may not exist in reality).
With the PCR, the RNA fragments you start with may or may not be from a virus -- many assumptions have to be made. Plus, the fragments are taken from the exterior of your body (they are on the skin in the nasal passage) and say nothing about what is in your body, so the PCR cannot tell if you are actually infected.
I know about the false positive rate of PCR and I don't trust it.
I wrote, "PCR testing is being used as a statistical fraud."
The point is that there remains a part of us that cannot be denied on its own.
WIV cultivated a "something" in cloning that closely resembled its simulation candidate. And in a paper added last May, they claimed that that "something" satisfied Koch's principle.
I don't know that it is appropriate to apply cloning to culture a virus.
Maybe it is not a big problem because the additional paper satisfied Koch's principle, but I don't know if it is appropriate to conclude that because the cultured "something" matched the simulation candidate, it must be this one.
Or is there any flaw in the additional thesis that Koch's principle is satisfied?
There are still some points that have not been denied against the thesis that it existed.
Maybe I just haven't come across it yet.
I don't care either way whether the virus exists or not. However, whichever way you lean, you need to be "trustworthy".
"I can't say for sure that there is or isn't one," is the latest "credible reason" I have.
I do not consider all thesis things to be absolute truths, without exception.
Since humans can only perceive material phenomena, maybe the truth is that everything we perceive with our senses is a lie. Just like the Matrix.
Human beings (matter) will never know the truth.
So, in an effort to get as close to the truth as possible...
In order to analyze evidence and facts, it is natural to remove the twists and turns caused by preconceptions and desires that are caused by emotions.
The content of this paper is true at this point in time because there is no updated evidence to contradict it.
The correct attitude would be to keep updating the conclusions based on new evidence as it becomes available.
proof is proof. emotion is emotion. people are people. things are things.
And think about it from a political point of view.
If WIV fabricated the paper, then pandemic fraud is their crime.
If WIV did not fabricate the paper, then the allegations against them and Fauci, who may have created the virus, should be pursued.
Politically, whichever way it goes, it's in our favor.
The Wuhan Institute for Virus Research has published a paper and uploaded the genetic information to GenBank.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#Sec2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#Sec2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7/figures/9 https://virological.org/t/preliminary-phylogenetic-analysis-of-11-ncov2019-genomes-2020-01-19/329
I am also very doubtful that it is really a pandemic, but at least I can recognize that the virus exists in the Wuhan Virus Research Institute.
In any case, since it was the Wuhan Institute of Virology that first discovered SARS-Cov-2 and registered its genetic information in GenBank, there is no inconvenience whether the virus exists or not.
"Also, tell me which non-PCR test can detect this supposed virus."
Talking about the reliability of detection tests is not the same thing as talking about proving the existence of viruses. Please do not confuse the two. Very few people believe in the reliability of PCR tests. Did I mention the 94% false positive rate?
Therefore, the following is my current conclusion.
Did you just cite the Wuhan Institute as a trustworthy source? And then cite Nature as a reliable source backing up the Wuhan Institute?
I wrote the same message to another person, and I don't want to write it if I can help it, but since you asked, I'll respond.
"Proof from where?" is not the issue.
As long as it is certified as a proof, if you want to deny it, you have to bring a "proof to deny".
Even if the proof is faked, that is the problem of the person who faked it, and the problem of the reviewers who failed to see it.
It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them.
Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.
Here's a question for you:
If the virus was, indeed, isolated, then why can't the very test that is supposed to detect it actually able to detect it?
Seems like air tight logic, yes?
I've already written that too.
2.The pandemic is a scam created by PCR testing and twisting of the rules through emergency measures.
If we really spread the virus, how will those bad guys be able to keep themselves safe? It's a statistical scam to solve that problem.
Scammers tell the truth 99% of the time, and lie 1% of the time.
It's an overused phrase.
I'd like to add that I know exactly how you feel. It was a natural question for a conversation. Thank you.
But facts and proofs, like coffee, must be carefully extracted and handled. Every feeling is the cause of a preconceived notion, an impurity that must be removed with a coffee filter.
Coffee with impurities will only be drunk by those who "like" it. We are in the midst of suffering from this very obstacle every day, aren't we?
The taste barrier can be replaced by ideology and a feeling of belonging.
That’s not how this works. “Proof” from an untrustworthy source isn’t proof at all—it’s just fake news. Show us proof from someone who is not in the pockets of the deep state.
Your inability to trust it is a matter of your mind. It's your problem. You are just following your heart's urge to not trust.
It does not do the work of extracting facts and proofs from information.
I understand how you feel, but then you have to allow for the same "I don't want to believe you" and not being listened to by you.
Is the soup a mixture of known and unknown RNAs?
If it's just the unknown stuff, that's a reasonable approach. If the virus exists, then it must be in there, right?
Either way, it's something I'm interested in.
Can I have the URL? I'm not very good at listening, so preferably with subtitles if possible.
A computer composed genome is not the virus. It is a compositions assembled from sampled RNA fragments and pulled from genome databases pieced together by bioinformatic algorithms and heuristics. It does not exist in reality.
I see. Fragmented RNAs can be tagged by technologies such as blockchain, but there are problems with the accuracy and threshold of reconstruction. So it's not like that.
"bioinformatic","heuristics"
These two are not for getting a "precise" solution. "They are not suitable for a subject that needs to be "fully specified.
This is it. This is the kind of proof I want to see. Now my "Reasons to Believe" has been updated.
However, there are not many perverts like me who completely ignore emotional abuse and concentrate only on extracting proofs in their conversations. The current reaction of many of you is that you are either offended or scared, and people will leave early before you can talk to them. As a result, you've been forced into your current position.
I spent a year of my comp sci PhD in bioinformatics. Learned a fair bit of molecular biology, and also that a lot of it is hand waving. The sequences you get to fill in the gaps in your composition of fragments depend on what queries you use to mine the genome databases. Of course exactly what construction you end up with depends on the heuristics choose.
The markers selected to identify this "virus" sequence are short fragments, not unique, and few. They can appear in many cornaviruses, exosomes, and even human chromosomes. This is why the PCR can't distinguish between CV and flu, there is too much overlap (not to mention that the CV sequence may not exist in reality).
With the PCR, the RNA fragments you start with may or may not be from a virus -- many assumptions have to be made. Plus, the fragments are taken from the exterior of your body (they are on the skin in the nasal passage) and say nothing about what is in your body, so the PCR cannot tell if you are actually infected.
I know about the false positive rate of PCR and I don't trust it. I wrote, "PCR testing is being used as a statistical fraud."
The point is that there remains a part of us that cannot be denied on its own.
WIV cultivated a "something" in cloning that closely resembled its simulation candidate. And in a paper added last May, they claimed that that "something" satisfied Koch's principle.
I don't know that it is appropriate to apply cloning to culture a virus.
Maybe it is not a big problem because the additional paper satisfied Koch's principle, but I don't know if it is appropriate to conclude that because the cultured "something" matched the simulation candidate, it must be this one.
Or is there any flaw in the additional thesis that Koch's principle is satisfied?
There are still some points that have not been denied against the thesis that it existed. Maybe I just haven't come across it yet.
I don't care either way whether the virus exists or not. However, whichever way you lean, you need to be "trustworthy".
"I can't say for sure that there is or isn't one," is the latest "credible reason" I have.
I do not consider all thesis things to be absolute truths, without exception.
Since humans can only perceive material phenomena, maybe the truth is that everything we perceive with our senses is a lie. Just like the Matrix. Human beings (matter) will never know the truth.
So, in an effort to get as close to the truth as possible... In order to analyze evidence and facts, it is natural to remove the twists and turns caused by preconceptions and desires that are caused by emotions.
The content of this paper is true at this point in time because there is no updated evidence to contradict it. The correct attitude would be to keep updating the conclusions based on new evidence as it becomes available.
proof is proof. emotion is emotion. people are people. things are things.
And think about it from a political point of view.
If WIV fabricated the paper, then pandemic fraud is their crime.
If WIV did not fabricate the paper, then the allegations against them and Fauci, who may have created the virus, should be pursued.
Politically, whichever way it goes, it's in our favor.
"Understand that it is a mockery of scientific reasoning and the logical principles such reasoning is based on. "
Since you seem to be well versed in it, could you explain it to me?
Specifically, points like, "This sentence is wrong in this way. That's the kind of thing I'm open to.