Can someone link me to it? A "Dr" just explained to me it's been done and it's out there for 6 months. Anything else I hear is just bullshit
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
People that say this are complete doofuses. Ink on a paper is not an organism. It could correspond to a real thing, but in the case of every virus it doesn't. To pull a sequence out of a virus you must first isolate that virus, which has never been done for human viruses.
Instead, some RNA is found that is assumed to be part of a virus that no one can prove really exists, genome databases are queried based on what the investigator thinks the virus looks like, and a composition is constructed that fits the picture the investigator has in mind.
But a sequence obtained from RNA fragments and pieces mined from genome databases and assembled with bioinformatic heuristics is not a sequence of anything real! It if something that may be possible given our current understanding of molecular biology, but there are not enough known constraints to prevent the construction of something that has never existed in nature.
I've only recently learned that virologists never isolate anything, because they can't, and they never sequence a virus from end to end, because they don't have the virus. The whole field seems to be based on quackery.
Wish I could up vote more than once. Virology is a very unscientific field. There are far more assumptions and accepted quantities for variables than should ever be associated with any field. The theory of viruses isn't proven. The assumption is that they exist, but all we have is some fragments that may be evidence. We don't have the big picture and may be completely in the wrong pond. Not saying viruses don't exist, I'm saying that the evidence we have relies on a lot of conjecture and hypothesizing to be considered a hard science. It needs investigation by more open-minded scientists to come up with a more conclusive theory that can be tested.