There are actually thousands of electron microscopic images of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. None of them are isolates.
A viral isolate is a complete isolation of sufficient quantities of whole, intact viral bodies to do experiments on them, where such bodies are completely separated from all other biological material. Taking a picture of a viral body, and doing a fractionation to extract them out --> then doing a whole genome sequencing (WGS) to determine the viruses RNA sequence are two completely separate processes.
Unless the virus has been completely isolated there is no way to know for certain that you are working with the same material because the second process (fractionation) will include other DNA/RNA that must be separated out using statistics and computer alignment (educated guessing) of the subsequent RNA reads in the WGS process.. The supposition that it is the same material is based on the design of the experiment which can give, at best, a reasonable statistical probability that it is so.
A complete isolation is what would be required of a stand alone biological experiment to prove that the virus is what other experiments say it is. This has never been done in any literature that I have looked at (I've been looking for over a year).
That does not mean that I personally require such a standard to be met. I do not. I think that the electron microscopic images and RNA sequencing are sufficient to prove SARS-CoV-2's existence to me. I have done such "isolations" (not for viruses, but for many other types of subcellular biological material) and this to me is sufficient evidence to create actionable intelligence working with the theory that the virus does exist. But to say that it has been isolated in the complete way required for undeniable proof of existence is not true. That has never been done. It is these competing standards both of which are valid, that drives the problem of conversation.
The argument isn't about it being necessary to be isolated but how the conversation came to be in the first place. Technically, it has not been isolated but that doesn't mean that they do not have the necessary information to continue. This is the very root, purposefully misleading information. We need to be able to have conversations about what and why we are putting things into our body, having the information so clouded that a simple conversation cannot be had without people going for the guns is not a good situation to be in and gives credence to the idea that people are not being given the opportunity for informed consent, which is kinda bad. Because of this argument, which should be a conversation the people are divided while screaming essentially the same thing. We require all of the information necessary to make the appropriate decisions for our lives. If any of that information is false or misleading then we cannot make those decisions correctly. Claiming something to be something that it is not will always lead to this and the real problem arises when there is something to actually worry about. Cry wolf enough and no one will come to check after a while.
However, we can have a conversation about everything that is allowed/pushed that we know has negative effects and then compare that to how this is starting to look. I'll use round up. Pretty sure I was born after it was first made but by high school people were starting to talk on the fringes of society about it's dangers. here we are a good 15 years later and a night doesn't pass that I don't see a commercial offering financial compensation to those harmed by it. There is a terrible tradition of approving things that are simply not safe. Du-Pont had Teflon! that was a huge bitch. For us to toss aside years of actual happenings because people want us to do something against our will is quite fucking stupid. We need to be able to ask questions and have conversations.
It's a word game that keeps us at each others throats.
and Ultimately it is a game that doesn't matter, but you matter! While some areas of the Earth do tend to move quite a bit, nothing shakes the earth all together.
Why do you and so many others create this weird standard? This doesn't exist for anything else.
Its not ME that has a standard other than what is being produced. It is others. I am merely recognizing, as a scientist in the field, that their objection is valid within itself. I am satisfied with the evidence that has been presented.
As for the standard of isolation not existing for any other virus, that is not in ANY WAY meaningful. There is a perfectly sound argument that it not existing for any other virus (other than the first virus ever isolated, and then in small amounts) is a failure of the system, and in a sense I agree.
I have worked with such systems, so to me it is not a big deal. I have OTHER evidence that supports the existence and usability of viruses in experiment other than a purified isolation of viral bodies to work with (their standard). I use statistics as proof. Statistics is not actually good proof when there is a better path available (a true isolate). In the case of this virus, I would actually LIKE a true isolate to do some experiments because of some of the controversy surrounding some of the data.
I literally don't understand what people are referring to, it's such a strawman.
It's not inherently a strawman. The objection is valid. It is often USED as a strawman to ignore other evidence, and no one is more annoyed by that than me, but the actual objection is totally valid.
If I had a true isolate (from the wild), i could get an absolute determination of all "variants" of the virus; for which quite frankly the current data is very poor. I am not in any way convinced that the "variants" (minor changes to the RNA) have any real impact at all with regards to transmission or virulence. With real isolates, I could do easy experiments that show a better determination of transmissibility for example. Relying on statistics to make these determinations, while perfectly fine and what I have been trained to do is not really the gold star standard of such experimentation. Using the methods we do are convenient and relying on statistics is nice (and always necessary to an extent), but the more variables you can take out, the better your experimental results. Having a true isolate really nails down a lot of variables that currently rely on statistical modeling.
A researcher with credentials can order this in literally thousands of formats but people still want to complain about it not being isolated enough.
They really are different objections. All we really need is a sequence and we can do the necessary research. I can make the virus myself just knowing the RNA sequence. I don't need to buy anything. But there is a real separation of being able to build a virus and do tests on it, and actual samples from the real world that prove the data that has been presented to the world. I have analyzed that data extensively and am convinced it is 50 shades of bullshit. Because the data is so much bullshit, requiring a higher standard of evidence is reasonable (even if I don't agree with it to the extent many push it).
I know what this would take and don’t believe what you are saying.
I worded my statement poorly, my apologies. What I meant to say was, if I had isolates from the wild of all the variants, I could get a reasonable determination of the virulence and transmission of what they are calling "variants". I can't do the same thing with a virus I create from an RNA sequence (or buy) because that is not necessarily a wild type virus. I am taking their word for it, which I am very hesitant to do at this point.
As for experimenting on humans, I can use human cell lines (or even in situ experiments) to get a reasonable determination. Its not perfect, but its at least a reasonable experiment that would give bounds on the data that is being presented.
Nevertheless, your objection is valid. I couldn't use such variants on humans to get real good data.
This might pass for some but not for me you are a total crank.
That's just rude. There is no reason to go there. If you have an objection raise it. You did and it was valid. I responded with respect. There is zero reason you can't do the same.
There are actually thousands of electron microscopic images of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. None of them are isolates.
A viral isolate is a complete isolation of sufficient quantities of whole, intact viral bodies to do experiments on them, where such bodies are completely separated from all other biological material. Taking a picture of a viral body, and doing a fractionation to extract them out --> then doing a whole genome sequencing (WGS) to determine the viruses RNA sequence are two completely separate processes.
Unless the virus has been completely isolated there is no way to know for certain that you are working with the same material because the second process (fractionation) will include other DNA/RNA that must be separated out using statistics and computer alignment (educated guessing) of the subsequent RNA reads in the WGS process.. The supposition that it is the same material is based on the design of the experiment which can give, at best, a reasonable statistical probability that it is so.
A complete isolation is what would be required of a stand alone biological experiment to prove that the virus is what other experiments say it is. This has never been done in any literature that I have looked at (I've been looking for over a year).
That does not mean that I personally require such a standard to be met. I do not. I think that the electron microscopic images and RNA sequencing are sufficient to prove SARS-CoV-2's existence to me. I have done such "isolations" (not for viruses, but for many other types of subcellular biological material) and this to me is sufficient evidence to create actionable intelligence working with the theory that the virus does exist. But to say that it has been isolated in the complete way required for undeniable proof of existence is not true. That has never been done. It is these competing standards both of which are valid, that drives the problem of conversation.
You didn't read that at all.
The argument isn't about it being necessary to be isolated but how the conversation came to be in the first place. Technically, it has not been isolated but that doesn't mean that they do not have the necessary information to continue. This is the very root, purposefully misleading information. We need to be able to have conversations about what and why we are putting things into our body, having the information so clouded that a simple conversation cannot be had without people going for the guns is not a good situation to be in and gives credence to the idea that people are not being given the opportunity for informed consent, which is kinda bad. Because of this argument, which should be a conversation the people are divided while screaming essentially the same thing. We require all of the information necessary to make the appropriate decisions for our lives. If any of that information is false or misleading then we cannot make those decisions correctly. Claiming something to be something that it is not will always lead to this and the real problem arises when there is something to actually worry about. Cry wolf enough and no one will come to check after a while.
However, we can have a conversation about everything that is allowed/pushed that we know has negative effects and then compare that to how this is starting to look. I'll use round up. Pretty sure I was born after it was first made but by high school people were starting to talk on the fringes of society about it's dangers. here we are a good 15 years later and a night doesn't pass that I don't see a commercial offering financial compensation to those harmed by it. There is a terrible tradition of approving things that are simply not safe. Du-Pont had Teflon! that was a huge bitch. For us to toss aside years of actual happenings because people want us to do something against our will is quite fucking stupid. We need to be able to ask questions and have conversations.
not by itself, ISOLATED, ALONE.
Earth is flat. They disguised it as smooth earth, of course.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/smooth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C69xx2bM8IA
It's a word game that keeps us at each others throats.
and Ultimately it is a game that doesn't matter, but you matter! While some areas of the Earth do tend to move quite a bit, nothing shakes the earth all together.
Its not ME that has a standard other than what is being produced. It is others. I am merely recognizing, as a scientist in the field, that their objection is valid within itself. I am satisfied with the evidence that has been presented.
As for the standard of isolation not existing for any other virus, that is not in ANY WAY meaningful. There is a perfectly sound argument that it not existing for any other virus (other than the first virus ever isolated, and then in small amounts) is a failure of the system, and in a sense I agree.
I have worked with such systems, so to me it is not a big deal. I have OTHER evidence that supports the existence and usability of viruses in experiment other than a purified isolation of viral bodies to work with (their standard). I use statistics as proof. Statistics is not actually good proof when there is a better path available (a true isolate). In the case of this virus, I would actually LIKE a true isolate to do some experiments because of some of the controversy surrounding some of the data.
It's not inherently a strawman. The objection is valid. It is often USED as a strawman to ignore other evidence, and no one is more annoyed by that than me, but the actual objection is totally valid.
If I had a true isolate (from the wild), i could get an absolute determination of all "variants" of the virus; for which quite frankly the current data is very poor. I am not in any way convinced that the "variants" (minor changes to the RNA) have any real impact at all with regards to transmission or virulence. With real isolates, I could do easy experiments that show a better determination of transmissibility for example. Relying on statistics to make these determinations, while perfectly fine and what I have been trained to do is not really the gold star standard of such experimentation. Using the methods we do are convenient and relying on statistics is nice (and always necessary to an extent), but the more variables you can take out, the better your experimental results. Having a true isolate really nails down a lot of variables that currently rely on statistical modeling.
They really are different objections. All we really need is a sequence and we can do the necessary research. I can make the virus myself just knowing the RNA sequence. I don't need to buy anything. But there is a real separation of being able to build a virus and do tests on it, and actual samples from the real world that prove the data that has been presented to the world. I have analyzed that data extensively and am convinced it is 50 shades of bullshit. Because the data is so much bullshit, requiring a higher standard of evidence is reasonable (even if I don't agree with it to the extent many push it).
I worded my statement poorly, my apologies. What I meant to say was, if I had isolates from the wild of all the variants, I could get a reasonable determination of the virulence and transmission of what they are calling "variants". I can't do the same thing with a virus I create from an RNA sequence (or buy) because that is not necessarily a wild type virus. I am taking their word for it, which I am very hesitant to do at this point.
As for experimenting on humans, I can use human cell lines (or even in situ experiments) to get a reasonable determination. Its not perfect, but its at least a reasonable experiment that would give bounds on the data that is being presented.
Nevertheless, your objection is valid. I couldn't use such variants on humans to get real good data.
That's just rude. There is no reason to go there. If you have an objection raise it. You did and it was valid. I responded with respect. There is zero reason you can't do the same.