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.
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.