I don't believe this study compares the viral loads of current vaxx vs. current unvaxxed. Per my reading they are comparing the loads of a group of vaxxed healthcare workers now vs. the loads of healthcare workers from a month period over a year ago when no vaxxs existed. So I'm not sure if the conclusion can be that their loads are higher purely because the vaxx, since they don't mention testing the viral loads of a current unvaxxed sample of these same workers.
You don't need to be able to "isolate" in the sense you mean to isolate in a way that is usable in biological experiments or to determine viral load.
There are two standards of isolation. There is the type you mean, where you have nothing but a large quantity of intact virions and no other biological matter (which is extremely difficult to do), and you have "isolated" in the cell fractionation sense (which is how all biology is done in a practical setting) where the cell fraction containing mostly virions and other organelles of similar size are contained. Within that cell fraction there will be some other biological material, but it will be sufficiently just viral bodies that it can be used for infection studies, or whole genome sequencing, etc.
There is nothing suspicious about this being the only standard of isolation that has been performed as it is how all biology is done. The standard you are talking about would be required to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you have is what you say you have.
There is merit in demanding that standard under the suspicious circumstances surrounding this virus, but from a practical biology standpoint, that standard is ludicrous. The current standard of isolation being employed on the other hand gives a genome sequence with sufficiently high statistical accuracy and valid testable virions sufficient for most reasonable experiments. It also allows for reasonably accurate tests for viral load.
What a coincidence. Anons carry 251 times more load in their testicles compared to the average woke cuck.
Says the reliable pcr tests. Honestly I don't believe any of this stuff, even when it is on our side.
Exactly how I feel.
Trust the science eh? Well now by your own standards, you have to lock all those carrier monkeys away and refuse them access to the world.
When is the vax narrative gunna break?
We know the vax are carriers. Spreaders. How much longer until that 'conspiracy ' becomes fact.
Considering that, the vaxxed do need to wear 😷 to protect the unvaxxed and maybe for the rest of their lives.
I don't believe this study compares the viral loads of current vaxx vs. current unvaxxed. Per my reading they are comparing the loads of a group of vaxxed healthcare workers now vs. the loads of healthcare workers from a month period over a year ago when no vaxxs existed. So I'm not sure if the conclusion can be that their loads are higher purely because the vaxx, since they don't mention testing the viral loads of a current unvaxxed sample of these same workers.
Um.... they can't isolate covid. So they can't be finding any % of covid in someone's nostrils. 'splain this if you can.
You don't need to be able to "isolate" in the sense you mean to isolate in a way that is usable in biological experiments or to determine viral load.
There are two standards of isolation. There is the type you mean, where you have nothing but a large quantity of intact virions and no other biological matter (which is extremely difficult to do), and you have "isolated" in the cell fractionation sense (which is how all biology is done in a practical setting) where the cell fraction containing mostly virions and other organelles of similar size are contained. Within that cell fraction there will be some other biological material, but it will be sufficiently just viral bodies that it can be used for infection studies, or whole genome sequencing, etc.
There is nothing suspicious about this being the only standard of isolation that has been performed as it is how all biology is done. The standard you are talking about would be required to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you have is what you say you have.
There is merit in demanding that standard under the suspicious circumstances surrounding this virus, but from a practical biology standpoint, that standard is ludicrous. The current standard of isolation being employed on the other hand gives a genome sequence with sufficiently high statistical accuracy and valid testable virions sufficient for most reasonable experiments. It also allows for reasonably accurate tests for viral load.