Sequences can be constructed with bioinformatic algorithms and heuristics mining segments from genome databases. The databases contain information for natural, synthetic, and composed organisms. I spend a year of my PhD doing exactly this.
Are you referring to sequencing the virus? What I am guessing from what you wrote is that the viral sequencing is the "best informed guess", but it hasn't been actually isolated and sequenced ? I am very eager to understand more about this from someone who has first hand experience in this.
Right, not sequenced as in uncovered in an actual organism, just sequenced as in constructed in silica. To really sequence a strand of DNA for an organism, you need a whole sample from the thing. Something that has never been obtained for a virus. No sample = no real real sequence, but if you have some pieces of what you want to pretend come from a virus, you can use a computer to compose a sequence.
My experience was twelve years ago, so my knowledge is out of date. Plus bioinformatics was not my eventual thesis topic. You have a much better grasp on the biological aspects of everything Covid than I do. I mention it just to let folks know what can be done with computers, and that it is quite common to work with gene sequences of things that have never existed.
I think I put this reference somewhere in this post. It's a really good take down of Steven Kerch claim that the virus has been isolated.
Wow it's a fascinating read and answers a lot of questions. Thanks for this. With your background, do you agree with most of the conclusions of the article?
I have always wondered if our airways are full of virus that we have to wear masks and social distance, why cant they just take the air and pass it through some liquid culture and isolate the virus from there?
That apart, a few open questions I have after reading the post:
Even if a virus cannot ever be isolated directly, would it preclude from proving that there exists something within people infected by Covid that can be used to infect healthy individuals, while controlling for all other variables.
For example, collecting the liquid from an infected patient, culturing it as they do right now. Then doing the same from a healthy person. Using both the cultures to infect new individuals (animals, cells - does not have to be humans). Proving that the culture from the healthy person does not infect whereas the one from the infected person does.
Has this been done?
If, as Fauci says, virus cannot replicate without cell culture, how about taking the viral culture and allowing the virus to keep replicating until there is enough of it that it can be isolated from all other contaminants?
Is that possible? If now, why not?
I really feel bad this guy takes aim at Steve Kirsch of all people. Steve has been very careful in how he qualifies the isolation issue. He is clearly pointing out that the definition of isolation is not what we think, and the virus has been isolated only as per this funny definition that experts have agreed upon.
This might be strategic, because Steve is absolutely critical in shedding light on a lot of Vaccine horrors and criminality, and for him to outright come and say "Viruses do not exist" would immediately turn off a big portion of people listening to him, and renders his message moot. I think the issue of existence of a viruses in general has to be tackled post-awakening, once people are open to the idea that everything they have been told is wrong. Trying to conflate it with exposing the vaccine or the pandemic will be counter-productive.
Let me address #3. I'll have to think about the other two, and I got something else coming up (Yikes, I have to go cold turkey on GAW!)
I've been reconsidering folks like Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, Steven Hatfill, and Judy Mikovits (remember, "Be careful who you follow"). Their attacks on the vaxx have been extremely valuable. But the steadfast adherence to the church of virus is troubling. Of course 3 out of the 4 are virologists, so an uncritical attitude might be expected. At least initially, but not once the holes in virology are put to them.
They never say anything that discredits the notions of viruses or virology. Almost as if they have been pushed forward to placate the skeptics while keeping the extremely useful concept of a powerful yet invisible killer that can take on any desired traits very much real and alive (to the extent that a virus can be considered to be alive, that is). The DS can drop Covid as long as they are confident that the thought of a new scary virus is not ridiculous.
I only recently started thinking about limited hangout operations. That is, offering up some truths in order to withhold key and damaging facts, e.g., intriguing arguments against vaccines, so we forget to pursue more sinister aspects of the Covid drama. This was after reading Kirsch's ad hominem attacks on Dr.’s Kaufman, Lanka, and Cowan and claiming that the problem over "isolation" was a trivial semantic issue. As if the meaning of words is not important. It struck me as a very cheesy argument.
I have hopes for Malone. I've been watching him & Kirsch since I saw them on the Brett Weinstein Darkhorse podcast many months back. Malone impressed me, but he seemed naive. Kirsch was good too, but pretty obnoxious. Over the months Malone has evolved -- he is awaking to the evil now, but is still stuck on viruses. But think if we were told that Boolean logic was invalid. We would ignore and deny the possibility until the last possible moment.
Kirsch hasn't evolved at all. I can't figure out why he would be so vested in the virus theory to pretend that both sides have a legitimate claim to what isolation means, and turn to what I view as character assassination.
I think I put this reference somewhere in this post. It's a really good take down of Steven Kerch claim that the virus has been isolated.
Thanks! This is a question thats been bugging me. I have seen the paper where this company supposedly sequenced the virus (its name was Illumina or something) but had no idea if it was sequenced after being isolated or not. Being able to see both Steve Kirsch's assertion and the rebuttal should give me a good idea as to where we are at.
Plus bioinformatics was not my eventual thesis topic.
May I ask what you did your thesis on?
I mention it just to let folks know what can be done with computers
As a computer guy, all I can tell people is that just because something can be done with computers (and pretty much anything can be done if you have the resources) doesn't mean people should do it. This may fall under that category lol
I focused on the modeling of software, trying to answer the question of how to merge diverging models (e.g., from different development efforts) of the same software system.
...just because something can be done with computers [...] doesn't mean people should do it.
I second this. I've been at computers long enough to get cynical. I started out designing microprocessors back in the 80s, gradually moving into software. When folks have problems with a computer (HW or SW) I give them a sarcastic variation of what you say --- "You just have to believe that someday computers will make your life easier."
Sequences can be constructed with bioinformatic algorithms and heuristics mining segments from genome databases. The databases contain information for natural, synthetic, and composed organisms. I spend a year of my PhD doing exactly this.
Are you referring to sequencing the virus? What I am guessing from what you wrote is that the viral sequencing is the "best informed guess", but it hasn't been actually isolated and sequenced ? I am very eager to understand more about this from someone who has first hand experience in this.
Right, not sequenced as in uncovered in an actual organism, just sequenced as in constructed in silica. To really sequence a strand of DNA for an organism, you need a whole sample from the thing. Something that has never been obtained for a virus. No sample = no real real sequence, but if you have some pieces of what you want to pretend come from a virus, you can use a computer to compose a sequence.
My experience was twelve years ago, so my knowledge is out of date. Plus bioinformatics was not my eventual thesis topic. You have a much better grasp on the biological aspects of everything Covid than I do. I mention it just to let folks know what can be done with computers, and that it is quite common to work with gene sequences of things that have never existed.
I think I put this reference somewhere in this post. It's a really good take down of Steven Kerch claim that the virus has been isolated.
Wow it's a fascinating read and answers a lot of questions. Thanks for this. With your background, do you agree with most of the conclusions of the article?
I have always wondered if our airways are full of virus that we have to wear masks and social distance, why cant they just take the air and pass it through some liquid culture and isolate the virus from there?
That apart, a few open questions I have after reading the post:
For example, collecting the liquid from an infected patient, culturing it as they do right now. Then doing the same from a healthy person. Using both the cultures to infect new individuals (animals, cells - does not have to be humans). Proving that the culture from the healthy person does not infect whereas the one from the infected person does.
Has this been done?
Is that possible? If now, why not?
This might be strategic, because Steve is absolutely critical in shedding light on a lot of Vaccine horrors and criminality, and for him to outright come and say "Viruses do not exist" would immediately turn off a big portion of people listening to him, and renders his message moot. I think the issue of existence of a viruses in general has to be tackled post-awakening, once people are open to the idea that everything they have been told is wrong. Trying to conflate it with exposing the vaccine or the pandemic will be counter-productive.
Let me address #3. I'll have to think about the other two, and I got something else coming up (Yikes, I have to go cold turkey on GAW!)
I've been reconsidering folks like Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, Steven Hatfill, and Judy Mikovits (remember, "Be careful who you follow"). Their attacks on the vaxx have been extremely valuable. But the steadfast adherence to the church of virus is troubling. Of course 3 out of the 4 are virologists, so an uncritical attitude might be expected. At least initially, but not once the holes in virology are put to them.
They never say anything that discredits the notions of viruses or virology. Almost as if they have been pushed forward to placate the skeptics while keeping the extremely useful concept of a powerful yet invisible killer that can take on any desired traits very much real and alive (to the extent that a virus can be considered to be alive, that is). The DS can drop Covid as long as they are confident that the thought of a new scary virus is not ridiculous.
I only recently started thinking about limited hangout operations. That is, offering up some truths in order to withhold key and damaging facts, e.g., intriguing arguments against vaccines, so we forget to pursue more sinister aspects of the Covid drama. This was after reading Kirsch's ad hominem attacks on Dr.’s Kaufman, Lanka, and Cowan and claiming that the problem over "isolation" was a trivial semantic issue. As if the meaning of words is not important. It struck me as a very cheesy argument.
I have hopes for Malone. I've been watching him & Kirsch since I saw them on the Brett Weinstein Darkhorse podcast many months back. Malone impressed me, but he seemed naive. Kirsch was good too, but pretty obnoxious. Over the months Malone has evolved -- he is awaking to the evil now, but is still stuck on viruses. But think if we were told that Boolean logic was invalid. We would ignore and deny the possibility until the last possible moment.
Kirsch hasn't evolved at all. I can't figure out why he would be so vested in the virus theory to pretend that both sides have a legitimate claim to what isolation means, and turn to what I view as character assassination.
Thanks! This is a question thats been bugging me. I have seen the paper where this company supposedly sequenced the virus (its name was Illumina or something) but had no idea if it was sequenced after being isolated or not. Being able to see both Steve Kirsch's assertion and the rebuttal should give me a good idea as to where we are at.
May I ask what you did your thesis on?
As a computer guy, all I can tell people is that just because something can be done with computers (and pretty much anything can be done if you have the resources) doesn't mean people should do it. This may fall under that category lol
I focused on the modeling of software, trying to answer the question of how to merge diverging models (e.g., from different development efforts) of the same software system.
I second this. I've been at computers long enough to get cynical. I started out designing microprocessors back in the 80s, gradually moving into software. When folks have problems with a computer (HW or SW) I give them a sarcastic variation of what you say --- "You just have to believe that someday computers will make your life easier."