Stefan Lanka hasn't scientifically disproven anything. He is conveniently missing the right control groups that would have been a substantial finding had his theory been correct.
And, that means ... YOU CAN show us the "right control groups."
Let's see what ya got.
The fact that you just made a vague claim without fleshing it out, tells me you don't have anything else. You are just dreaming.
Kidney cells are not the only cells used in cell culture.
Vero cells are the most commonly used. Show me a study that uses something else, and does NOT also use a poison in the mix.
Besides that, you are ignoring the FACT that they have never isolated AND purified what they claim is a virus, from a bodily fluid of any human (or animal).
They never isolate and purify. Instead, they mix the fluid with other genetic material NOT from that subject, and proceed with the innoculation and poisoning.
COVID is still a scam, but not because viruses aren't real. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You are wrong, and I know that you have no idea what you are talking about by the fact that you use vague language with no specificity and no substance.
I'm not writing a dissertation in response to a comment on a forum, smart guy. If that's your expectation in response to your claims (for which we notice that you yourself did not provide substantiary evidence. Hypocrisy, thou name art MAG768720), then you're destined to live in your own echo chamber.
Vero cells are used for culturing many viruses that are tropic for monkeys and kidneys, but other viruses that are tropic for multiple species or organs are grown in those cell cultures. Vero is not the most commonly used either. ATCC had a comprehensive list of those cell lines for further research on your own time, should you be interested. Methinks you are not, because you are drowning in the Koolaid of your own ignorance, but hey, you do you man.
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation. Next.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations, given enough time. There's a reason laboratories titer their media components to ensure they're not making cells sick on their own before testing anything else on them. All conditions have to be the same on an experiment, save the single condition being tested. Plus or minus virus.
If he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE, he would need to culture a sample in their correct cell line for a positive group, and then culture cells regularly without the virus, or if he wanted to be extra smart, coincubate sonicated cells from samples from uninfected individuals. Monitor CPE. Or, if one is limited access to human samples, or concerned with narrowing down which components of cell culture are causing CPE, you can just take the supernatants from first cultures and use them to infect a secondary cell culture to observe CPE. This would demonstrate that an extracellular component was capable of causing CPE in the positive vs negative control. He could also test intracellular components by sonicating the cell layer of the first set of experimental groups, and using the cell lysates to infect and observe CPE over time. This is pretty basic virological and cell culture techniques. You can also run western blots, immunofluorescent microscopy, electron microscopy, PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue. There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
I explained how virologists claim they "see" a virus. I gave you the steps they go through, and why their claims are false.
You provided nothing but, "uhh ... yeah, bro, they see stuff."
They claim to grow cultures in monkey kidney cells. They poison those cells. Once poisoned, the cells break apart and die. They CLAIM this proves the virus was there. They show photos of fragments from the experiment, and claim it was the virus.
We KNOW that is not true, because if you do the exact same experiment, and do NOT use any fluid from a human (sick or not), you get the exact same result with the exact same photos that are claimed to be a virus (from a person).
Vero is not the most commonly used either.
What is, then?
The papers I have seen related to SARS-CoV-2 claims all show vero cells used.
To the point: What genetic material has been used in the SARS exeriments that were used more than vero cells?
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation.
Show me a study where: (a) a human fluid sample is used, (b) it is filtered, (c) AND it is centrifuged BEFORE adding other genetic material to the mixture.
THIS is the crux of the issue. They do it with bacteria, but not with viruses.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations
EXACTLY. The fact that the SAME end result occurs with or WITHOUT any bodily fluid sample (supposedly of a person "with a virus") ... PROVES that it is the PROCEDURE of the experiment itself that causes the result. And that result is what virologists use to claim that the virus exists in the first place.
They do NOT separate the virus from everything else (the literal definition of "isolate"), because THEY say they cannot see it (find it) in the fluid sample -- after filtering. They also cannot find it by centrifuge, which is why they don't even try.
Instead, they MIX it with OTHER genetic material, and THEN perform their experiment. That is what Lanka did, and then he did a control without any fluid, and got the same result -- proving that the method used is what causes the virus to "show up" in the electron microscope photos.
f he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE
Can't prove a negative. If the virus does not exist, it is impossible to prove that virus is not causing CPE. He simply did the experiment without a fluid sample (and, therefore, without a "virus" if it existed), and got the CPE effect.
The CPE could not have been caused by a "virus" because none could have been present. The CPE is the "virus."
or if he wanted to be extra smart ...
The interesting thing is that your challenge is completely imaginary and one-sided. No virologist has ever bothered to do it, even the "extra smart" ones.
samples from uninfected individuals
And besides, there would be no way to do it in the first place, because there is no way to identify "uninfected individuals" versus "infected individuals." The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and never was. And there are no symptoms of sickness that are unique to Covid-19 that do not also occur in common cold and flu.
You can also run ... PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue.
You clearly are not informed on the fraudulent use of PCR, as emphasized by its inventor.
There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
No experiment has ever been successful in showing that a sick person with a supposed virus could make another person sick. Never any evidence of transmission. And there have been plenty of attempts at, for more than 100 years.
So, since that is the #1 alarm we here -- that you will "catch" a virus and get sick -- and yet NOBODY has ever proven it, well ... that should be one hell of a clue.
On a side note: I had a conversation with a biology student, who thought she knew a lot about virology and how experiments are done.
I realized that she was relying solely on her assumptions that they do things the way other biology disciplines do, which is a false assumption. I further realized that every argument she gave me had to so with what they do AFTER they mix a bodily fluid with other non-human genetic material, and NOT before.
Therefore, all of her claims were irrelevant, because she was talking not about a human fluid (with virus) experiment, but a human fluid plus other non-human genetic material, including various poisons experiment.
Once she understood that, she exited the conversation.
Since your claims are all vague and general, with nothing specific ("they use stuff other than vero cells" ... "they can see it" ... "they can use PCR and other stuff"), I have to assume that you are in the same boat she was.
You are likely assuming that you know how they do things, but not educated on the specifics of it.
And, that means ... YOU CAN show us the "right control groups."
Let's see what ya got.
The fact that you just made a vague claim without fleshing it out, tells me you don't have anything else. You are just dreaming.
Vero cells are the most commonly used. Show me a study that uses something else, and does NOT also use a poison in the mix.
Besides that, you are ignoring the FACT that they have never isolated AND purified what they claim is a virus, from a bodily fluid of any human (or animal).
They never isolate and purify. Instead, they mix the fluid with other genetic material NOT from that subject, and proceed with the innoculation and poisoning.
You are wrong, and I know that you have no idea what you are talking about by the fact that you use vague language with no specificity and no substance.
I'm not writing a dissertation in response to a comment on a forum, smart guy. If that's your expectation in response to your claims (for which we notice that you yourself did not provide substantiary evidence. Hypocrisy, thou name art MAG768720), then you're destined to live in your own echo chamber.
Vero cells are used for culturing many viruses that are tropic for monkeys and kidneys, but other viruses that are tropic for multiple species or organs are grown in those cell cultures. Vero is not the most commonly used either. ATCC had a comprehensive list of those cell lines for further research on your own time, should you be interested. Methinks you are not, because you are drowning in the Koolaid of your own ignorance, but hey, you do you man.
Viruses are regularly purified by density gradient centrifugation. Next.
As far as Lanka goes, he just demonstrated that some cell culture components are capable of causing CPE at certain concentrations, given enough time. There's a reason laboratories titer their media components to ensure they're not making cells sick on their own before testing anything else on them. All conditions have to be the same on an experiment, save the single condition being tested. Plus or minus virus.
If he wanted to demonstrate that viruses in culture are not causing CPE, he would need to culture a sample in their correct cell line for a positive group, and then culture cells regularly without the virus, or if he wanted to be extra smart, coincubate sonicated cells from samples from uninfected individuals. Monitor CPE. Or, if one is limited access to human samples, or concerned with narrowing down which components of cell culture are causing CPE, you can just take the supernatants from first cultures and use them to infect a secondary cell culture to observe CPE. This would demonstrate that an extracellular component was capable of causing CPE in the positive vs negative control. He could also test intracellular components by sonicating the cell layer of the first set of experimental groups, and using the cell lysates to infect and observe CPE over time. This is pretty basic virological and cell culture techniques. You can also run western blots, immunofluorescent microscopy, electron microscopy, PCR or sequencing to further narrow down what is causing the issue. There is sufficient evidence that viruses are real and they induce pathological effects that can be reliably documented.
I explained how virologists claim they "see" a virus. I gave you the steps they go through, and why their claims are false.
You provided nothing but, "uhh ... yeah, bro, they see stuff."
They claim to grow cultures in monkey kidney cells. They poison those cells. Once poisoned, the cells break apart and die. They CLAIM this proves the virus was there. They show photos of fragments from the experiment, and claim it was the virus.
We KNOW that is not true, because if you do the exact same experiment, and do NOT use any fluid from a human (sick or not), you get the exact same result with the exact same photos that are claimed to be a virus (from a person).
What is, then?
The papers I have seen related to SARS-CoV-2 claims all show vero cells used.
To the point: What genetic material has been used in the SARS exeriments that were used more than vero cells?
Show me a study where: (a) a human fluid sample is used, (b) it is filtered, (c) AND it is centrifuged BEFORE adding other genetic material to the mixture.
THIS is the crux of the issue. They do it with bacteria, but not with viruses.
EXACTLY. The fact that the SAME end result occurs with or WITHOUT any bodily fluid sample (supposedly of a person "with a virus") ... PROVES that it is the PROCEDURE of the experiment itself that causes the result. And that result is what virologists use to claim that the virus exists in the first place.
They do NOT separate the virus from everything else (the literal definition of "isolate"), because THEY say they cannot see it (find it) in the fluid sample -- after filtering. They also cannot find it by centrifuge, which is why they don't even try.
Instead, they MIX it with OTHER genetic material, and THEN perform their experiment. That is what Lanka did, and then he did a control without any fluid, and got the same result -- proving that the method used is what causes the virus to "show up" in the electron microscope photos.
Can't prove a negative. If the virus does not exist, it is impossible to prove that virus is not causing CPE. He simply did the experiment without a fluid sample (and, therefore, without a "virus" if it existed), and got the CPE effect.
The CPE could not have been caused by a "virus" because none could have been present. The CPE is the "virus."
The interesting thing is that your challenge is completely imaginary and one-sided. No virologist has ever bothered to do it, even the "extra smart" ones.
And besides, there would be no way to do it in the first place, because there is no way to identify "uninfected individuals" versus "infected individuals." The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and never was. And there are no symptoms of sickness that are unique to Covid-19 that do not also occur in common cold and flu.
You clearly are not informed on the fraudulent use of PCR, as emphasized by its inventor.
No experiment has ever been successful in showing that a sick person with a supposed virus could make another person sick. Never any evidence of transmission. And there have been plenty of attempts at, for more than 100 years.
So, since that is the #1 alarm we here -- that you will "catch" a virus and get sick -- and yet NOBODY has ever proven it, well ... that should be one hell of a clue.
On a side note: I had a conversation with a biology student, who thought she knew a lot about virology and how experiments are done.
I realized that she was relying solely on her assumptions that they do things the way other biology disciplines do, which is a false assumption. I further realized that every argument she gave me had to so with what they do AFTER they mix a bodily fluid with other non-human genetic material, and NOT before.
Therefore, all of her claims were irrelevant, because she was talking not about a human fluid (with virus) experiment, but a human fluid plus other non-human genetic material, including various poisons experiment.
Once she understood that, she exited the conversation.
Since your claims are all vague and general, with nothing specific ("they use stuff other than vero cells" ... "they can see it" ... "they can use PCR and other stuff"), I have to assume that you are in the same boat she was.
You are likely assuming that you know how they do things, but not educated on the specifics of it.