When you conduct RT-PCR, you should have a positive control in the reaction to know what the critical threshold of detection is to make the call FOR THAT SAMPLE.
How to cheat @ SARS-CoV-2 PCR: Do not use a positive control to determine the detection threshold, use thresholds as high as 40. Unless the infections are in the vaccinated, then let the world know you only want reports on cases w/Ct <27.
No, in shotgun sequencing random primers are used to amplify anything and everything in the clinical sample. From the amplicons (reads), the overlaps are found (via rigorous algorithms) and the sequence is inferred. The reads are screened to remove those that are likely from human, bacteria, fungi, etc. That's called assembly. Also, the reads can be aligned to reference sequences from known organisms. It's the same process whether the target sequences are from animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, or viruses.
The "clinical sample" is first "isolated" by contamination by foreign DNA (monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, a549 human lung cancer cells) in a so-called "tissue culture"... therefore those "reads" are of sequences of unknown provenance. 🛑 Show Stopper!
And then the rest is all CGI Metagenomic, Bioinformatic fictions.
It's like building a Unicorn Detector, but not having an actual Unicorn Specimen with which to calibrate your instrument. So you just draw a picture of a unicorn and calibrate your instrument to that.
Explain why the study is "unverifiable"? How many times does mass-spec have to find the same protein information as sequencing to YOUR satisfaction? (Hint: the technical verification of the method has been done thousands of times over).
This is an fallacious article. The "viruses don't exist" crowd do not claim that viruses do not exist, rather that viruses are created by cells for a purpose and that they are not contagious. Huge difference.
When a cell dies, the body cleans up and bacteria and viruses play their roles.
Additionally, the in-silico Covid genome is a fabrication. Don't fool yourself. Study how it's done.
Actually, you are rejecting the very data that the virus denialists keep asking for, and that's the problem. You don't understand how NGS works, and the inferential error is elementary. Understanding NGS sequencing is easy, if you try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFCD8Q6qSTM&t=2s
Here are some studies that provide precisely the data - of myriad types - that you need.
Click through these resources and read the cited studies before your respond. "You provided a random list of links, all I asked for was an experiment" is a non-response that will show you are not willing to read the studies cited. These are specifically searched for by me, for you. If you don't read them, then there is no reason for me to take you seriously.
We call that "academic sloth". Happy reading. The evidence is right in front of you.
If you take the time to just look at the Materials and Methods section of just your first link, you'll notice the legitimate problems the so called virus deniers have with all of the so called evidence provided thus far, which is no real isolation of a virus and no control experiment not showing a cytopathic effect of the uninoculated cell culture.
Here is a shortened/edited version of it.
Human cell line (MRC5) put into nourishment mix supplemented with an antibiotic/antimycotic solution (no effect on MRC5 we hope) and 10% fetal bovine serum (Franken science?). The live attenuated OKA/Merck strain of varicella zoster virus (VZV) (just kicking the can down the road assuming OKA/Merck did a proper isolation of that "virus") was cultured in MRC5 cell line (i.e. the ridiculous Franken-mix mentioned above), and the cells were harvested by trypsinization (the most popular detachment technique, even though it reduces viability due to the damage to the membrane and extracellular matrix), when the monolayers had displayed near 80% specific cytopathic changes.
How would anyone be able to infer anything of value from sequencing anything out of the above Franken-mix?
Yes, they do. Here, in the comments on other articles, and in direct emails to me. No moving the goal post now... they need to back up what they say with explanations why we see the same viral proteins multiple ways... I'll wait....
This is incorrect. I am the one that states viruses are created by cells for a purpose and are not contagious. They are not. They do not believe even structured particles exist and state that any particles observed are mere cellular debris.
Exosomes are different entities than viruses altogether. Viruses are intelligent protein structures created by cells. They have mathematical structures. Exosomes, on the other hand, are vesicles that bud from cells and serve as a cargo holder for cellular parts, and also serve as intermediaries between cells. Exosomes are made of cell lipids and have no rigid structure like viruses. Their 'structure' is akin to a drop of oil in water.
There are many more differences I could note that prove viruses and exosomes are different entities.
Why then was this never part of the training for doctors, nurses or mid levels? Why did we not participate in labs where we learned how this works what the machines are-look like even??
If viruses are such an integral part of pathology, it just seems we should have spent some time on learning the methods to conclude that.
Now we have the conundrum that you may understand what you are saying but it is meaningless to most others.
How about a course where we get to see the lab, the machines and the techniques.
I mean UPMC has suites for family to view surgical procedures so why if we can do that we cannot see how you or others do what you do......
YESSSS!!!! (Pumping fist in air.) I have two long-time friends who were courageous, articulate and admirable advocates of ending water fluoridation on grounds of impeccable scientific evidence of harm to health and downstream aquatic environment plus the blatantly obvious violation of ethical principles of informed consent. One is Christine Massey who inexplicably has abandoned her formerly credible intellect to say that viruses and virology don't exist. The other now says the earth is flat. There is no figuring that out.
Aliss, fluoride and and aluminum synergistic toxicity is one of my gravest concerns. Check out my course on Environmental Toxicology - http://ipak-edu.org/ - 21 lectures. Giving a talk Sunday on this.
As someone with a BSc in molecular biology and an open mid I have gone down a few of the rabbit holes.
I think there is a spectrum of beliefs all the way to "viruses don't exist". Some of this is well poisioning in my opinion, to make the covid skeptics look stupid ("flat earthers are conspiracy theorists therefore Epstein Island shouldn't be looked into" type stuff).
- PCR tests don't show active infection and can be misused.
- Everything within 28 days of an unreliable positive test is classed as a covid death.
- Testing numbers vary wildly and can be used to generate the numbers that politicians want to see.
I think all of those statements are true.
As far as I am aware there is no conclusive proof that the virus being sequenced is the causative agent of covid (happy to look into any evidence provided).
Drosten's test was pretty much guesswork as I understand it. Took the previous SARS genome, tweaked it a bit, sent it to China until he got some matches and declared it a "gold standard". Flu has disappeared for 2 and a half years. (Though I saw at one point the UK was testing for covid 1000x more than for the flu - false positives alone would be more than the total number of flu tests done).
When combined all of the above statements make it far less conclusive that the tests are actually meaningful.
Low vitamin D is a big factor in severe covid. Covid symptoms vary massively, from asymptomatic, to fever, coughs, heart issues, death. 1 in 6 common colds is caused by a coronavirus.
When combined I can see the reason "viruses don't exist" made traction, though a lot of people are probably like me in doubting the certainty of the science about covid being the causal agent of whatever has been going around. This gets exaggerated by people with less understanding of biology than me and gets turned into viruses don't exist.
Then there is the terrain theory and viruses being exosomes, the result of illness not the cause. I haven't looked into this in any depth, but it seems plausible. Other problems with the germ theory are outbreaks of colds in isolated antarctic research stations. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2536217/
I think it's fair to say we don't understand viral transmission anywhere near as well as "the experts" claim to.
Like I say, if anyone has good evidence that counters my points above, I am more than willing to look at them evidence and update my opinion, just as I have done in the last two and a half years to reach my current opinions, which are a lot less sure than what I was taught in a 4 year degree in a related subject.
There's an ASTOUNDING DEARTH of published experiments that address the issue of transmission - and the reported results are basically inconclusive at best.
FACT: Negative results don't get published - especially when they don't support the institutionalized dogma of I.G. Farben, et. al. It's literally suicidal to go against the grain in this vrilogy death cult.
If this crownvirus theory were so unimpeachable, then one would expect to see names of journals, like: "The Journal of Virus Transmission". Cuz who would want to leave the issue of transmission as an unattended scientific line of inquiry? Amiright?
Can't catch them in exhaled breath - even by PCR's overclocked to 45 CT - cuz the buggers fly too fast.
That's also why the face diapers aren't treated like biohazard waste. The buggers don't get caught in the face diaper because as soon as they see an obstacle, they fly in reverse gear.
"It is well known that rhinoviruses are distributed across the globe and are the most common cause of the common cold in all age groups. Rhinoviruses are widely considered to be harmless because they are generally perceived as respiratory viruses only capable of causing mild disease. However, they may also infect the lower respiratory tract, inducing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and exacerbations of asthma, bronchiolitis, etc. The role of rhinoviruses in pathogenesis and the epidemiological process is underestimated, and they need to be intensively studied. In the light of recent data, it is now known that rhinoviruses could be one of the key epidemiological barriers that may influence the spread of influenza and novel coronaviruses. It has been reported that endemic human rhinoviruses delayed the development of the H1N1pdm09 influenza pandemic through viral interference. Moreover, human rhinoviruses have been suggested to block SARS-CoV-2 replication in the airways by triggering an interferon response. In this review, we summarized the main biological characteristics of genetically distinct viruses such as rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, and SARS-CoV-2 in an attempt to illuminate their main discrepancies and similarities. We hope that this comparative analysis will help us to better understand in which direction research in this area should move."
"Multiple respiratory viruses can concurrently or sequentially infect the respiratory tract and lead to virus‒virus interactions. Infection by a first virus could enhance or reduce infection and replication of a second virus, resulting in positive (additive or synergistic) or negative (antagonistic) interaction. The concept of viral interference has been demonstrated at the cellular, host, and population levels. The mechanisms involved in viral interference have been evaluated in differentiated airway epithelial cells and in animal models susceptible to the respiratory viruses of interest. A likely mechanism is the interferon response that could confer a temporary nonspecific immunity to the host. During the coronavirus disease pandemic, nonpharmacologic interventions have prevented the circulation of most respiratory viruses. Once the sanitary restrictions are lifted, circulation of seasonal respiratory viruses is expected to resume and will offer the opportunity to study their interactions, notably with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2."
—Kind of a mixed-bag approach, really.
"Editorial: Interference of COVID-19 and Influenza Infections"
Not a research paper, but their editorial on the interactions. I include this because it does show how the establishment narrative explains the interference: namely, the proactive measures (PPE, social distancing, &c) taken during the early stages of the pandemic reduced the likelihoods for influenza to infect people. Something to consider, and this editorial links to papers purporting to demonstrate how the emergency measures succeeded —in reducing influenza *but not* SARS-CoV-2.
I recall seeing someone, such as Ethical Skeptic or or someone doing similar work, drawing out the competitive/interference aspects, but I cannot find the right search combinations to narrow down where I saw this.
Dude, either prove them wrong or let it go. It’s a bad look either way. A fucking nerd war. Ugh.
You keep twisting what Lanka and Kaufman and Cowan are saying to suit your narrative. I have never read a single article or listened to a single interview by one of them where they say viruses don’t exist. They say pathogenic viruses exist. They agree to finding proteins.
They disagree that putting a specimen into bovine calf serum and antibiotics and green monkey cells and witnessing cell death is proof of a pathogenic virus. I’m a doctor in a different field and can’t see how anyone can justify this kind of fuckery as legitimate science.
Mixing a bunch of shit together, watching it decay, and blaming it on the “virus”? Sorry, bubs. You’re obviously very smart and cannot help if you were sold lies. It’s not too late to get to the bottom of it.
"Mixing a bunch of shit together, watching it decay, and blaming it on the “virus”? " I literally have no idea what you're talking about, because the pathogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been studied at the whole-animal level and its effects on infected cells have been characterized. Far too many studies to cite, if you're a doctor than you have find the studies. But in case you won't: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.01368-21
Mate, fundamental misunderstandings abound in your logic.
It’s not that these sequences do not exist, obviously proteins sequences exist, it’s that the particles themselves are not in fact “pathologically contagious” and have never been scientifically proven to be so.
Before getting all excited and name-cally at least get your fundamentals consistent..
Oh right, because the methods of virological isolation and eventual contagion demonstration are not the mechanisms in which artifacts are produced and said particles are conflated with effects of poisonous adjuvants…got it.
James, I implore you to delve deeper into the issue of so-called disease transmission and why this facet of virology is illusory in nature. You are correct in your assertions that viruses are indeed real, but you need to study deeper the mechanisms by which disease occurs in organisms, and how viruses play a role therein to reverse a toxic disease state. I have been reading your comments and I can tell that you are approaching this from a rational standpoint in many ways, so this is why I am leaving you this comment in the hope of changing your perspective. You are right in attempting to correct the 'no-virus' group.
Do not casually disregard what I am imparting to you now. Your argument will be strengthened in your favor if you understand that viruses are created wholly by cells as enzymatic solvents, and by understanding that science indeed agrees with what I will assert below.
The illusion of viral transmission in normal life is so because of the ever-changing nature of atmospheric conditions which inform cellular expression mechanisms. As such, cells will biochemically alter their behavior due to cyclical atmospheric changes, such as seasonal changes, humidity, temperature, and barometric pressure. One behavior that occurs from this is the dumping of toxins by cells into the blood when the time is ideal. If toxins are overtly poisonous to living microbes, like bacteria and living cells (like phagocytes), cells will begin to produce and multiply viruses of a particular type, depending upon the tissue of the area involved. Viruses enzymatically hydrolyze—that is, dissolve via proteolytic enzymes [proteases] via mRNA-activated glycoproteins, known as spike proteins. As well, viruses dilute via water (catalysis), the bonds that hold objects together.
Without viruses, the body would not have a fighting chance to remove insoluble toxins from the body, such as plastic, industrial pollutants, and more. A strong solvent is needed in order to do so. Throughout my research, I have established that viruses are this solvent. Viruses are the only entity created by cells that are replicated to such a high level to be able to circumvent widespread toxicity.
"Records spanning millennia tell of unusual cases where infection with what we now know to be viruses that cause diseases such as influenza, chicken pox, and measles temporarily beat back people’s cancers."
"Viruses basically regulate ecology and biogeochemistry on a global level. From the origins of life to technologies that preserve it, learning about viruses can transform people’s opinions on what once seemed like straightforward agents of disease and death."
This should certainly sound much more reasonable and likely to you than merely claiming that "no viruses exist", yes?
Doctor, how do you respond to Dr Kary Mullis’s assertions about the use of his PCR?
Also, isn’t it possible to believe or know that a virus exists but that it may not be the sole culprit of the disease? Could it be that conditions are favorable for virus to replicate in a host/to incur disease? Is medicine/Science looking at the big picture?
PCR alone gives non-specific amplificaltion (copies) of off-target sequences. RT-PCR, when done right, restricts consideration to results that are generated w/lower rounds of his polymerase chain reaction cycles. The RT-PCR method used w/SARS-CoV-2 is flawed given the FDA and CDC allow the use of arbitrary cycle #s and no internal positive control. Sanger sequencing has in fact confirm SARS-CoV-2 in some RT-PCR positive samples, per Dr. Sin Hang Lee. (published), confirming the false positive rates seen in other studies.
Well, son, let me explain it to you:
You CAN use PCR for diagnosis if you don't cheat.
When you conduct RT-PCR, you should have a positive control in the reaction to know what the critical threshold of detection is to make the call FOR THAT SAMPLE.
How to cheat @ SARS-CoV-2 PCR: Do not use a positive control to determine the detection threshold, use thresholds as high as 40. Unless the infections are in the vaccinated, then let the world know you only want reports on cases w/Ct <27.
Feel better, little guy?
Hey James, what was the source of the primers?
Viral isolates obtained from a patient sample, right?
No, in shotgun sequencing random primers are used to amplify anything and everything in the clinical sample. From the amplicons (reads), the overlaps are found (via rigorous algorithms) and the sequence is inferred. The reads are screened to remove those that are likely from human, bacteria, fungi, etc. That's called assembly. Also, the reads can be aligned to reference sequences from known organisms. It's the same process whether the target sequences are from animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, or viruses.
> "No ...."
Well kudos for being honest.
The "clinical sample" is first "isolated" by contamination by foreign DNA (monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, a549 human lung cancer cells) in a so-called "tissue culture"... therefore those "reads" are of sequences of unknown provenance. 🛑 Show Stopper!
And then the rest is all CGI Metagenomic, Bioinformatic fictions.
It's like building a Unicorn Detector, but not having an actual Unicorn Specimen with which to calibrate your instrument. So you just draw a picture of a unicorn and calibrate your instrument to that.
Sorry, that's Voodoo, not Science.
Explain why the study is "unverifiable"? How many times does mass-spec have to find the same protein information as sequencing to YOUR satisfaction? (Hint: the technical verification of the method has been done thousands of times over).
Wow! Thanks for this info! Appreciate all your true science!
no it's fallacious reasoning, not science.
This is an fallacious article. The "viruses don't exist" crowd do not claim that viruses do not exist, rather that viruses are created by cells for a purpose and that they are not contagious. Huge difference.
When a cell dies, the body cleans up and bacteria and viruses play their roles.
Additionally, the in-silico Covid genome is a fabrication. Don't fool yourself. Study how it's done.
So a concession that viruses DO exist, but not just this ONE. What about other beta coronaviruses. Do they also not exist? Or just this one?
Actually, you are rejecting the very data that the virus denialists keep asking for, and that's the problem. You don't understand how NGS works, and the inferential error is elementary. Understanding NGS sequencing is easy, if you try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFCD8Q6qSTM&t=2s
Anyone who quotes Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously.
The bots are A.I. They're easily offended by any gender references.
For the records, I'm not in one of the "virus not exist" camps.
My computer had a virus. So I swabbed the hard disk and did peptide and RNA analysis. Some of the peptides matched some of the RNA. Tada!
lol no doubt. W/CDC's and FDA's fraudulent use of arbitrary cycle thresholds, tap water and pineapples have tested positive. It's criminal.
I thought in no-virus diction, those are then not viruses but exosomes?
You're too picky about definitions and names. ;)
For some. For others, no viruses have been isolated, purified, yadda, yadda.... all incorrect.
First, you can readily find them on your own.
Nevetheless,
Here are some studies that provide precisely the data - of myriad types - that you need.
Click through these resources and read the cited studies before your respond. "You provided a random list of links, all I asked for was an experiment" is a non-response that will show you are not willing to read the studies cited. These are specifically searched for by me, for you. If you don't read them, then there is no reason for me to take you seriously.
We call that "academic sloth". Happy reading. The evidence is right in front of you.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2018.00460/full#:~:text=The%20genome%20of%20VZV%20consists,regulated%20by%20cascade%2Dlike%20processes.
https://viralzone.expasy.org/3970?outline=all_by_species
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27806689/
https://www.oncotarget.com/article/4187/text/
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.01169-10
https://rupress.org/jem/article/208/3/605/41057/Herpesvirus-telomeric-repeats-facilitate-genomic
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijg/2016/2168590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120651/
If you take the time to just look at the Materials and Methods section of just your first link, you'll notice the legitimate problems the so called virus deniers have with all of the so called evidence provided thus far, which is no real isolation of a virus and no control experiment not showing a cytopathic effect of the uninoculated cell culture.
Here is a shortened/edited version of it.
Human cell line (MRC5) put into nourishment mix supplemented with an antibiotic/antimycotic solution (no effect on MRC5 we hope) and 10% fetal bovine serum (Franken science?). The live attenuated OKA/Merck strain of varicella zoster virus (VZV) (just kicking the can down the road assuming OKA/Merck did a proper isolation of that "virus") was cultured in MRC5 cell line (i.e. the ridiculous Franken-mix mentioned above), and the cells were harvested by trypsinization (the most popular detachment technique, even though it reduces viability due to the damage to the membrane and extracellular matrix), when the monolayers had displayed near 80% specific cytopathic changes.
How would anyone be able to infer anything of value from sequencing anything out of the above Franken-mix?
Yes, they do. Here, in the comments on other articles, and in direct emails to me. No moving the goal post now... they need to back up what they say with explanations why we see the same viral proteins multiple ways... I'll wait....
What exactly are you trying to say? That some peptides aren't expected to match some RNA found in the same piece of snot?
Your comment is fallacious. There is no evidence to suggest what you are asserting. None. Zero. And there is no real logic, no sound reasoning.
A.I. bots
Explain the purpose of putting spikes on exosomes. (NB: Many viruses lack spikes.)
This is incorrect. I am the one that states viruses are created by cells for a purpose and are not contagious. They are not. They do not believe even structured particles exist and state that any particles observed are mere cellular debris.
www.virusesarenotcontagious.com
That sort of "viruses" (the not-contagious sort) are exosomes.
Exosomes are different entities than viruses altogether. Viruses are intelligent protein structures created by cells. They have mathematical structures. Exosomes, on the other hand, are vesicles that bud from cells and serve as a cargo holder for cellular parts, and also serve as intermediaries between cells. Exosomes are made of cell lipids and have no rigid structure like viruses. Their 'structure' is akin to a drop of oil in water.
There are many more differences I could note that prove viruses and exosomes are different entities.
Why then was this never part of the training for doctors, nurses or mid levels? Why did we not participate in labs where we learned how this works what the machines are-look like even??
If viruses are such an integral part of pathology, it just seems we should have spent some time on learning the methods to conclude that.
Now we have the conundrum that you may understand what you are saying but it is meaningless to most others.
How about a course where we get to see the lab, the machines and the techniques.
I mean UPMC has suites for family to view surgical procedures so why if we can do that we cannot see how you or others do what you do......
well, since you've used the word "doofuses", you must be right.
Huh?
I don't know, Tracy. Pitt has a Genomics & Proteomics Core Laboratory and UPCI had a proteomics mass-spec lab, too.
Nurses and Doctors have enough on their plate learning diagnostic and treatment protocols.
YESSSS!!!! (Pumping fist in air.) I have two long-time friends who were courageous, articulate and admirable advocates of ending water fluoridation on grounds of impeccable scientific evidence of harm to health and downstream aquatic environment plus the blatantly obvious violation of ethical principles of informed consent. One is Christine Massey who inexplicably has abandoned her formerly credible intellect to say that viruses and virology don't exist. The other now says the earth is flat. There is no figuring that out.
Aliss, fluoride and and aluminum synergistic toxicity is one of my gravest concerns. Check out my course on Environmental Toxicology - http://ipak-edu.org/ - 21 lectures. Giving a talk Sunday on this.
I hope you can convince Chris Exley that fluoride and aluminum are synergistically toxic. I tried a few year ago and failed.
As someone with a BSc in molecular biology and an open mid I have gone down a few of the rabbit holes.
I think there is a spectrum of beliefs all the way to "viruses don't exist". Some of this is well poisioning in my opinion, to make the covid skeptics look stupid ("flat earthers are conspiracy theorists therefore Epstein Island shouldn't be looked into" type stuff).
- PCR tests don't show active infection and can be misused.
- Everything within 28 days of an unreliable positive test is classed as a covid death.
- Testing numbers vary wildly and can be used to generate the numbers that politicians want to see.
I think all of those statements are true.
As far as I am aware there is no conclusive proof that the virus being sequenced is the causative agent of covid (happy to look into any evidence provided).
Drosten's test was pretty much guesswork as I understand it. Took the previous SARS genome, tweaked it a bit, sent it to China until he got some matches and declared it a "gold standard". Flu has disappeared for 2 and a half years. (Though I saw at one point the UK was testing for covid 1000x more than for the flu - false positives alone would be more than the total number of flu tests done).
When combined all of the above statements make it far less conclusive that the tests are actually meaningful.
Low vitamin D is a big factor in severe covid. Covid symptoms vary massively, from asymptomatic, to fever, coughs, heart issues, death. 1 in 6 common colds is caused by a coronavirus.
When combined I can see the reason "viruses don't exist" made traction, though a lot of people are probably like me in doubting the certainty of the science about covid being the causal agent of whatever has been going around. This gets exaggerated by people with less understanding of biology than me and gets turned into viruses don't exist.
Then there is the terrain theory and viruses being exosomes, the result of illness not the cause. I haven't looked into this in any depth, but it seems plausible. Other problems with the germ theory are outbreaks of colds in isolated antarctic research stations. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2536217/
I think it's fair to say we don't understand viral transmission anywhere near as well as "the experts" claim to.
Like I say, if anyone has good evidence that counters my points above, I am more than willing to look at them evidence and update my opinion, just as I have done in the last two and a half years to reach my current opinions, which are a lot less sure than what I was taught in a 4 year degree in a related subject.
Yes, they fudged the data on the use of PCR to favor fear. I was on that in May 2020.
https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2021/01/31/follow-the-science-not-mere-authority-on-covid19-pcr-false-positive-rates/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzG7MA6WKWA
Fauci conceded 6 mos ago on died w/ vs. died from - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSinMXJukMA
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/01/us-hhs-and-fda-opt-for-arbitrary-perpetual-diagnosis-of-covid19/
Youtube knows better though.
There's a grand jury investigation on the real issues with the fraudulent use of RT-PCR w/out calibrating controls.
There's an ASTOUNDING DEARTH of published experiments that address the issue of transmission - and the reported results are basically inconclusive at best.
FACT: Negative results don't get published - especially when they don't support the institutionalized dogma of I.G. Farben, et. al. It's literally suicidal to go against the grain in this vrilogy death cult.
If this crownvirus theory were so unimpeachable, then one would expect to see names of journals, like: "The Journal of Virus Transmission". Cuz who would want to leave the issue of transmission as an unattended scientific line of inquiry? Amiright?
Can't catch them in exhaled breath - even by PCR's overclocked to 45 CT - cuz the buggers fly too fast.
That's also why the face diapers aren't treated like biohazard waste. The buggers don't get caught in the face diaper because as soon as they see an obstacle, they fly in reverse gear.
Regarding the disappearance/diminishing of influenza, there's evidence for interference or competition between viruses:
"COVID-19 Shuts Doors to Flu but Keeps Them Open to Rhinoviruses"
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/10/8/733/htm
"It is well known that rhinoviruses are distributed across the globe and are the most common cause of the common cold in all age groups. Rhinoviruses are widely considered to be harmless because they are generally perceived as respiratory viruses only capable of causing mild disease. However, they may also infect the lower respiratory tract, inducing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and exacerbations of asthma, bronchiolitis, etc. The role of rhinoviruses in pathogenesis and the epidemiological process is underestimated, and they need to be intensively studied. In the light of recent data, it is now known that rhinoviruses could be one of the key epidemiological barriers that may influence the spread of influenza and novel coronaviruses. It has been reported that endemic human rhinoviruses delayed the development of the H1N1pdm09 influenza pandemic through viral interference. Moreover, human rhinoviruses have been suggested to block SARS-CoV-2 replication in the airways by triggering an interferon response. In this review, we summarized the main biological characteristics of genetically distinct viruses such as rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, and SARS-CoV-2 in an attempt to illuminate their main discrepancies and similarities. We hope that this comparative analysis will help us to better understand in which direction research in this area should move."
"Viral Interference between Respiratory Viruses"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8798701/
"Multiple respiratory viruses can concurrently or sequentially infect the respiratory tract and lead to virus‒virus interactions. Infection by a first virus could enhance or reduce infection and replication of a second virus, resulting in positive (additive or synergistic) or negative (antagonistic) interaction. The concept of viral interference has been demonstrated at the cellular, host, and population levels. The mechanisms involved in viral interference have been evaluated in differentiated airway epithelial cells and in animal models susceptible to the respiratory viruses of interest. A likely mechanism is the interferon response that could confer a temporary nonspecific immunity to the host. During the coronavirus disease pandemic, nonpharmacologic interventions have prevented the circulation of most respiratory viruses. Once the sanitary restrictions are lifted, circulation of seasonal respiratory viruses is expected to resume and will offer the opportunity to study their interactions, notably with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2."
—Kind of a mixed-bag approach, really.
"Editorial: Interference of COVID-19 and Influenza Infections"
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.818199/full
Not a research paper, but their editorial on the interactions. I include this because it does show how the establishment narrative explains the interference: namely, the proactive measures (PPE, social distancing, &c) taken during the early stages of the pandemic reduced the likelihoods for influenza to infect people. Something to consider, and this editorial links to papers purporting to demonstrate how the emergency measures succeeded —in reducing influenza *but not* SARS-CoV-2.
I recall seeing someone, such as Ethical Skeptic or or someone doing similar work, drawing out the competitive/interference aspects, but I cannot find the right search combinations to narrow down where I saw this.
PPE has a differential effect on diagnosis because the crownvirus flies faster than the rhinovirus.
Everybody knows rhinos can't fly.
Dude, either prove them wrong or let it go. It’s a bad look either way. A fucking nerd war. Ugh.
You keep twisting what Lanka and Kaufman and Cowan are saying to suit your narrative. I have never read a single article or listened to a single interview by one of them where they say viruses don’t exist. They say pathogenic viruses exist. They agree to finding proteins.
They disagree that putting a specimen into bovine calf serum and antibiotics and green monkey cells and witnessing cell death is proof of a pathogenic virus. I’m a doctor in a different field and can’t see how anyone can justify this kind of fuckery as legitimate science.
Mixing a bunch of shit together, watching it decay, and blaming it on the “virus”? Sorry, bubs. You’re obviously very smart and cannot help if you were sold lies. It’s not too late to get to the bottom of it.
"Mixing a bunch of shit together, watching it decay, and blaming it on the “virus”? " I literally have no idea what you're talking about, because the pathogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been studied at the whole-animal level and its effects on infected cells have been characterized. Far too many studies to cite, if you're a doctor than you have find the studies. But in case you won't: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.01368-21
Mate, fundamental misunderstandings abound in your logic.
It’s not that these sequences do not exist, obviously proteins sequences exist, it’s that the particles themselves are not in fact “pathologically contagious” and have never been scientifically proven to be so.
Before getting all excited and name-cally at least get your fundamentals consistent..
SARS-CoV-2 is contagious and is a pathogen. Far too many studies to cite, try searching Pubmed a while.
Oh right, because the methods of virological isolation and eventual contagion demonstration are not the mechanisms in which artifacts are produced and said particles are conflated with effects of poisonous adjuvants…got it.
James, I implore you to delve deeper into the issue of so-called disease transmission and why this facet of virology is illusory in nature. You are correct in your assertions that viruses are indeed real, but you need to study deeper the mechanisms by which disease occurs in organisms, and how viruses play a role therein to reverse a toxic disease state. I have been reading your comments and I can tell that you are approaching this from a rational standpoint in many ways, so this is why I am leaving you this comment in the hope of changing your perspective. You are right in attempting to correct the 'no-virus' group.
Do not casually disregard what I am imparting to you now. Your argument will be strengthened in your favor if you understand that viruses are created wholly by cells as enzymatic solvents, and by understanding that science indeed agrees with what I will assert below.
The illusion of viral transmission in normal life is so because of the ever-changing nature of atmospheric conditions which inform cellular expression mechanisms. As such, cells will biochemically alter their behavior due to cyclical atmospheric changes, such as seasonal changes, humidity, temperature, and barometric pressure. One behavior that occurs from this is the dumping of toxins by cells into the blood when the time is ideal. If toxins are overtly poisonous to living microbes, like bacteria and living cells (like phagocytes), cells will begin to produce and multiply viruses of a particular type, depending upon the tissue of the area involved. Viruses enzymatically hydrolyze—that is, dissolve via proteolytic enzymes [proteases] via mRNA-activated glycoproteins, known as spike proteins. As well, viruses dilute via water (catalysis), the bonds that hold objects together.
Without viruses, the body would not have a fighting chance to remove insoluble toxins from the body, such as plastic, industrial pollutants, and more. A strong solvent is needed in order to do so. Throughout my research, I have established that viruses are this solvent. Viruses are the only entity created by cells that are replicated to such a high level to be able to circumvent widespread toxicity.
I provide studies from Harvard and other sources in the following article that describe the science of the true nature of viruses and why they are so important to life: https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/science-confirms-my-writings-on-viruses
Harvard Medicine magazine states, in part, that:
"Records spanning millennia tell of unusual cases where infection with what we now know to be viruses that cause diseases such as influenza, chicken pox, and measles temporarily beat back people’s cancers."
"Viruses basically regulate ecology and biogeochemistry on a global level. From the origins of life to technologies that preserve it, learning about viruses can transform people’s opinions on what once seemed like straightforward agents of disease and death."
This should certainly sound much more reasonable and likely to you than merely claiming that "no viruses exist", yes?
And there is so much more evidence to prove my assertions. Since this is a limited space, do check out my other articles on Substack and my website. - https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/ - https://virusesarenotcontagious.com/
Very well written explanation of complex phenomena, Jeff. ***subscribed ***
"No legacy is so rich as honesty."- written by Shakespeare not Hershel Walker.
Wish I understood this aspect of science. I find Shakespeare easier.
Thanks, I tried.
I always learn from Dr. Jame's newsletters and classes at https://ipak-edu.org . Thank you.
Doctor, how do you respond to Dr Kary Mullis’s assertions about the use of his PCR?
Also, isn’t it possible to believe or know that a virus exists but that it may not be the sole culprit of the disease? Could it be that conditions are favorable for virus to replicate in a host/to incur disease? Is medicine/Science looking at the big picture?
PCR alone gives non-specific amplificaltion (copies) of off-target sequences. RT-PCR, when done right, restricts consideration to results that are generated w/lower rounds of his polymerase chain reaction cycles. The RT-PCR method used w/SARS-CoV-2 is flawed given the FDA and CDC allow the use of arbitrary cycle #s and no internal positive control. Sanger sequencing has in fact confirm SARS-CoV-2 in some RT-PCR positive samples, per Dr. Sin Hang Lee. (published), confirming the false positive rates seen in other studies.
What do you think that the 'false positive' rate of the SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR is?
Mullis is wrong.
I'm sure that if you understand the technology behind PCR and how analytical methods work, you would see that as well.
This is just a cognitive infiltration DDOS attack. Ignore them.
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion
These idiots beg a quick calculator to play blackjack with them.
Proof right in their face, and they prevaricate, move goalposts, twist words.