DeadBite

.

On 5/22/2020 at 1:24 PM, partington said:

Well I wondered what your obsession with "filtering" was! Filtering is the wrong word for what you were trying to say, and as you now use the right word "isolating", I'm still puzzled, even though English may be your second language, why you kept saying "filtering" which didn't really make sense.

 

I can tell from the nature of your response that you have pre-decided to follow conspiracy/ fake news rather than objectively assess the facts, so I'm not trying to convince you in the following- you are immunised against facts!  

 

For anyone who is interested briefly here is how the SARs Cov-2 virus was isolated and identified in China.

 

Liquid samples were taken from nasal passages/lungs of patients suffering from the new pneumonia-like disease.  These were placed on cultures of airway epithelial cells in dishes and the dishes were monitored for signs of cell death or toxicity, signalling infection and replication by a disease causing organism. Cells from dishes showing these signs were collected.

 

Some were examined under electron microscopy and showed that spiked coronavirus particles were present.  Others were used in next generation sequencing and a complete genome sequence was obtained. When compared with the known database this sequence was found to be a new coronavirus, clearly related to but different from, other known coronaviruses.

 

 

Cell media from cultured cells infected with this virus could be shown to reproducibly infect and kill cells in other dishes by serial passaging, and the same genomic sequence and viral particles were also shown to be always present in these cells but never in uninfected healthy cells grown in identical dishes at the same time.

You can describe the procedure all you want.

The genetic material you got is either from exosomes, or genetic material that has been produced in a diseased tissue from bacteria, fungi or the cell's reaction to toxins..
You want to call it "virus", it doesn't make it a virus until you prove it scientifically. PCR replicates DNA, does not prove the existence of virus.

The rest of us are realizing the danger Virology is putting us, and we say enough.
Keep studying viruses and vaccines, but keep them in your lab, otherwise you do more harm than good.

13 hours ago, partington said:

All your "facts" are absolutely wrong and must derive from some fake news site for the gullible.

 

Intact viruses are cultured from samples from infected people all the time and are the basis of many routine hospital tests.  They were first seen intact using electron microscopes in 1939. 

 

   "Other historical electron microscopic observations have led to the discovery of new viruses. In 1948, differences between the virus that causes smallpox and the virus that causes chicken pox were demonstrated by EM (62, 92). The first image of poliovirus was taken in 1952 (74), and virus-host relationships began to be studied in the mid-1950s'  

 

  Below is a picture of  monkey immunodeficiency viruses inside a cell with its coating and spikes visible - both quote and picture taken from Goldsmith CS, Miller SE. Modern uses of electron microscopy for detection of viruses. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22(4):552‐563. doi:10.1128/CMR.00027-09

 

It doesn't matter what PCR was invented for: it is now a tool with countless uses in molecular biology. For example every DNA fingerprinting test in criminal cases uses PCR, even though that is not what it was invented "for".

 

Why you are obsessed with filtering must also derive from some nonsense fake news site, I'm guessing.  Filters to remove viruses, for example from tissue culture fluid or from drug preparations are available from any biosciences supplier.  A trade ad for one is also shown below.

 

Are you kidding me? By filtering I mean isolating the virus. The machine you show me does nothing like that.
You are the gullible one for believing we have an electron microscope image of a virus!!! Many particles in our bodies have coating and spikes, no need to baptize them virus.

1 hour ago, partington said:

You are talking through your hat, and literally jumbling up words and ideas in a nonsensical mess that is completely incorrect.

 

Firstly a virus can be considered not to be alive because it needs the aid of living cell to reproduce-it can do nothing on its own.

 

So the way you grow viruses on a tissue culture dish is firstly, to cover that dish with a continuous layer of living cells, easily grown in a lab. You then add a solution of viruses to that cell culture. The viruses attach to individual cells and inject their RNA. This RNA takes over the cells and makes them make thousands of copies of the virus. The cells burst releasing the new viruses. They infect surrounding cells. You can often see this happening, because a clear ring of burst cells appears in the cloudy layer of intact cells where one virus has infected , burst the cell and infected all the cells around it. Eventually after all the cells burst, the liquid covering them has billions more viruses in it than you put in, because they have reproduced. You can collect and study these.

 

Now, part of a virus is RNA, it is inside the virus body. This is what you can detect by PCR. It is not random, it is very specific, and all PCR tests contain samples which are known not to have SARS-CoV- 2 in them (ideally containing a closely related but different virus) to ensure that any positives are really positive SARS-CoV- 2 RNA - the test is discarded if positives are picked up in the negative sample.

 

Now any SARS-CoV- 2 RNA found in sample from a human patient by PCR MUST have come from a SARS-CoV- 2 virus. However it could come from an 1. intact virus capable of infecting other people and reproducing, or it could come from 2. disintegrated virus partially destroyed by the body's immune system and not capable of infection if added to other cells or 3.  A human cell which is in mid-infection and is full of virus components including RNA which haven't been assembled. If you just add virus  RNA to cells it won't infect because infectious ability needs a whole intact virus, not just the RNA part.

 

So it is not a puzzle or unclear: PCR detects part of the virus - RNA- very specifically and accurately. That can come from an intact virus that is still contagious, or from viruses that are broken up and not functional-for example from a human who has beaten the infection but not yet cleared all the bits of broken virus from their body.

How do you know you have a solution of virus if you have not isolated the virus yet?
You have a solution with a disease, with many particles that you can baptize as virus inside.

By using PCR you amplify a specific genetic sequence that you found in a body,  not in a "virus" as you have not isolated it in order to sequence it.

PCR was invented to replicate DNA, not to be used to detect "virus".
Its inventor, who won a Nobel prize for this invention, was clearly against using PCR to detect "virus".

You repeat many times the word "intact virus".

PCR does not detect the genetic material of any intact virus.
No advanced microscope has ever seen any intact virus, and it has not be filtered in any way yet.

It is a wrong concept from the 18th century that makes more harm than good.

From what we know disease is caused from bacteria, fungi, toxic reactions and even psychological reasons, not from virus.

7 hours ago, faraday said:

You really do need to check before posting.

 

Viruses can be cultured.

 

https://microbiologyinfo.com/techniques-of-virus-cultivation/

faraday, I admit my post before was a bit of a salad, but there was a point I was trying to make, so let me try again.

You either filter or use or use a petri dish culture to isolate biological material (PCR technique isolates genetic material, but the question is what genetic material)

Why should Virology be allowed to use a tissue sample, and the genetic material found in that tissue, in order to state that it has isolated a virus?

If it can't be filtered, and it can't grow on a petri dish because "the virus is not alive", then we have to discard Virology instead of finding "viruses" in any random strand of RNA or particle we encounter in our bodies.

Disease is serious enough, wrong diagnosis and treatment is deadly.

8 minutes ago, DeadBite said:

 

@faraday the article even begins with a big lie:

1. To isolate and identify viruses in clinical samples

Aren't they shy?

2 hours ago, faraday said:

You really do need to check before posting.

 

Viruses can be cultured.

 

https://microbiologyinfo.com/techniques-of-virus-cultivation/

Yes, exosomes and other RNA present in our bodies (from bacteria, fungus, toxic reactions) can be cultured (or rather grown on a tissue, not exactly cultured)
In other words they culture the disease, not the theoretical virus.

Please paste the paragraphs you think most clearly describe that what grows in that culture is a virus, and not an exosome or some free roaming RNA that was present in the fluid they shot the animal.


 

ZERO scientific evidence that the boxing stadium helped "spread the virus"

4 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

"Scientists from the Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied 285 Covid-19 survivors who had tested positive for the coronavirus after their illness had apparently resolved, as indicated by a previous negative test result. The so-called re-positive patients weren’t found to have spread any lingering infection, and virus samples collected from them couldn’t be grown in culture, indicating the patients were shedding non-infectious or dead virus particles."

Viruses cannot be grown in culture, only bacteria and fungi can.
And this is one of the main reasons that science has never been able to isolate the "virus"

An by the way, the guy who invented this genetic procedure that is now used as a test for CORONA (PRC testing), wrote a forward to a book that dealt with how HIV does not cause AIDS.

Think about that!

13 hours ago, Stygge said:

Testing is the key.

 

Testing is the key to create false positives and false negatives, give the wrong drugs to the wrong people and put respirators to already old and sick people and help them die quicker, with cause of death stated: COVID.
Thank God we did not all get tested for HIV, otherwise half of us might be taking antiviral drugs now.

Any success vaccinations may have had in the past, is not because of the correctness of the virus theory, it is because injecting a weakened form of the disease to society provides eventually herd immunity!

@nauseus seen them too, these are whole cells

We only have theoretical graphs of viruses, they have never been isolated.
Virology claims to have isolated the viruses through genetics, but it is a false claim with catastrophic consequences.

Science expected to see the virus through the microscope, but it couldn't, even with the more advanced ones invented later.
The next "proof" for the existence of the virus came through genetics.

The narrative is that the virus is still too small to be seen, but can be detected through it's genes (that can be seen)

The science of genetics is sound, however the use of genetics by virology is not sound.

(Those pictures show no virus, I checked them already)

16 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

No Boll weevils even..?

 

You are a scientist?Hot on the trail of the evil virus and its cure?

 

Full marks to you then...you might get a Nobel Prize one day.

 

However,even if you do not,I am very sure that you will give it your best shot...

You are trying to be ironic with me? You should be ashamed of yourself that in this day and age you cannot produce a picture of something you talk so surely about.
The invisible radio waves can be shown given the appropriate receiver, the invisible atom can give energy when split, where is the scientific breakthrough that proves the virus existence? There is none, it’s all based on faulty 1800’s science.
There is disease, but Virology is still just a theory. 

29 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Ah..boy...

 

'Tis a public forum how ,on earth,could I possibly silence you?

 

How are things going in the land of cotton?

You keep searching for the cotton boy, I have more serious endeavors: like finding out if science has really ever isolated a virus!

4 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Who are you calling "boy"-my friend?

 

Fresh from Dixie are you?

 

Otherwise i will treat your nonsensical post with unfailing good humour..as I always do.

Next time if you don’t understand something, carry on and don’t insult, or try to silence me and prove me “nonsensical” by showing me the microscope picture of any virus you like

2 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Ah..there speaks the voice of rampant intelligence...

 

i am beginning to think that the Tralfamadoreans are-not so stealthily-trying to take over the planet.

Where is the picture boy?

Even geriatrickid cannot post a good microscope picture of a virus, no matter how long his paragraphs are. Virology is a science with no balls, which is becoming dangerous.

There is disease, but no viral disease.

Virology is becoming a hell of a business and influence, without having the scientific balls to earn such a recognition.

Can anyone post the best microscope image we have of a well known virus?

As far as I know, viruses cannot be isolated like bacteria and fungi. Therefore it could be that some diseases that we cannot categorize as bacterial, fungal etc. we categorize as viral.. an invisible unknown enemy, a kind of magic ????

Fully legalize all plants, heavily control all refined/synthetic drugs and hard liquor.

Learn to make the alcohol by yourself. We need the fields for better things than massively produce the drug of choice of alcoholics.

Antisocial drugs like meth, heroin and alcohol should be heavily controlled. Drugs that can be grown should be free.

The control of the South China Sea has cost the West a lot of blood. The Chinese will have to fight for any further concession, they should realize that the Hong Kong contract was an exception to the rule: land is never given back for free.