Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

Here.. tell us what is wrong with this step in isolating a virus for sequencing? (From the last link that shows the specific steps.)

Primer design and one-step RT-PCR.

A “pan”-HIV-1 primer set for the amplification of HIV-1 genomes of all groups and subtypes was designed based on 1,496 sequences of the 2009 “Web alignment” from the Los Alamos HIV Sequence Database (Table 1). One-step RT-PCRs generating overlapping amplicons of 1.9 kb, 3.6 kb, 3 kb, and 3.5 kb were performed by using a SuperScriptIII One-Step RT-PCR system with Platinum Taq DNA High Fidelity polymerase (Invitrogen). Each 25-μl reaction mixture contained 12.5 μl reaction mix (2×), 4.5 μl RNase-free water, 1 μl each of each primer (20 pmol/μl), 1 μl SuperScriptIII RT/Platinum Taq High Fidelity mix, and 5 μl of template RNA. Cycling conditions were 50°C for 30 min; 94°C for 2 min; 35 cycles of 94°C for 15 s, 58°C for 30 s, and 68°C for 4 min 30 s; and, finally, 68°C for 10 min. Amplicons were verified by agarose gel electrophoresis and quantified by using Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA reagent (Invitrogen).

A lot of technical terms there, but have you noticed that that terms such as isolate or isolation were not mentioned once? I also note that the paper is talking about the alleged AIDS virus, HIV. Here's a link I personally find quite revealing:
http://www.newscastmedia.com/aids-hoax.html

Quoting from it:
**
Newscast Media -- It has been dubbed the incurable disease caused by an elusive virus called the HIV/AIDS virus. However, scientists have presented compelling evidence showing that HIV/AIDS is nothing more than a pseudo-science hoax and the real culprits are the AIDS medications like AZT that do more harm than good.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that every case of AIDS includes one of the 29 pre-existing illnesses that were defined by the CDC. These include the three additional conditions namely: Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and Cervical cancer that were added on October 28, 1992. James Curran, CDC's associate director for AIDS justified the addition by saying, "We expect this expansion to result in more comprehensive monitoring of the epidemic of HIV infection and related disease in the United States." Click here to download entire 16 page PDF. *(See Page 9 for full list.)

What is most remarkable is that the addition of just those three categories brought in an additional 160,000 HIV-infected people who were not yet seriously ill and were not now considered to have AIDS. With these additions Virologists, researchers, and clinics can now receive huge grants and funding for research. We can therefore make the inference that AIDS is not a new disease, it is simply a collection of designated illnesses already known to the scientific community and the general public.

Notice that none of the 29 AIDS illnesses are new and none appear exclusively in people who test positive for HIV antibodies.
**

Full article:
AIDS Hoax: The truth behind the virus that never was | newscastmedia.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

A lot of technical terms there, but have you noticed that that terms such as isolate or isolation were not mentioned once? I also note that the paper is talking about the alleged AIDS virus, HIV. Here's a link I personally find quite revealing:
http://www.newscastmedia.com/aids-hoax.html

Quoting from it:
**
Newscast Media -- It has been dubbed the incurable disease caused by an elusive virus called the HIV/AIDS virus. However, scientists have presented compelling evidence showing that HIV/AIDS is nothing more than a pseudo-science hoax and the real culprits are the AIDS medications like AZT that do more harm than good.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that every case of AIDS includes one of the 29 pre-existing illnesses that were defined by the CDC. These include the three additional conditions namely: Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and Cervical cancer that were added on October 28, 1992. James Curran, CDC's associate director for AIDS justified the addition by saying, "We expect this expansion to result in more comprehensive monitoring of the epidemic of HIV infection and related disease in the United States." Click here to download entire 16 page PDF. *(See Page 9 for full list.)

What is most remarkable is that the addition of just those three categories brought in an additional 160,000 HIV-infected people who were not yet seriously ill and were not now considered to have AIDS. With these additions Virologists, researchers, and clinics can now receive huge grants and funding for research. We can therefore make the inference that AIDS is not a new disease, it is simply a collection of designated illnesses already known to the scientific community and the general public.

Notice that none of the 29 AIDS illnesses are new and none appear exclusively in people who test positive for HIV antibodies.
**

Full article:
AIDS Hoax: The truth behind the virus that never was | newscastmedia.com

ROFLMAO. SO because they don't use the word "isolate" you think the process doesn't exist? Have you performed the process yourself? Can you show us that the process doesn't work? You claimed viruses can't be isolated. I give you a scientific article that explains in detail how the virus is prepared for sequencing and you complain that is is a the HIV virus? You clearly aren't interested in an honest scientific discussion. You are only interested in denying science every change you get.

Then in response to a scientific article that gives the exact process, you post bullshit from conspiracy theory that has no science in it. Denial is all you have at this point.

The article you quoted from is from 2010 and the author challenges anyone to provide an electron microscope picture of the HIV virus.
Here is that picture from 2012 proving your author was wrong.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I strongly disagree.



You have certainly given me multiple links. I've asked you to actually quote portions of them that you deem relevant as I do with my links instead of just linking to them. I strongly suspect that at this point, you're just copying and pasting links you'd already linked to previously. The reason I say this is because a lot of your links are dead, which is something that happens when you copy and paste long links from a forum such as this one, due to the forum shortening them.

You have repeatedly posted the link to ONE article by Davis. I posted links to over a dozen scientific articles that dispute Davis' bullshit and then you complain that I have been reposting links just not quite as often as you have. Thanks for playing the idiot card.

Are you unable to read science articles? Do you think not reading them or discussing them makes your argument stronger? It only proves you don't have any evidence and can't support your bullshit.
The fact that the process is given to sequence a virus doesn't use the word "isolate" doesn't mean the process doesn't isolate the virus.
The fact that the process uses a computer to assemble sequences to create the RNA sequence of the organism doesn't mean the computer is guessing.
You are simply throwing out bullshit over and over and over. The same 2 articles (Davis and Bailey) that are nothing but conspiracy that doesn't address the actual science.

Viruses have been sequenced over a million times by over 100 labs. I have given you the links to the database that contains many of those sequences. The database also contains the DNA sequences of many organisms including humans. They all use similar techniques to find the sequence. You simply ignore the evidence and keep linking to the Davis bullshit and claim you only want to talk about that.


Let me know if any of the following links don't work. How can I provide so many scientific articles that talk specifics about how to sequence viruses and you can't provide a single science article proving them wrong?

Evidence of the covid virus being isolated and sequenced.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X20304274
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366528/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-020-03899-4

Evidence of other viruses being isolated and sequenced.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-020-03899-4
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/professionals/genetic-characterization.htm
https://asm.org/Articles/2020/October/SARS-CoV-2-Sequencing-Data-The-Devil-Is-in-the-Gen
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0572
https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/b...ng-the-monkeypox-genome-with-ion-torrent-ngs/

Directions of how to isolate a virus and sequence it's RNA
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682219300728
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2016.182
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709572/
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-017-0741-5
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027805
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01360-14
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502977/

 

[Into the Night]

I have seen no evidence that any lab has ever isolated this alleged Cov 2 virus.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

Not sure why you think pointing out relevant facts of this discussion is "trolling". Feel free to try to explain.

He already did.

 

[Into the Night]

If you're not interested in either looking up your own previous answer

Burden fallacy.

or answering it again,

RQAA.

I suspect that your previous answer (assuming you did answer) wasn't particularly persuasive.

How would you know? You claim to not remember it!

Agreed, but I think you should be a bit more concerned here. Essentially, we can all define words and compound terms the way we like, but if no one else defines them the way you do, communication will break down between you and others. This actually happened to me with a former friend I had who insisted that abortion should be defined as murder even though all the dictionary definitions I've seen don't define it that way.

Random incoherent phrases.

You've now sunken to direct insults. I think I'll stop here.

If you consider illiteracy an insult, then do something about it. Go learn.

 

[Into the Night]

I'd argue that that I've looked at the evidence a lot more than most. Now, do you have actual evidence that viruses exist or is making assertions without backing them up the best you can do?

Paradox. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

I suspect you weren't following the conversation here. As can be seen from my comment a few posts back above, this whole sub discussion here started when I suggested that PRS start quoting information in his links that he felt was relevant as I do instead of just repeating them endlessly.

Strawman fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I think it best we agree to disagree on that one.

Cliche fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, I have. It looks like you haven't, at least not the important part...

**
Louis Pasteur’s Work

In the early 1860s, Louis Pasteur gained his celebrity scientist position by popularizing germ theory. His process of experimentation included finding sick people, isolating the bacterium (so he claimed), and giving the “pure” culture to animals — typically by injecting it into their brains. When the animals inevitably became sick, Pasteur claimed successful infection and disease caused by bacteria.

Historian Dr. Gerald Geison investigated Pasteur’s work by comparing his personal notebooks to his published papers. Of his findings, he wrote in 1995 in his book The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, “During his lifetime, Pasteur permitted absolutely no one — not even his closest co-workers — to inspect his notes… [He] arranged with his family that the books should also remain closed to all even after his death.”

Truly, it’s remarkable that anyone could have taken an ounce of Pasteur’s science seriously with this level of secrecy shrouding his work. Scientific theories require reproducibility by unbiased third parties, and Pasteur did not allow anyone to see his notes, double check his conclusions based on his own data, or perform their own duplications of his work to confirm accuracy.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that Pasteur deliberately deceived those with whom he shared his work, scientists and the public alike.

We only know the intimate details of Pasteur’s work now because one of his grandsons ignored his wishes and donated Pasteur’s notebooks to the French national library in 1914, making them available for public viewing.

These notebooks revealed the extensive fraud that Pasteur had committed in his studies.

His claims of purifying bacteria cultures for his studies were false, as that was an impossible task at the time. The Contagion Myth by Thomas S. Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell reveals “the only way [Pasteur] could transfer disease was to either insert the whole infected tissue into another animal (he would sometimes inject ground-up brains of an animal into the brain of another animal to “prove” contagion) or resort to adding poisons to his culture which he knew would cause the symptoms in the recipients.”
**

Full article:
Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com

Fallacy fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I strongly disagree.



You have certainly given me multiple links. I've asked you to actually quote portions of them that you deem relevant as I do with my links instead of just linking to them. I strongly suspect that at this point, you're just copying and pasting links you'd already linked to previously. The reason I say this is because a lot of your links are dead, which is something that happens when you copy and paste long links from a forum such as this one, due to the forum shortening them.

Paradox.

 

[Scott]

It is incredibly relevant. If the Cov 2 virus has never been isolated and its sequence merely guessed at by a computer, it points to the fact that the evidence that the Cov 2 virus exists at all is incredibly flimsy.

You get the evidence even more wrong than Davis does.

You haven't shown any evidence that Davis has gotten anything wrong.

The sequence is not done by a computer program guessing. It is done by taking genetic sequences that overlap and figuring out how they go together.

You clearly didn't read Iain Davis article in depth. Quoting from it:

**
The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian


I imagine you don't know what de novo assembly is. I certainly didn't before Iain's article. Iain Davis helpfully provides a link above that goes to a page that defines the various types of de novo assembly. Here's one of them that essentially is saying what I just said above:

**

Assembly Algorithms

There are many de novo assembly algorithms and software applications available for Next Generation sequencing projects. For small genome assembly (i.e. bacterial scale genomes) our clients often use Spades and Geneious but may use other tools if it’s more appropriate.
**

Source:
What is de novo assembly? | thesequencingcenter.com

 

[Scott]

A lot of technical terms there, but have you noticed that that terms such as isolate or isolation were not mentioned once? I also note that the paper is talking about the alleged AIDS virus, HIV. Here's a link I personally find quite revealing:
http://www.newscastmedia.com/aids-hoax.html

Quoting from it:
**
Newscast Media -- It has been dubbed the incurable disease caused by an elusive virus called the HIV/AIDS virus. However, scientists have presented compelling evidence showing that HIV/AIDS is nothing more than a pseudo-science hoax and the real culprits are the AIDS medications like AZT that do more harm than good.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that every case of AIDS includes one of the 29 pre-existing illnesses that were defined by the CDC. These include the three additional conditions namely: Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and Cervical cancer that were added on October 28, 1992. James Curran, CDC's associate director for AIDS justified the addition by saying, "We expect this expansion to result in more comprehensive monitoring of the epidemic of HIV infection and related disease in the United States." Click here to download entire 16 page PDF. *(See Page 9 for full list.)

What is most remarkable is that the addition of just those three categories brought in an additional 160,000 HIV-infected people who were not yet seriously ill and were not now considered to have AIDS. With these additions Virologists, researchers, and clinics can now receive huge grants and funding for research. We can therefore make the inference that AIDS is not a new disease, it is simply a collection of designated illnesses already known to the scientific community and the general public.

Notice that none of the 29 AIDS illnesses are new and none appear exclusively in people who test positive for HIV antibodies.
**

Full article:
AIDS Hoax: The truth behind the virus that never was | newscastmedia.com

ROFLMAO. SO because they don't use the word "isolate" you think the process doesn't exist?

I never said the process of isolating various microbes such as bacteria or even proteins doesn't exist. I -am- saying that I don't believe a biological virus has ever been isolated, because they simply don't exist.

 

[Scott]

You have certainly given me multiple links. I've asked you to actually quote portions of them that you deem relevant as I do with my links instead of just linking to them. I strongly suspect that at this point, you're just copying and pasting links you'd already linked to previously. The reason I say this is because a lot of your links are dead, which is something that happens when you copy and paste long links from a forum such as this one, due to the forum shortening them.

You have repeatedly posted the link to ONE article by Davis.

I did a lot more than that. I've quoted from it extensively to make my points. I'm asking you to do the same. Doing it with a single link for starters is fine and perhaps preferable.

 

[Scott]

I have seen no evidence that any lab has ever isolated this alleged Cov 2 virus.

Lie.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that I've lied?

 

[Scott]

No, it's not, just as it's not incumbent on you to prove that viruses exist. I created this thread for those who'd -like- to discuss the evidence or lack thereof that viruses exist.

In other words, you are simply trolling.

Not sure why you think pointing out relevant facts of this discussion is "trolling". Feel free to try to explain.

He already did.

Quote him doing so then.

 

[Scott]

If you're not interested in either looking up your own previous answer or answering it again, I suspect that your previous answer (assuming you did answer) wasn't particularly persuasive.

How would you know? You claim to not remember it!

I said I -suspected-, not that I knew. It's why I asked you to look up your previous answer.

Can you link to a source that defines an argument from ignorance fallacy the way you do?

The world is not Holy Links.

Agreed, but I think you should be a bit more concerned here. Essentially, we can all define words and compound terms the way we like, but if no one else defines them the way you do, communication will break down between you and others. This actually happened to me with a former friend I had who insisted that abortion should be defined as murder even though all the dictionary definitions I've seen don't define it that way.

Random incoherent phrases.

I think it may be best if we simply agree to disagree here.

No wonder you are so illiterate.

You've now sunken to direct insults. I think I'll stop here.

If you consider illiteracy an insult, then do something about it. Go learn.

You seem to believe that simply claiming someone is something means that they are so by default. I've seen people insult you in worse ways. Does that mean they're all correct as well? Insults are easy. Providing evidence for one's positions is not.

 

[Scott]

Then you haven't looked. Viruses are parasites.

I'd argue that that I've looked at the evidence a lot more than most. Now, do you have actual evidence that viruses exist or is making assertions without backing them up the best you can do?

Paradox. Which is it, dude?

Where do you see a paradox?

 

[Scott]

I suspect you weren't following the conversation here. As can be seen from my comment a few posts back above, this whole sub discussion here started when I suggested that PRS start quoting information in his links that he felt was relevant as I do instead of just repeating them endlessly.

Strawman fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

If you'd care to explain where you believe these fallacies are in my post, by all means.

 

[Scott]

No evidence needed.

I think it best we agree to disagree on that one.

Cliche fallacy.

I did an internet search on your term, found this:

**
Fallacy #10: The Thought-Terminating Cliché

The thought-terminating cliché (also called thought-stopper or bumper sticker logic) is more purely a verbal weapon than the rest of the fallacies we’ve covered. But it is very common.

The thought-terminating cliché is a common phrase, usually catchy and sharp, used to end a discussion. The purpose of the cliché is not to make a rational point, but rather to escape a rational discussion.
**

Source:
Fallacy #10: The Thought-Terminating Cliché | freemansperspective.com

The premise in this fallacy is that the discussion was rational to begin with. As can be seen above in the nested quotes, I'd been responding to you saying that "No evidence needed". I'm not interested in trying to persuade you that evidence is, in fact, needed, at least if your goal is to try to make a persuasive argument, so if you're willing to stick to that logic, I decided it'd be best to throw in the towel in trying to persuade you here.