Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

First of all, that's not actually what the paper said. Quoting what the mathematician's analysis actually said, bolding the parts you skipped over that I think are crucially important:
**
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705 sequences are associated, and thus about 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 sequences, should be discussed in detail. Alignment with the nucleotide database on 05/12/2021 showed a high match (98.85%) with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020).
**

The point is that this remaining 5% of the sequences, comprising a total of 1,407,705 sequences, all belongs to a single contig, with the identification of k141_27232. It strongly suggests that this contig, far from being viral in nature, was actually -human- in nature. The mathematician even goes so far as to name the specific human component that it has such a high match with:
**
"Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020).

I didn't skip over anything.

You didn't quote the parts I bolded. That's what I meant. If you were on my side, you'd probably have called it "cherry picking", but I acknowledge that you may have just thought those parts weren't important.

Why would I quote your cherry picked parts.

The parts I bolded were the parts you skipped. I think they were important, which is why I took the time include and bold them.

I already addressed it. It is 1 contig out of 28,459. It is statistically meaningless.

Do you have any evidence that it was "meaningless"? For my part, I doubt the mathematician would have spent so much time on it if it was as you say. I suspect the reason he finds it so important is because it was both the longest contig found and it also closely matched a human RNA sequence, as I mentioned in the nested quote above.

 

[Scott]

First of all, that's not actually what the paper said. Quoting what the mathematician's analysis actually said, bolding the parts you skipped over that I think are crucially important:
**
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705 sequences are associated, and thus about 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 sequences, should be discussed in detail. Alignment with the nucleotide database on 05/12/2021 showed a high match (98.85%) with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020).
**

The point is that this remaining 5% of the sequences, comprising a total of 1,407,705 sequences, all belongs to a single contig, with the identification of k141_27232. It strongly suggests that this contig, far from being viral in nature, was actually -human- in nature. The mathematician even goes so far as to name the specific human component that it has such a high match with:
**
"Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020).

You don't seem to understand the process at all. Bailey misrepresents it and you are completely ignorant.

Your form of debate could use some work. You might consider simply providing evidence for your claims rather than doing the schoolyard equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong".

You mean when I post links to the genetic database and you respond with "I'm right and you're wrong?"

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I myself was referring to the statements you made above. Instead of making unsubstantiated assertions, like "Bailey misrepresents it and you are completely ignorant", I suggest that both our times would be better served by actually focusing on the evidence.

 

[Scott]

A "similarity"? We're talking about a 98.5% match with with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020), as I just quoted above. That is far more than a simple "similarity". And let's not forget that this isn't some small contig we're talking about either. Again, I think you haven't grasped just how important this contig is. The mathematician certainly made it quite clear. Quoting from him once more:
**
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705 sequences are associated, and thus about 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 sequences, should be discussed in detail.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

Sure if you completely ignore that it is .00035% of the contigs and each contig has an error that is calculated at 1% per nucleotide then you can make a big deal out of it. In reality where the rest of us live, something that has a .000343% chance of being correct is not hyped as being proof of anything.

I think the important thing is that it is the -largest- contig and is associated with a whopping 1,407,705 sequences, which in turn is a around 5% of the 26,108,482 remaining sequences, as mentioned by the mathematician. The fact that it has a 98.5% match with a human RNA sequence strongly suggests that this alleged "Cov 2" virus is just mislabelled human RNA.

 

[Scott]

As to your point that it's only a single contig, there's another point that I think may be quite important. Again from the mathematician's analysis:
**
After filtering the paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with a length of about 150 bp. A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp. This is to be regarded as problematic in the sense of scientificity, since not all steps can be retraced or reproduced.
**

Now, I can't be sure, but it -seems- like the mathematician is saying that a large proportion of the sequences were actually human, but simply labelled as unknown. To get an idea of how many, taking away 26 million from 56 million means that around 30 million sequences were filtered out. I recall that you yourself raised were concerned with filtering out so many of the sequences, but apparently you've lost interest now that you seem to be aware that it was the alleged discoverers of the Cov 2 virus that were the ones who first followed this protocol.

LOL. The mathematician is saying he has no clue as to why they were marked N.

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The mathematician makes it clear why the authors of the original paper claiming the discovery of the alleged Cov 2 virus marked more than half of the reads. Quoting the relevant portion from his paper once more:
**
A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp.
**

Because you decided they might be human doesn't make them so.

I didn't decide anything. The mathematician presumed that a majority of the reads marked as unknown were of human origin. I don't know why he believes that, but seeing as he worked with a doctor, I will believe he's probably right in his presumption.

Why should I take an interest in you being a raving lunatic [snip]

You just can't resist adding in an ad hominem attack now and again, can you?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The parts I bolded were the parts you skipped. I think they were important, which is why I took the time include and bold them.



Do you have any evidence that it was "meaningless"? For my part, I doubt the mathematician would have spent so much time on it if it was as you say. I suspect the reason he finds it so important is because it was both the longest contig found and it also closely matched a human RNA sequence, as I mentioned in the nested quote above.

Divide 1 by 28,459. Tell me if the number is statistically meaningful under any definition.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think the important thing is that it is the -largest- contig and is associated with a whopping 1,407,705 sequences, which in turn is a around 5% of the 26,108,482 remaining sequences, as mentioned by the mathematician. The fact that it has a 98.5% match with a human RNA sequence strongly suggests that this alleged "Cov 2" virus is just mislabelled human RNA.

ROFLMAO.. You don't seem to understand simple math.
If I have 1,000,000 pictures of the sky and 9,999,999 of those pictures show the sky to be blue and one picture shows the sky to be green. Do you think that one picture strongly suggests the sky is green?
Or would you believe that one picture is likely an outlier that may have errors?

Being a 98.5% match to human DNA doesn't suggest something is human at all. Humans share 97.5% of the DNA with mice. Does that make a mouse human? No reasonable person would think so. But the reality is that one contig out of 25,000 doesn't prove anything other than you are a complete idiot for trying to claim it does prove something.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think the important thing is that it is the -largest- contig and is associated with a whopping 1,407,705 sequences, which in turn is a around 5% of the 26,108,482 remaining sequences, as mentioned by the mathematician. The fact that it has a 98.5% match with a human RNA sequence strongly suggests that this alleged "Cov 2" virus is just mislabelled human RNA.

It is NOT the largest contig. I don't think you even know what a contig is at this point. You are promoting as significant something that is not even remotely significant. I'm sure that is why the "mathematician" refused to put his name on the paper. He would have been ridiculed for making such a silly mathematical mistake.

Meanwhile... you have failed to address this.. which shows that Bailey's requirements were met decades ago and viruses have been proven based on what Bailey said he needed for evidence.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The mathematician makes it clear why the authors of the original paper claiming the discovery of the alleged Cov 2 virus marked more than half of the reads. Quoting the relevant portion from his paper once more:
**
A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp.
**

Do you need the word presumably defined for you?
The mathematician that refuses to put his name on his work is presuming something he doesn't know.

I didn't decide anything. The mathematician presumed that a majority of the reads marked as unknown were of human origin. I don't know why he believes that, but seeing as he worked with a doctor, I will believe he's probably right in his presumption.

I presume you are an idiot. I guess that makes you an idiot since my presumption is good enough to make it something we can discuss as evidence.

You just can't resist adding in an ad hominem attack now and again, can you?

You must be an idiot because you don't understand what an ad hominem argument is.

Meanwhile we have the following evidence that you refuse to address at all.
Viruses have been isolated and grown in tissue cultures.
Viruses grown in tissue cultures have infected people.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Scott]

Each contig can use reads that were used in other contigs. All they are doing is assembling the reads in different ways.
That contig in question used only 5% of the total reads he had after he filtered out 55% of the reads so that particular contig used less than 2% of the reads. Because each contig can reuse reads used in other contigs, the number of reads in a specific contig is meaningless when it comes to finding the actual sequence of the virus.

What is important is how many contigs result in similar or identical results. If a contig is completely different from all the other ones then that is an outlier and not likely to be the sequence of the virus.
The anonymous mathematician, who for some reason doesn't want to put his name to this groundbreaking science, had 1 contig out of 28,459 contigs that could considered similar to human RNA.
That would mean that .0035% of the contigs from the mathematician had a possible match to a human RNA sequence. No reasonable mathematician would accept this as statistically significant.

I suspect that you're mistaken here somewhere, but I admit that this bit of text is beyond me. I decided to ask over at Dr. Sam Bailey's substack about your statement above to see if someone there can help me out.

You suspect. That seems to be all you can do.

I've done a whole ot more than that, but I think it's good to admit when one isn't sure of something. I've rarely seen you do so despite the fact that it seems clear to me that there have been many such occassions. Anyway, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I strongly suspect that the fact that the largest contig is apparently human RNA, not part of the the alleged Cov 2 virus, is rather important.

By the way, if you can claim Firstenberg proves viruses don't exist [snip]

I never made such a claim.

 

[Scott]

For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

I read the paper, and I do not concur with your conclusions. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but you aren't going to convince any rational adults that the symptoms are just a freak coincidence, or that an epidemic of people with symptoms is not really a spreading contagion, but is instead just a terribly improbable coincidence.

I never said anything about coincidences. Another thing, the paper/statement addressed all biological viruses, not just the alleged Cov 2 virus. Personally, I found it to be a bit too condensed. I found that Dr. Mark Bailey's essay "Farewell to Virology" was much better in terms of explaining the issues with virology. It's here:

A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've done a whole ot more than that, but I think it's good to admit when one isn't sure of something. I've rarely seen you do so despite the fact that it seems clear to me that there have been many such occassions. Anyway, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I strongly suspect that the fact that the largest contig is apparently human RNA, not part of the the alleged Cov 2 virus, is rather important.

You haven't done more than that. You have not responded to any of my math or statements about what constitute a contig.
Instead you only suspect based on your complete misunderstanding of how a contig is constructed.

Where is your evidence that that particular contig is the largest contig?
If you were to actually read the paper you are quoted, you would know that your claim is a flat out lie.


From the paper...

With respect to the subject descriptions, we observed a good
match for the most part. Further, with the exception of the longest contig
(1_k141_275316),

[snip]
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705
sequences are associated, a

Contig K141_27232 is the one you keep referencing. It is clearly not the longest contig.
I suspect you are an idiot at this point since you can't tell the difference between k141_27232 and 1_k141_275316



Meanwhile we have the following evidence that you refuse to address at all.
Viruses have been isolated and grown in tissue cultures.
Viruses grown in tissue cultures have infected people.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Scott]

The mathematician claims that a single contig out of the 28,459 contigs he assembled showed a similarity to a human RNA. Each contig can use reads that were used in other contigs. All they are doing is assembling the reads in different ways.
That contig in question used only 5% of the total reads he had after he filtered out 55% of the reads so that particular contig used less than 2% of the reads. Because each contig can reuse reads used in other contigs, the number of reads in a specific contig is meaningless when it comes to finding the actual sequence of the virus.

What is important is how many contigs result in similar or identical results. If a contig is completely different from all the other ones then that is an outlier and not likely to be the sequence of the virus.
The anonymous mathematician, who for some reason doesn't want to put his name to this groundbreaking science, had 1 contig out of 28,459 contigs that could considered similar to human RNA.
That would mean that .0035% of the contigs from the mathematician had a possible match to a human RNA sequence. No reasonable mathematician would accept this as statistically significant.

I suspect that you're mistaken here somewhere, but I admit that this bit of text is beyond me. I decided to ask over at Dr. Sam Bailey's substack about your statement above to see if someone there can help me out.

You suspect. That seems to be all you can do.

Already addressed your statement in my last post, but I'm writing this one because I got a response to your statement, not from Dr. Sam Bailey's substack, but from a facebook group that a substack respondent pointed me towards. I simply quoted what you said above and there was some confusion as to who had said it, but I think the respondent's points were good. She gave me permission to quote what she said:

**
I can't tell what you wrote vs. what someone else wrote, but all the talk about reads and contigs is irrelevant when the source of those reads and contigs can be anything in the original substance that was used in this "sequence the genome" computer game. What substance did those reads and contigs come from? If they're calling it a "virus," then by what means was it confirmed to be a particle containing RNA or DNA, capable of replicating inside a human cell and thereby causing human illness? (or have they changed the definition like they changed the definition of "isolate"?)

Without answering those questions, it makes no difference how those reads and contigs were assembled by the computer, nor how many "match" bits and pieces of human DNA/RNA or DNA/RNA from any other organism.
**

I got another response that I thought was quite good from someone named Patrik, but I only just asked him if I could quote him, no response yet. If you'd like to see his response, it's here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1816658931849533/posts/2535763723272380/

 

[Scott]

He did, but the irony here is that this mathematician was apparently following the -original- protocol used by those who allegedly discovered Cov 2 to begin with (aka "the authors") and like you, he finds this to be problematic. I think quoting the entire paragraph from which you got your quote is in order:

**
Renewed de novo assembly of published sequence data

To repeat the de novo assembly, we downloaded the original sequence data (SRR10971381) from 27/01/2020 on 11/30/2021 using the SRA tools [19] from the Internet. To prepare the paired-end reads for the actual assembly step with Megahit (v.1.2.9) [20], we used the FASTQ preprocessor fastp (v.0.23.1) [21]. After filtering the paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with a length of about 150 bp. A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp. This is to be regarded as problematic in the sense of scientificity, since not all steps can be retraced or reproduced. For the elaborate contig generation from the remaining short sequence reads, we used Megahit (v.1.2.9) using the default setting.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

The mathematician then gets into what could not be reproduced:
**
We obtained 28,459 (200 nt - 29,802 nt) contigs, significantly less than described in [1]. Deviating from the representations in [1], the longest contig we assembled comprised only 29,802 nt, 672 nt less than the longest contig with 30,474 nt, which according to [1] comprised almost the entire viral genome. Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt (Tables and Figures, Tables 1, 2). Thus, we could not reproduce the longest contig of 30,474 nt, which is so important for scientific verification. Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.
**

The mathematician didn't follow the original protocol at all since the first thing he did was eliminate 55% of the reads.

As I previously stated, I believe it was the original discoverers of the alleged Cov 2 virus who first did this elimination, and the mathematician was just doing what they did. He even appeared to disagree with methodology.

If he was doing what they did then why did he eliminate 55% of the reads that they used?

You don't understand. It was the original authors of the nature paper that claimed to have discovered the Cov 2 virus that eliminated 55% of the reads. The mathematician specifically stated that this was problematic. Below I'll requote the relevant part from the paper published by the mathematician, with the help of Dr. Stefan Lanka. Note where he refers to "the authors". He's referring to the authors of the paper published in Nature that claimed that the alleged Cov 2 virus had been discovered:

**

Renewed de novo assembly of published sequence data

To repeat the de novo assembly, we downloaded the original sequence data (SRR10971381) from 27/01/2020 on 11/30/2021 using the SRA tools [19] from the Internet. To prepare the paired-end reads for the actual assembly step with Megahit (v.1.2.9) [20], we used the FASTQ preprocessor fastp (v.0.23.1) [21]. After filtering the paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with a length of about 150 bp. A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp. This is to be regarded as problematic in the sense of scientificity, since not all steps can be retraced or reproduced. For the elaborate contig generation from the remaining short sequence reads, we used Megahit (v.1.2.9) using the default setting.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You don't understand. It was the original authors of the nature paper that claimed to have discovered the Cov 2 virus that eliminated 55% of the reads. The mathematician specifically stated that this was problematic. Below I'll requote the relevant part from the paper published by the mathematician, with the help of Dr. Stefan Lanka. Note where he refers to "the authors". He's referring to the authors of the paper published in Nature that claimed that the alleged Cov 2 virus had been discovered:

**

Renewed de novo assembly of published sequence data

To repeat the de novo assembly, we downloaded the original sequence data (SRR10971381) from 27/01/2020 on 11/30/2021 using the SRA tools [19] from the Internet. To prepare the paired-end reads for the actual assembly step with Megahit (v.1.2.9) [20], we used the FASTQ preprocessor fastp (v.0.23.1) [21]. After filtering the paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with a length of about 150 bp. A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp. This is to be regarded as problematic in the sense of scientificity, since not all steps can be retraced or reproduced. For the elaborate contig generation from the remaining short sequence reads, we used Megahit (v.1.2.9) using the default setting.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

I understand perfectly who eliminated the reads. What you don't seem to understand is you don't know why they were eliminated. Claiming they were eliminated because they were presumed to be of human in origin has as much evidence as claiming they were eliminated because they were presumed to be a 1957 chevy. The mathematician also marked reads as "N" and it had nothing to do with them being of human origin.

We set all bases with a
6
quality lower than 20 to "N" (unknown). A quality of 20 means an error rate of 1% per
nucleotide, which can be considered sufficient in the context of our analyses.

Setting them to "N" had nothing to do with them being of human origin. It has to do with the quality of the read and the error associated with it. Perhaps we should presume the mathematician did this in order to make sure his results would not be the same.

You should really try reading your sources before you make yourself look like a fool.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Already addressed your statement in my last post, but I'm writing this one because I got a response to your statement, not from Dr. Sam Bailey's substack, but from a facebook group that a substack respondent pointed me towards. I simply quoted what you said above and there was some confusion as to who had said it, but I think the respondent's points were good. She gave me permission to quote what she said:

**
I can't tell what you wrote vs. what someone else wrote, but all the talk about reads and contigs is irrelevant when the source of those reads and contigs can be anything in the original substance that was used in this "sequence the genome" computer game. What substance did those reads and contigs come from? If they're calling it a "virus," then by what means was it confirmed to be a particle containing RNA or DNA, capable of replicating inside a human cell and thereby causing human illness? (or have they changed the definition like they changed the definition of "isolate"?)

Without answering those questions, it makes no difference how those reads and contigs were assembled by the computer, nor how many "match" bits and pieces of human DNA/RNA or DNA/RNA from any other organism.
**

I got another response that I thought was quite good from someone named Patrik, but I only just asked him if I could quote him, no response yet. If you'd like to see his response, it's here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1816658931849533/posts/2535763723272380/

Easy to respond to:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/


As to the question of isolation - Inform us what is in this picture other than polio virus

https://www.utmb.edu/virusimages/VI/poliovirus

Then you can do the same for all of these images as well
https://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/nobel-prizes/culture-of-the-polio-virus/
http://drrimatruthreports.com/wp-content/uploads/Polio-virus.jpg
https://rsscience.com/can-you-see-viruses-under-a-microscope/
https://polioeradication.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/polio-prevention-virus-01.jpg
https://pixels.com/featured/4-polio-virus-dennis-kunkel-microscopyscience-photo-library.html
https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Poliomyelitis

By the way, inform your idiot poster on facebook that if she doesn't know the difference between a computer game and a computer program she probably shouldn't be using the terms.

 

[Scott]

I'm using sources that I believe have the most pertinent information. If you have any evidence suggesting that my source material is innacurate, by all means present it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture [snip]

The dominant paradigm is that viruses exist. This thread is about whether there is any solid evidence that they do in fact exist. I've never seen any solid evidence that viruses have been grown anywhere.

 

[Scott]

We've gone over this before. One can agree with some premises in a theory without having to agree to others. I agree with his premise that EMFs play a critical role in the flu. For those in the audience, I recommend going back to the post Saunders is responding to. He snips off a lot of relevant information.

Congratulations.
Since I can disagree with one part of their theory without having to agree with other parts then the Baileys have proven that viruses exist.

You bandy about the word proof and its derivatives as if it's something that's easy to do. I don't think I've ever said I've proven anything. What I have brought up time and again is evidence.

 

[Scott]

Plenty of evidence suggests you are mistaken. From Wikipedia:

**
Chronic toxicity

Primarily through the tendency for DDT to build up in areas of the body with high lipid content, chronic exposure can affect reproductive capabilities and the embryo or fetus.[98]

A review article in The Lancet states: "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation".[42]

Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from indoor residual spraying).[99]

[snip]

Indirect exposure of mothers through workers directly in contact with DDT is associated with an increase in spontaneous abortions.[98]

Other studies found that DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function in pregnancy and childhood.[74][101]

Mothers with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism.[102][103]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT



Indeed. This is probably why there is now so much more data as to its toxic effects then there was before. The evidence that "[m]others with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism", for instance, was produced in a study published 2018. It's here if you're interested in taking a look:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6377859/




"Pure propaganda" according to who? In any case, the evidence I laid out wasn't taken from Silent Spring.



Can you prove that?



I imagine you believe in the arguments from Roger Bate. Again from the Wikipedia article on DDT:

**
Criticism of restrictions on DDT use

Restrictions on DDT usage have been criticized by some organizations opposed to the environmental movement, including Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria and the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute; these sources oppose restrictions on DDT and attribute large numbers of deaths to such restrictions, sometimes in the millions.[142][143][144] These arguments were rejected as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios.[112] May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible".[112] More recently, Michael Palmer, a professor of chemistry at the University of Waterloo, has pointed out that DDT is still used to prevent malaria, that its declining use is primarily due to increases in manufacturing costs, and that in Africa, efforts to control malaria have been regional or local, not comprehensive.[145]

Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 United States ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Silent Spring, even though Carson never pushed for a DDT ban. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted".[147]

Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize these notions as "myths" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[148][149]
**

Nothing in that showing that DDT causes polio.

I never claimed that it did. The focus in my post was to show that DDT was quite harmful. As for evidence that DDT could cause polio, I have brought up an article that provides evidence that DDT and other pesticides may in fact cause Polio. It's here:

A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

 

[Scott]

Do you have any evidence that it was "meaningless"? For my part, I doubt the mathematician would have spent so much time on it if it was as you say. I suspect the reason he finds it so important is because it was both the longest contig found and it also closely matched a human RNA sequence, as I mentioned in the nested quote above.

Divide 1 by 28,459. Tell me if the number is statistically meaningful under any definition.

1 divided by 28,459 is 0.00003514, or 0.0035% of the total number of contigs. Certainly a very small fraction of the total. But as I've mentioned before, this contig is not your average contig. It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest contig they found. Another point I made in a previous post that you seem to have forgotten:

**
The point is that this remaining 5% of the sequences, comprising a total of 1,407,705 sequences, all belongs to a single contig, with the identification of k141_27232. It strongly suggests that this contig, far from being viral in nature, was actually -human- in nature. The mathematician even goes so far as to name the specific human component that it has such a high match with:
**
"Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020).
**
**

Source:
Settling the Biological Virus Debate , Post #747

 

[Scott]

I think the important thing is that it is the -largest- contig and is associated with a whopping 1,407,705 sequences, which in turn is a around 5% of the 26,108,482 remaining sequences, as mentioned by the mathematician. The fact that it has a 98.5% match with a human RNA sequence strongly suggests that this alleged "Cov 2" virus is just mislabelled human RNA.

ROFLMAO.. You don't seem to understand simple math.
If I have 1,000,000 pictures of the sky and 9,999,999 of those pictures show the sky to be blue and one picture shows the sky to be green. Do you think that one picture strongly suggests the sky is green?
Or would you believe that one picture is likely an outlier that may have errors?

It's a bad analogy. In this case, we're looking for solid evidence that a virus actually exists in the biological soup that they were looking in. No simple "green" or "blue" here. I think it's telling that possibly largest contiguous bit of RNA they found had a very high match to human RNA. To be fair to the authors of the alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus, however, that part of RNA had not yet been known when they published their findings. It is now though, and people have to have a more serious look at this alleged Cov 2 virus given this new evidence.

Being a 98.5% match to human DNA doesn't suggest something is human at all. Humans share 97.5% of the DNA with mice.

First of all, it's a 98.5% match with human -RNA-, not human DNA. Secondly, this is not a case of trying to differentiate between different mammalian sequences. Tell me, what is the "match" of any alleged viral RNA with human RNA? That's the question you should be asking.