Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You can claim whatever you like. I've found that Dr. Mark Bailey's essay A Farewell to Virology provides an excellent refutation of virology as a whole. In terms of a specific alleged viral RNA genome, namely the Cov 2 virus, I rebutted the notion that its alleged RNA was unique in post #602.

It seems you and Bailey have no answer for the facts.
I have a database of over 6,000,000 RNA sequences that does not match the RNA sequence found in tRNA, rRNA or any other RNA found in a healthy cell. Your explanation fails since it doesn't explain why the sequences found in viruses don't match tRNA or rRNA.
rRNA doesn't code. Viruses do code.
tRNA does code but is shorter than viruses and there are only about 100 found across all cellular species.

So based on your limited reading which doesn't include any actual science you continue to regurgitate the same, worse than garbage, unsupported bullshit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Very funny .



From what I've read, I believe the truth is that virologists have never been able to isolate or purify these alleged biological viruses. Saying they no longer have to do so is certainly a convenient way of not having to face this reality.



I agree that it's not proof that no biological virus has been isolated. Similarly, I've seen no proof that unicorns don't exist. The important thing here is that I've seen no solid evidence that either biological viruses or unicorns exist.



Here we go with the ad hominem attacks again -.-

Obviously you didn't read the links I posted that include science showing how viruses can be isolated and purified. It is the same process that isolates and purifies proteins.

Let's recap.
Viruses are isolated and purified using the same process that isolates and purifies proteins.
Viruses are sequences in the same way all genomes are sequenced.
Virus snippets that are sequences are longer than tRNA and mRNA are in total length so their RNA can't be from tRNA or mRNA

You have provided nothing to dispute those facts. You ignore them. Why is that?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

At the time it was thought that all infectious agents could be retained by filters and grown on a nutrient medium—this was part of the germ theory of disease.[4]

You completely ignore what you read. Since that time, viruses have been shown to exist and can not be grown in a nutrient medium. Viruses can be retained by filters as I provided evidence of.

exosomes are also real. it could be exosomes theyre catching.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You had said that I had no explanation and right after that you acknowledged that I did, in fact, have an explanation. I either have one or I don't, there's no middle ground here.

English is hard if you can't tell present tense from future tense.

But that is a lovely attempt at deflection. It seems you can't give us an explanation so have decided to argue the English language.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

exosomes are also real. it could be exosomes theyre catching.

Explain the genetic sequencing.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Explain the genetic sequencing.

exosomes contain genetic material.

 

[Scott]

Explain the genetic sequencing.

exosomes contain genetic material.

Agreed. I imagine Saunders may think that they can tell the difference between viruses and exosomes due to genetic sequencing, but I've yet to see any evidence that anyone has ever truly isolated an alleged biological virus before. Which means there's no solid evidence that any biological virus has ever actually been sequenced, since there's no solid evidence that any genetic sequences came from a virus rather than exosomes or other life forms.

Dr. Mark Bailey actually brings up the ambiguity of genetic sequences alleged to be from a virus in the case of the Cov 2 virus:

**
In any case, they obtained some bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from their patient and with this crude specimen reported that, “total RNA was extracted from 200μl of BALF.” Their methods section detailed that this was achieved, “using the RNeasy Plus Universal Mini kit (Qiagen),” i.e. through spin column centrifugation. They claimed that, “ribosomal RNA depletion was performed during library construction,” however, see page 43 as to why this is dubious as there remained a high match for known human RNA sequences.
**

Source:
A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), Part Two, Page 29


From page 43 of his essay, which he references in the previous quote:

**
MORE DECEPTION FROM WUHAN?

In early 2022, a mathematician working with Dr Stefan Lanka released an analysis of the associated sequence data produced by Fan Wu et al.136 Startlingly, it was concluded that:

a repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported [by Fan Wu et al.]...Evidence is lacking that only viral nucleic acids were used to construct the claimed viral genome for SARS- CoV-2. Further, with respect to the construction of the claimed viral genome strand, no results of possible control experiments have been published. This is equally true for all other reference sequences considered in the present work. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, an obvious control would be that the claimed viral genome cannot be assembled from unsuspected RNA sources of human, or even other, origin.​

Aside from the fact that virology’s current methodologies for finding viruses should be rejected, the lack of reproducibility of their own experiment instantly raises questions about the circumstances in which the original inventors of SARS-CoV-2 announced their new virus to the world. Indeed, this independent analysis only obtained 28,459 contigs, significantly less than the number (384,096) described by Fan Wu et al. Additionally, the longest contig independently obtained was 29,802 nucleotides, which was 672 nucleotides shorter than Fan Wu’s, meaning that, “the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.” The mathematician's analysis also concluded that:

Alignment with the nucleotide database on 05/12/2021 showed a high match (98.85%) with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S preribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020). This observation contradicts the claim in [1] that ribosomal RNA deple6on was performed and human sequence reads were filtered using the human reference genome (human release 32, GRCh38.p13). Of particular note here is the fact that the sequence NR_146117.1 was not published until after the publication of the SRR10971381 sequence library considered here. This observation emphasizes the difficulty of determining a priori the exact origin of the individual nucleic acid fragments used to construct claimed viral genome sequences.​

**

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

exosomes contain genetic material.

That explains exosomes containing DNA and proteins. It doesn't explain the order of the RNA sequences found with viruses.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. I imagine Saunders may think that they can tell the difference between viruses and exosomes due to genetic sequencing, but I've yet to see any evidence that anyone has ever truly isolated an alleged biological virus before. Which means there's no solid evidence that any biological virus has ever actually been sequenced, since there's no solid evidence that any genetic sequences came from a virus rather than exosomes or other life forms.

That's some funny stuff. So now the genetic sequences come from a life form that you just refuse to call a "virus."

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

That explains exosomes containing DNA and proteins. It doesn't explain the order of the RNA sequences found with viruses.

sure it does.

 

[Scott]

That's some funny stuff. So now the genetic sequences come from a life form that you just refuse to call a "virus."

Again, there is no soild evidence that a biological virus has ever been isolated, which means there is no solid evidence that they exist. Exosomes appear to be hard to isolate, but it also appears that it may have been done. Their Wikipedia page does include a section on their isolation, unlike Wikipedia's page on viruses, which does not. Why do you suppose that is? In any case, here's the section in question for exosomes:

**
Isolation

The isolation and detection of exosomes has proven to be complicated.[5][60] Due to the complexity of body fluids, physical separation of exosomes from cells and similar-sized particles is challenging. Isolation of exosomes using differential ultracentrifugation results in co-isolation of protein and other contaminants and incomplete separation of vesicles from lipoproteins.[61] Combining ultracentrifugation with micro-filtration or a gradient can improve purity.[62][63] Single step isolation of extracellular vesicles by size-exclusion chromatography has been demonstrated to provide greater efficiency for recovering intact vesicles over centrifugation,[64] although a size-based technique alone will not be able to distinguish exosomes from other vesicle types. To isolate a pure population of exosomes a combination of techniques is necessary, based on both physical (e.g. size, density) and biochemical parameters (e.g. presence/absence of certain proteins involved in their biogenesis).[61][65] The use of reference materials such as trackable recombinant EV will assist in mitigating technical variation introduced during sample preparation and analysis.[66][67] Novel selective isolation methodology has been using a combination of immunoaffinity chromatography and asymmetric-flow field-flow fractionation to reduce the contamination from lipoproteins and other proteins when isolating from blood plasma.[68][69]

Often, functional as well as antigenic assays are applied to derive useful information from multiple exosomes. Well-known examples of assays to detect proteins in total populations of exosomes are mass spectrometry and Western blot. However, a limitation of these methods is that contaminants may be present that affect the information obtained from such assays. Preferably, information is derived from single exosomes. Relevant properties of exosomes to detect include size, density, morphology, composition, and zeta potential.[70]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosome_(vesicle)

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

That explains exosomes containing DNA and proteins. It doesn't explain the order of the RNA sequences found with viruses.

of course it does.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

sure it does.

Which protein go you think contains the following genetic sequence?

gactctgtgg aagaggccct atcggaggca cgtgaacacc tcaaaaatgg cacttgtggt

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Again, there is no soild evidence that a biological virus has ever been isolated, which means there is no solid evidence that they exist. Exosomes appear to be hard to isolate, but it also appears that it may have been done. Their Wikipedia page does include a section on their isolation, unlike Wikipedia's page on viruses, which does not. Why do you suppose that is? In any case, here's the section in question for exosomes:

**
Isolation

The isolation and detection of exosomes has proven to be complicated.[5][60] Due to the complexity of body fluids, physical separation of exosomes from cells and similar-sized particles is challenging. Isolation of exosomes using differential ultracentrifugation results in co-isolation of protein and other contaminants and incomplete separation of vesicles from lipoproteins.[61] Combining ultracentrifugation with micro-filtration or a gradient can improve purity.[62][63] Single step isolation of extracellular vesicles by size-exclusion chromatography has been demonstrated to provide greater efficiency for recovering intact vesicles over centrifugation,[64] although a size-based technique alone will not be able to distinguish exosomes from other vesicle types. To isolate a pure population of exosomes a combination of techniques is necessary, based on both physical (e.g. size, density) and biochemical parameters (e.g. presence/absence of certain proteins involved in their biogenesis).[61][65] The use of reference materials such as trackable recombinant EV will assist in mitigating technical variation introduced during sample preparation and analysis.[66][67] Novel selective isolation methodology has been using a combination of immunoaffinity chromatography and asymmetric-flow field-flow fractionation to reduce the contamination from lipoproteins and other proteins when isolating from blood plasma.[68][69]

Often, functional as well as antigenic assays are applied to derive useful information from multiple exosomes. Well-known examples of assays to detect proteins in total populations of exosomes are mass spectrometry and Western blot. However, a limitation of these methods is that contaminants may be present that affect the information obtained from such assays. Preferably, information is derived from single exosomes. Relevant properties of exosomes to detect include size, density, morphology, composition, and zeta potential.[70]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosome_(vesicle)

So, you have decided to just pretend I never gave you the process by which viruses have been purified?
Ultracentrifugation is the same process that can be used to isolate viruses. You can't claim that exosomes have been isolated and then claim that viruses have not.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Which protein go you think contains the following genetic sequence?

gactctgtgg aagaggccct atcggaggca cgtgaacacc tcaaaaatgg cacttgtggt

that's the sound your mom makes when she swallows my rod.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

So, you have decided to just pretend I never gave you the process by which viruses have been purified?
Ultracentrifugation is the same process that can be used to isolate viruses. You can't claim that exosomes have been isolated and then claim that viruses have not.

so you believe exosomes exist?

 

[Into the Night]

I imagine I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony here.

What irony? Trying to blame me for YOUR problem??

 

[Into the Night]

As I quoted above, Wikipedia defines 5G as a technology standard. I've read of the 5G protocol stack as well, here:
5G Protocol Stack | 5G Layer 1, 5G Layer 2, 5G Layer 3 | rfwireless-world.com

The article I referenced was talking about the health effects of 5G Towers and their effect on human health. For anyone who's interested, the article is here:

5G Towers Can Make Healthy People Sick, Two Case Reports Show | Children's Health Defense

False authority fallacies. Wikipedia did not create the 5G protocol. You cannot use this reference with me. Cell phone towers do not emit a harmful frequency.

 

[Into the Night]

*something that pollutes*

Circular definition. You cannot define any word or phrase with a buzzword. Define 'the pollution'.

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant

False authority fallacy. Dictionaries do not define any word.

The Jury's clearly still out on which EMFs should be included in that list, but efforts are certainly being made to get a clearer picture. Ionizing EMFs have been known to cause significant harm for a while now. As to non ionizing EMFs, I'll quote from a Children's Health Defense article that I think offers a little clarification:

There is no jury. Radio does not affect human body.

**
Did you know New Hampshire is the first government in the U.S. to conduct a formal investigation of wireless risks and issue a groundbreaking report of harm along with safer ways to use today’s technology?

Irrelevant. Radio does not affect the human body.

They discovered thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies that link wireless radiation to our growing rates of insomnia, headaches, fatigue, anxiety, depression and more. In the long-term, the U.S. National Toxicology Program has found cell phone radiation causes cancer and DNA damage. It is also a leading cause of our disappearing pollinators. This invisible radiation is constantly pulsed from all things wireless, unless we learn to use technology safely and responsibly.

**
Radio has no affect on the human body. False authority fallacy. Attempted proof by randU.

Full article:
EMF/RF Free Monthly Educational Webinars, CeCe Doucette: “Wireless Technology Risks and Safer Solutions” | Children's Health Defense

From Wikipedia:

Summarily discarded. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference.

I think that the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the term is good:

Dictionaries do not define any word.

**
An abnormal condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, inflammation, environmental factors, or genetic defect, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs, symptoms, or both.
**

Wrong.

The word 'disease' first appeared in the English lexicon around the 14th century. It is a compound word coming from French. 'dis' meaning a negation, and 'ease' meaning being 'at ease', or 'comfortable'. Since then, the word is generally narrowed to some type of medical cause (such as a virus).

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

So, you have decided to just pretend I never gave you the process by which viruses have been purified?
Ultracentrifugation is the same process that can be used to isolate viruses. You can't claim that exosomes have been isolated and then claim that viruses have not.

you never showed anyone the process whereby viruses have been purified.