Michael Wallach, Rabies, Damn Rabies |561|

So, by get my information straight, you mean read a paper like the one you just posted? One with a sentence like “infectious diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide”? Clearly not propaganda. Thank you so much for setting me straight. Here I was forgetting that infectious diseases were the leading cause of death worldwide. Thanks for providing me with such a scientific paper. Oooh. It’s even got illustrations. Do you have any with graphs? Those are my favorites!!

by the way, you still haven’t answered my question
 
ZergArGMO makes the statement "culturing is isolation". That seems to be the point where he is redefining the word "isolation" because on the face of it culturing is a process in which virus particles are allowed to do their thing and invade cells to create more virus particles, and that is not the same as the isolation process, which would mean getting rid of every component of the culture medium so as to leave viruses that could then be tested to see if they can infect some creature or other.

David
 
Right? And then getting mad at me for not realizing that “culturing is isolation”. Mike Stone made a good point when he said that they’re trying to move Virology totally into genomics. You can see this guy avoiding talking about the actual “organism” or “particle” and how it behaves. His latest response to me is really nasty. I’m going to post it here tomorrow after I respond to him.
 
I’m going to move any further correspondences I have with the “Reddit virologist” to the newest forum re: Richard Cox’s interview. I doubt he’s going to respond to me anymore. But in case he does, I will post there.
 
@J Randall Murphy

Some bacteria are good. Others aren't. Some will attack perfectly healthy cells. Others don't. Whatever the case, the primary "cleanup crew" as you put it are macrophages. You really should get some of your information straight.

https://pmj.bmj.com/content/78/918/216

Can you present evidence where any form of bacteria has been acquired as an independent variable and shown to be pathogenic or where it has been directly observed causing pathogenicity in real time?
 
@J Randall Murphy

Genetic sequencing can be done via modeling, in which case there is no physical material to work with. However in a forensic investigation such as a crime involving physical evidence, physical samples containing genetic materials are gathered from the crime scene. They are then compared to samples taken from suspects. If they match, then the likelihood of the suspect being involved in some way is very high ( but not necessarily a certainty ).

What DNA evidence tends to do is shift the "reasonableness" of certainty or doubt. You cannot convict someone when there is reasonable doubt, so if the genetic evidence adds reasonable doubt, a case can be made to have the charges dropped. If it adds reasonable grounds for a conviction, then the suspect will likely be convicted.

Can you prove existence of such structures as nucleobases?
 
Can you prove existence of such structures as nucleobases?

You mean nucleotides - C,A,G,T - yes you can - they are just chemicals.

That doesn't tell you much, because everything living is going to have those same chemicals.

The thing that makes viruses different, is that you have to demonstrate their chemical structure, but you also have to prove that they can pass on disease. That is the tricky part because they culture the viruses - supposedly to get more - in a very complex mixture of materials - including such things as milk - and then they use that impure liquid to test for disease transmission. If they want to demonstrate that viruses cause disease, they must extract the viruses from the culture medium, and then use them to cause disease.

David
 
@David Bailey

You mean nucleotides - C,A,G,T - yes you can - they are just chemicals.

That doesn't tell you much, because everything living is going to have those same chemicals.

The thing that makes viruses different, is that you have to demonstrate their chemical structure, but you also have to prove that they can pass on disease. That is the tricky part because they culture the viruses - supposedly to get more - in a very complex mixture of materials - including such things as milk - and then they use that impure liquid to test for disease transmission. If they want to demonstrate that viruses cause disease, they must extract the viruses from the culture medium, and then use them to cause disease.

David

I exactly asked about evidence of such structures.

Statements or declarations are not undeniable evidence.
Statement (logic) - Wikipedia

Also mental constructs are not undeniable evidence, i.e., models of chemistry (which are flawed as they do not explain transmutations).

In regard to biological viruses, no one has proven them by direct real time observation/visualization of all vital occurring processes with them in real time or by acquirement of them as independent variables and verification of them in a series of scientific experiments (including controls). Also there is no indication of transmissibility between unhealthy and healthy subjects.

If you do not agree with me, then please be my guest and prove me wrong by providing undeniable evidence of biological viruses.
 
I agree with that... but I think Steve was using it in a different context.

let's say we changed it a little bit to " skepticism is not enough" i.e. yes you have to be skeptical... you have to understand that there are all sorts of agendas out there and you are usually the target :)

but skepticism is not enough. you have to be skeptical of NASA, but not jump the shark and believe that the Earth is flat. you have to be skeptical of the plandemic, but not jump the shark and think there's no such thing as viruses.

https://time.com/6252673/chinese-spy-balloon-satellite/
"A Balloon Is Spying on the U.S. From the Sky. Here’s Why China May Be Using Old-Fashioned Surveillance Technology When Satellites Exist"

Who would care about this needing to be explained? What harm would come if nobody "explained" it?
 
Back
Top