Nostr Web Client

here is a summary:

we identify successful viral cultures when we take a sample from an sick person and put it in a dish of cells and see those cells burst. the cells that are originally "virus" free were grown in a nutrient rich medium.

at the point of inoculation we don't just do one thing (infect the cells) we do one other thing, we reduce the concentration of the nutrients to starvation levels. We essentially have two variables, the nutrient concentration that cells need to survive and the liquid from the sick individual.

The viral control study protocol is just asking the simple question, what happens if we do a valid experiment with just one variable, "the nutritional concentration". and what they found was cell death that looks just like "viral" particles. This result invalidates the multi variable control that virology is built upon.

proper studies have one variable that is being tested and do so with a mirror experiment without that variable. then when we get a result we can hypothesize that one variable is producing the different results

Globe99 3w ago 💬 3

Furthermore, Gemini contradicts your straw-man on "standard procedures":

The statement claims that cells are reduced to "starvation levels" during inoculation.

The Context: In cell culture, cells are typically grown in a "Growth Medium" rich in serum (often 10% Fetal Bovine Serum) to encourage rapid division. When introducing a virus, scientists switch to a "Maintenance Medium" with lower serum (often 1-2%).

The Correction: This reduction is not starvation.

If cells divide too rapidly, they overgrow the container and die of overcrowding before the virus can replicate.

Maintenance medium provides sufficient glucose, salts, and amino acids for the cells to survive and metabolize for days or weeks without rapid division.

Evidence: Cells kept in maintenance medium without any virus (the control group) remain healthy and attached to the dish for the duration of the experiment.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dan Ostermayer 3w ago

you are correct. the maintenance medium is what was used in the viral control study i am talking about . at 2% fetal bovine serum we see viral particles. so we have to ask what is happening that caused sterile cells at maintenance medium to produce electron microscope evidence of viral particles. is maintenance medium really pathogenic?

Globe99 2w ago 💬 4

You seem to be saying that the fact that there are virus particles grown in a 2% medium contradicts the foundations of virology.

That's not "sterile." They're adding virus to cells that have already been grown. There's no reason why viruses *shouldn't* or couldn't replicate under these conditions.

And even if what you say is true, how does that undercut the foundations of Virology? What fundamental claims of the subject are incorrect as a result?

Dan Ostermayer 2w ago 💬 2

here is a viral experiment: take a sample from somebody who is unwell. grow vero cells at 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). ensure the cells are virus free because you got them from a certified supplier. reduce the FBS to 2% for maintenance. then inject the viral sample. Then wait and observe the cytopathic effects of cell death. then sample the dish to look for foreign genomic material that you call virus.

1. the cytopathic effects might be from the maintenance concentration

2. the cytopathic effects might be from the virus

3. of course you will find foreign dna because you introduced it to the medium.

this is a modern viral experiment and it unfortunately can't show anything except that you can get foreign DNA from a sample that you introduced foreign dna into in the first place.

Globe99 2w ago 💬 1

So you do a control with no virus, and the cells survive just fine under "maintenance" mode.

Which (according to Gemini, and I have every reason to believe because these scientists aren't morons) is exactly what they do.

This contradicts your claim.

Jake Woodhouse 2w ago

Love this thread. Debate is so key to all of this

nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7etrd35hqum99ec82c30wfjkccteqyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcqyzhey92tflgq9yjqxyux7ufn8v90m96p5pm0t3echsnq8fd4n4n370vkkz3 nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7enfd36x2u3wdehhxarj9emkjmn9qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqqsyvd24hd9slq8azdm04e3gl2l67lj7x8xjwswcp2jdyfwfy67zsls9nz3m6

Being skeptical is very important, but so is being open-minded

Lots more questions please!

Dan Ostermayer 2w ago

viruses might exist or they might not but what is mind blowing is this is how we currently "prove" that they do exist and it is laughable

Globe99 2w ago

Yeah I guess the moon "might or might not" exist. Laughable indeed.

We prove they exist by TEM and DNA evidence. Which doesn't require this study protocol that seems to be the lynchpin of your argument.

Dan Ostermayer 2w ago 💬 1

believe me, i am just as skeptical as you are but these results expose the fact that a two variable experiment is not as valid as a one variable experiment and suggest that the protocols that underpin virology are logically incorrect.

Globe99 2w ago

"believe me, i am just as skeptical"

skeptical of that.