Nostr Web Client

They don't test any of their presuppositions that have been given to them. First principles may have been a poor word choice, sorry

One good example is virology. People who work in that field don't realize that viruses have never been proven to exist. They just accept the belief that they exist and build their life's work on that foundation of sand

In order to say that x causes y, you must first prove the existence of x. X in the case of virology hasn't been proven.

Just an example that will cause a lot of cog diss for most reading this. Pls go look it up for yourself if you don't believe me

dantzler 3mo ago

I'm not a virologist, but I have studied viruses and used them to study other things, hijacked their function, etc.

At one job we were studying a challenging membrane protein - a calcium transporter called orai1. This protein is made of 6 subunits that arrange themselves in a hexagon embedded in the cell membrane, with a central Ca++ pore. We were trying to make antibodies against it, but it is incredibly challenging to try to solubilize a membrane protein with higher order structure in a way that preserves how it looks in nature.

A colleague in Denmark had a plasmid from grad school containing the gag/pol gene from a murine leukemia virus. The proteins coded for in this gene are necessary and sufficient to produce viral particles that bud off from the cell membrane of a transfected cell. We used HEK293 cells that were already overexpressing Orai1 and I purified the virus-like particles using an ultracentrifuge. These VLPs were decorated on the surface with intact Orai1 and we were able to use them to get spectacular antibodies made.

At another job I worked with the AAV virus. We hijacked this one such that we could replace most of its tiny genome with e.g. a piece of DNA that coded for an ADAR guide RNA. The guides were designed to bind to a defective mRNA and could effectively change an 'A' to a 'G' in that mRNA. In the case of e.g. certain types of muscular dystrophy, changing the 'A' in a premature stop codon to a 'G' resulted in full length dystrophin being made and the potential for a kid with that genetic disease to live a more normal life.

I did analytics on these vector preps that involved using ultracentrifugation to separate empty capsids (most of them) from full capsids that contained our DNA payload. We ran a fairly cutting edge mass spec technique that is able to literally weigh each capsid to observe the fraction with payloads vs. empty, and also even partial (smaller) payloads. We could also study the mass distribution of the capsids themselves since they are made up of 3 proteins all of slightly different masses and the 60 subunit icosahedrons assemble stochastically and therefore the viral particles have different ratios of the 3 structural proteins - hence you get a distribution of empty capsid masses.

My colleagues put these preps on cells and were able to measure mRNA editing in the cells using next generation sequencing.

So here, from a bunch of biophysical first principles, I was able to see evidence of viral structure and function as defined as being able to get into a cell and interact with the cellular machinery.

Be careful of people who tell you viruses don't exist. Sometimes in an information war, adversaries will plant ideas that are picked up and espoused by people who are otherwise sharing uncomfortable truths, in order to discredit them and lower the impact and reach of their message.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Stacking Functions 3mo ago

I believe you did those things, but have viruses been shown to exist using the scientific method without using cell cultures? I can't find a single study or paper that proves that most foundational fact

This quote from Dr. Jordan Grant sums up my issues pretty well:

"I can promise you all right now: you will not find a SINGLE paper in the history of virology which has found the 'thing' inside a human being (or animal), taken that THING as the independent variable in a legitimate experiment, and proven it CAUSES the disease being studied.

That is what is necessary.

When we ask for this, and they give us the cell culture question begging nonsense, you realize it quickly that they have nothing, otherwise they'd be giving us the true scientific papers. It should be easy, if they're there...and they're not.

They do not get off the hook by begging the question. Meaning, they say "virus" as if this entity was ever PROVEN to exist, yet they cannot give you any original papers where such a thing was done.

INSTEAD, they simply PRESUPPOSE (beg the question) that this entity is real, and then engage in their cell culture nonsense and claim the EFFECT they see is "proof of the virus".

This is a logical fallacy. It is affirming the consequent, only worse, because their antecedent hasn't even been shown to EXIST.

For example, if I said "if it rains, my car will be wet. My car is wet, therefore it rained" - this would be a logical fallacy. But the "rain" is known to at least EXIST.

With viruses, it's simply "if my fairy tale belief is true, we will see XYZ in a cell culture. we DO see XYZ, therefore my fairy tale belief is true".

It's the worst form of affirming the consequent because it also incorporates unproven premises.

This is the STANDARD for virology.

once you get this, you can dissect any paper.

IF they claim "we know the virus is there because of the CPE", ask them which paper ever proved that a virus caused CPE, and where "virus" was proven in the first place. You don't get to claim an EFFECT is proof of anything without the antecedent"

Hanshan 3mo ago

So you have an alternative explanation for the VAST body of knowledge built on virus theory?

Stacking Functions 3mo ago

Its worth taking a look at the terrain theory of disease. All "disease" is caused by toxicity or deficiency.

Toxicity could be heavy metal overload, unclean water, pesticides/herbicide exposure, pfas, harmful radiation/nnemf, etc

Proof of transmission of viruses has never been done. Just look at the tests during the Spanish flu by Dr Rosenau that showed fluid swapping from sick to healthy patients didn't produce disease

The foundations for virology, and thus the entire field of virology, is pseudoscientific.

Pseudoscience is anything claiming to be scientific that doesn’t follow the scientific method. In every single "viral isolation" paper — which is the foundational evidence for the field of virology (of which all other pieces of virology and also the field of vaccinology are built upon), a variation of this procedure is followed:

snot/blood/other fluids from a sick person assumed to contain virus particles (but never verified to contain virus particles) is added to viral transport medium (VTM). At a minimum VTM contains fetal bovine serum (FBS), amphotericin B (a nephrotoxic antimycotic) and gentamicin (a nephrotoxic antibiotic). Nephrotoxic means “toxic to kidneys”, by the way. That’ll come in next.

After this, they take that mixture (a sample of snot/blood/other fluids and VTM) and add it to a foreign cell line that has been kept alive via unnatural means in a lab, typically VERO E6, VERO CCL81 (kidney cells from an adult green monkey) or human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells.

Then, after that mixture is added to the cells (or sometimes alongside adding the mixture or just before adding the mixture) the nutrient serum for the cells, FBS, is reduced from 10% to 2% (and sometimes to 1% or 0%), effectively starving the cells of their food. They also add gentamicin (sometimes geneticin) and amphotericin B to the culture. Again, these substances are known to be nephrotoxic (toxic to kidneys), and they're being added to kidney cells, where it's assumed they have no negative effects on the cells and are simply there to keep the environment free of fungal and bacterial growth.

The cells then break down, experiencing what is called the cytopathic effect (CPE), which is cell injury or death. The sample is then prepared for electron microscopy, (which is another MAJOR problem in and of itself where many of the resultant particles are claimed be viruses)

https://rumble.com/v674tqy-e141-reframing-the-infectious...

This process is pseudoscientific (and absurd) for the following reasons:

The scientific method requires an observed natural phenomenon. Full stop. That menas you observe something happening in nature. The moment you take something out of its natural context, it's no longer an observed natural phenomenon (this is especially the case when excising tissue from a complex physical, chemical, emotional, electric, etc. entity, throwing a bunch of shit on it in a lab and assuming it tells you something about natural world is absurd).

However, in the case of so-called "infectious diseases", you might say that you observe two or more people getting sick in the same space with similar symptoms. In my mind, that is a justified observed natural phenomenon. After that, you form a hypothesis. For example, “I think Y phenomenon (dependent variable) is caused by X particle (independent variable)."

In order to proceed to test that hypothesis, you need to have X, the presumed cause, the thing you think causes Y, in order to vary and manipulate it to see if it produces the observed effect in question. That is arguably the most important step. In order to follow the scientific method, you need your independent variable, X. Virology has NEVER shown that "X" exists.

Contagion is a myth, and the only virus is in our minds. The cognitive dissonance when I heard this the first time was strong. But but, I've been taught my whole life to fear these things that are out to get me. Its been liberating to know its nonsense.

Believe whatever you want, just felt it was important to lay this out for others to look into with a discerning mind. Lots of resources on the subject if there's a desire to look..

I wish anyone who read this far health, wealth and wisdom. Be well

Hanshan 3mo ago

Everything you're saying is fine and I have no big problem with it.

I am not extremely well-informed on the subject.

but I do know there is a huge amount of varying phenomena (beside simple contaigion) that are explained by viruses.

consequently, it is a very tall order to present a *different hypothesis that explains everything.

observing various different natural phenomena and postulating the simplest explanation is NOT pseudoscience.

it seems to me you just want to make clear that its still a postulate.

DefiantDandelion 3mo ago

In these studies though, don’t they take a sample of VTM “contaminated” by the presumed infected tissue and a sample of VTM that has not been “contaminated” by the presumed infected tissue and then expose separate populations of tissues [Test] (contaminated VTM) and [Control] (Non contaminated VTM) and compare outcomes of the seperate populations of tissues to observe that the samples contaminated with the presumed infected VTM generate the disease and the samples of VTM not contaminated with the presumed infection do not generate the disease? So that they can demonstrate it’s not the cell lines, of cellular starvation, etc etc that is causing the disease. The one difference is the exposure of the presumed infected tissue?

dantzler 3mo ago

What would be acceptable evidence for you?

I left out a bunch because my note was long AF.

When we transfected cells and could see editing via next gen sequencing, we had controls. If we 'transfected' with just buffer (no AAV vector) or if we transfected with purified empty capsids (no payload) or if we transfected with a non-functional 'dummy' payload we got no editing. So we controlled for some spontaneous process occurring in the cells to give us our results - it turns out we required intact capsids with the correct engineered payload to see function that we could measure.

For your car analogy, did you also park your car under a carport roof or next to a sprinkler on a sunny day to explore other ways a car could get wet or stay dry?

An AAV virus is on the order of 25 nm in size, so hard to study. Like many things at this scale, we must be creative and attempt to form hypotheses and devise experiments to test them.

If I had access to a BSL4 lab and a supply of monkeys recently deceased from ebola and I handed you a teaspoon full of their bodily fluids that I had subjected to techniques used to purify/enrich for viral particles, would you consume it if I offered you 1 BTC to do so?

[ spoiler: I would not let you because I care about your well being! ]

Humans may think we are pretty smart monkeys, but there are innumerable things in our universe that we do not understand or even know about. I find being comfortable with this more fun that constraining what I am willing to ponder based on an evolving framework.

Stacking Functions 3mo ago

Pls look at my response to Hanshan. I'm not trying to debate, just wanted to offer an example to Hodl's original idea. Please do look up the Rosenau experiments from the "Spanish flu"- that was quite enlightening for me.

Funny enough I haven't been "sick" since I stopped believing in viruses and germ theory years ago

Everyone is free to believe what they want

dantzler 3mo ago

I will look at that. Thank you.

I agree that the Spanish flu is not what it seems and that many if not most of the people reputed to have died from flu likely died from something else (e.g. secondary bacterial infections, etc.)

Your profile lists homesteading as an interest, and I'm pretty sure that is why I originally followed you. I'm also working on homesteading. We harvested dozens of pears, asian pears, shallots, onions, potatoes & zucchini this past weekend. I am lucky to have a horticulturist as my beloved partner.

In the spirit of curiosity & improved plant yields, consider that there are plant pathogens that have been classified as viruses (various mosiac, wilt, leaf roll, leaf curl, etc.) that unfortunately infect tomatoes, potatoes, beans, cucumbers, peppers, spinach, etc. There are empirically determined mitigation strategies such as crop rotation, sanitizing of tools, reduction of insect vectors and pests, etc. I am trying to learn more about these to improve my ability to produce food.

The narrative around plant pathogens is less charged at the moment and may provide another perspective to learn and understand about this class of plant diseases.

Thank you for engaging respectfully and I agree that we are all free to believe what we wish. Be well.

Stacking Functions 3mo ago

Terrain theory applies to all living beings.

The original definition of a virus is poison.

So poisons and toxins in the soil will present as "virus" and disease in the plant. Healthy soil doesn't express "viruses and disease" in its plants because its in healthy homeostasis.

Just build microbially rich, in balance, mineral rich soil that can facilitate free-flowing cation exchange and you'll have healthy plants.

Everything comes back to the root cause of toxicity and deficiency, so correcting symptoms just suppresses the issues and makes root cause solutions harder to assess and implement

Biochar, sea minerals, paramagnetic rock, molasses, kelp, healthy compost, and compost teas will all strengthen and enhance your soils "terrain" and then you won't have to waste your time diagnosing disease and pest issues.

Also electroculture helps- don't know why or how but it does

https://www.thespruce.com/what-is-electroculture-gardening-8697899

dantzler 3mo ago

I agree with the vast majority of what you have written here. 😄

It is challenging at the beginning of developing a garden (we are only now 1 year on the property) to move things in the direction of healthy, microbially rich soil. The fun is in the journey and the learning.

So far, using deep leaf mulching from the abundant trees in the non-garden space has helped out compete weeds and add organic material to our clay-rich soils. We hunted for symphylans this weekend and fortunately did not find any. I'm excited to put some soil under a microscope to look at what kinds of nematodes we have, among other tiny soil creatures.

As you say, plants in healthy soil, like a healthy body will resist assault by pathogens. Both human and plant immune systems are truly amazing.