Nostr Web Client

> Making up new definitions

The first virus isolation occurred in the 1930's and yes, it was called isolation THEN. Using a definition from before viruses were discovered as some kind of universal rule that can never be challenged does't exactly sound scientific.

> No virus has been isolated and shown to infect live cells

They literally do challenge trials where they expose people to viruses with controls and they assess infection rate as well as symptoms. What are they giving these people that causes them to exhibit the exact same symptoms of the disease if not the virus?

Just like with humans we have full genome sequences for multiple viruses.

You can argue that viruses aren't as harmful as suggested or perhaps not harmful at all, but suggesting they don't exist is ridiculous. And this goes back to my point, if OP is going to claim viruses don't exist, why is he using someone who clearly believes they do as a reference?

Ike 2y ago

You are rewriting history, brother - viruses have been claimed to exist way before 1930s and peoples forced to use mandated medicine against them. What is unscientific about demanding to be shown proof of existence of something you are using to scare people into accepting mass medicating as a viable remedy? Your argument about isolation is moot - there's the scientific method and also some good postulates which can be used for proving existence, and then there's fraud. The "spanish" vaccine adverse pandemic a hundred years ago is a great example of the entire nonsense field. So deadly, yet so impossible to infect healthy subjects when tried in experimental settings.

Modern genome gymnastics are more proof of the century long scam of virology. Finding everything in a soup of cell debris and then using computers to create a sequence from it which corellates to a sequence in a government approved gene bank is not science. You can look up Lanka's experiment and see that he has recreated virus particles the same as ones claimed by "isolations", by simply poisoning and starving cell cultures without mixing an infected sample.

Making people sick is a very lucrative biz, though, especially when you socialize your operating expenses.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

H 2y ago

I never claimed this was when the word virus was created or when the first virus was discovered. I am speaking specifically of isolation (for which a Nobel prize was later awarded).

The question of vaccine definition, effectiveness, mandates etc are all different topics but it's important to remember people were being vaccinated long before anyone knew what a virus was. People just knew smallpox was a disease and infecting people with cowpox reduced the likelihood of being infected and reduced the severity if you were.

Spanish flu vaccination failure was based on the flawed assumption that a bacteria was the root cause. In any case failures of vaccines then or now, do not mean viruses don't exist.

Your story has seemingly changed a little regarding Lanka's work. In your first note you say both the virus and control show the same cell death in an in vitro experiment. Now you are saying he can modify the control to show viral particles. Please link me the paper or provide the DOI. This 2nd thing frankly sounds impossible.

If genomic research is garbage, how are saliva samples able to accurately detect ancestry, genetic diseases etc?

> Making people sick is a very lucrative biz, though, especially when you socialize your operating expenses.

Fully agree with this specific point.

mrclownworld 2y ago

“infecting people with cowpox reduced the likelihood of being infected and reduced the severity if you were”

Take a look at the Leicester data. It flies right in the face of this assumption. They never had smallpox/cowpox vaccine mandates and their death and case outcomes were far better than any of the other cities in England.

H 2y ago

> They never had a mandate

Untrue. Leicester removed the mandate after protests. You can look it up, there were thousands of prosecutions. They had previously had mandates and even after it was removed the majority still vaccinated. Having said that, the Leicester method was absoutely, provably better than vaccination even if you don't take into account deaths from vaccination itself.

With all that in mind, vaccination did reduce the risk of infection and the risk of death from smallpox (assuming you survived vaccination). That doesn't mean vaccination was a good idea considering the high death rate, but my original statement is still true.

mrclownworld 2y ago

I don’t have time to go find my book and debate the facts, but let’s just point to the most important thing you said - the very first vaccination caused more deaths than it prevented

This simple possibility, which is present for every vaccine, necessitates all-cause mortality studies against placebos, which are never done.

That these studies are never done, along with the fact that vaccine manufacturers petitioned the government saying that the free market had determined their product created more downstream liability than profit, leads me to believe these products are not inherently safe nor effective.

H 2y ago

I didn't say that, but it's probably true. Vaccination causing deaths then or now, doesn't mean viruses aren't real.

Ike 2y ago

No modifications - his control experiment simply shows how by following the standard virology "isolation" method but without mixing a sample from a supposedly infected person, one gets the same cell death under EM which papers are claiming as proof of viruses, even isolation.

I hope you understand in sillico viruses are only computer generated, and that by using the pcr multiplication method (high cycle count) one can find almost everything in anything (K.Mullis).

https://www.docdroid.net/m2wNB4Q/lanka-control-experiment-pdf

H 2y ago

So to confirm where the following

> he has recreated virus particles the same as ones claimed by "isolations"

Did not happen.

Ike 2y ago

Yes indeed - he recreated the same cell death claimed to be caused by viruses in cell cultures, without adding samples from infected people. Same result virologists claimed was proof of ncov sars2 presence in early 2020, which they then used as proof of the virus by showing magnified cell debris/decay - calling it isolation.

H 2y ago

He uses human epithelial cells instead of veroe6 (monkey kidney epithelial cells) which were used in both the bat study he referenced and the original US SARS-COV-2 study. In both of those cases CPE was seen in 2 days (2nd single day blind pass), whereas he ran multiple 5 day passes.

An appropriate comparison in this case would have been to obtain a research virus sample of some sort and run the test on infected tissue and non infected tissue at the same time.

Alternatively he could have obtained veroe6 cells and performed the test over the same period of time as the paper he is replicating. If he doesn't get the same result in 2 days, how can he suggest that the virus is having no effect?

Both the bat and SARS-COV-2 papers also include TEM, PCR analysis and full genome sequences for their respective viruses. This is important because TEM (which he didn't perform) is part of the isolation process for viruses. From the bat paper:

Virus isolation

Vero E6 cell monolayers were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS. PCR-positive samples (in 200 μl buffer) were gradient centrifuged at 3,000–12,000g, and supernatant were diluted 1:10 in DMEM before being added to Vero E6 cells. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, inocula were removed and replaced with fresh DMEM with 2% FCS. Cells were incubated at 37 °C for 3 days and checked daily for cytopathic effect. Double-dose triple antibiotics penicillin/streptomycin/amphotericin (Gibco) were included in all tissue culture media (penicillin 200 IU ml−1, streptomycin 0.2 mg ml−1, amphotericin 0.5 μg ml−1). Three blind passages were carried out for each sample. After each passage, both the culture supernatant and cell pellet were examined for presence of virus by RT–PCR using primers targeting the RdRP or S gene. Virions in supernatant (10 ml) were collected and fixed using 0.1% formaldehyde for 4 h, then concentrated by ultracentrifugation through a 20% sucrose cushion (5 ml) at 80,000g for 90 min using a Ty90 rotor (Beckman). The pelleted viral particles were suspended in 100 μl PBS, stained with 2% phosphotungstic acid (pH 7.0) and examined using a Tecnai transmission electron microscope (FEI) at 200 kV.

He says that RNA "next-generation" sequencing was performed but:

Sequence and extracellular vesicle analyses are ongoing.

So was there follow up to this? Did he confirm that analysis showed no contamination from the drawn out testing performed?

Ike 2y ago

You are free to contact him and ask