As everyone knows, social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn have been engaged in censorship on the false pretext of combating misinformation, with the word “misinformation” being a euphemism for any information, no matter how factual, that doesn’t align with the adopted political agenda (i.e., authoritarian lockdowns and their mass vaccination endgame).
For numerous illuminating examples, see my article, “Yes, Fauci and Gates Do Have Ties to COVID-19 Vaccine Maker”.
It is obvious that these social media companies really have no problem with misinformation since they approve of official disinformation from government agencies and mainstream media sources including their partner “fact check” organizations.
Disinformation that serves the political agenda is perfectly fine with these companies. For example, I was censored by Facebook for accurately stating that the claim by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that COVID-19 vaccines induce superior immunity to that induced by infection is a lie and for providing a link to a series of fully referenced articles I’ve published extensively documenting what an outrageous falsehood the CDC’s claim is.
I’ve documented how Twitter, too, actively promotes the CDC’s false claim that vaccines induce superior immunity by citing a single primary source to supposedly “debunk” any statements to the contrary. The primary source cited? Why, the CDC, of course! Never mind the very large number of studies showing that natural immunity is robust, broad, durable (with induction of immunological memory likely to persist for decades if not a lifetime), and far superior to that induced by vaccination. Evidently, we are not supposed to know that any science exists apart from the ridiculous studies the CDC itself produces in feeble attempts to support its own policies.
So, typically, these social media platforms routinely censor truths that don’t align with the political agenda while amplifying official disinformation serving to manufacture consent for the same agenda. Well, now I’ve experienced a quite different problem with their mutual policy of censorship: I have been censored for trying to share the link to an article that corrects what these social media platforms themselves define—rightly, in this case—as misinformation.
Specifically, I tried to share the link to an article addressing the false claim that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, does not exist. The post I tried to publish on both Twitter and LinkedIn consisted of the title of the article, which was “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus”, along with the link.
Both Twitter and LinkedIn blocked me from sharing that corrective information.
Obviously, these social media companies would not argue that it is “misinformation” to say that the virus exists. While LinkedIn’s guidelines are vague and just instruct not to post false information, Twitter’s guidelines, like Facebook’s, specifically prohibit posts claiming that COVID-19 is not a real disease or does not exist, which certainly includes claiming that the coronavirus does not exist!
The article I was trying to share was written by Dr. Joseph Mercola and published on Mercola.com, a leading source for information about how to live a naturally healthy lifestyle. The article featured an embedded video of an interview of me by journalist and author Bretigne Shaffer in March 2021, in which we discussed the problem of counterproductive claims emanating from within the ranks of the health freedom movement.
In that interview, I identified a number of claims being made by certain prominent individuals who align with the cause that truly are false and argued that these false claims are harming the movement by legitimizing the accusation from those promoting the agenda that people who oppose the authoritarianism are spreading misinformation.
One of the false claims we discussed that I have continually encountered since the beginning of the pandemic is the claim that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist.
In his article, Dr. Mercola shared the video and expressed his agreement with what I’d said about it in the interview. “SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photographed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity”, Mercola wrote. The rest of the article goes into further details about how the virus has been proven to exist.
Because of the intense censorship and personal threats for sharing information about how people can maintain good health without relying on pharmaceutical products, Dr. Mercola now only makes his articles available for a very limited time, so unfortunately the original link to the article now redirects, but here is another site that has reposted Mercola’s article.
Here is a screenshot of what happened when I tried to post the title of the article along with the link on Twitter:
Twitter blocked me from being able to publish my post at on the grounds that the link I was trying to share had been “identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.”
I did successfully publish the post on LinkedIn, but within a day, LinkedIn removed it. Only I can view it now, with a notice informing me that nobody else can see it. The stated reason for this is that my post goes against LinkedIn’s community policies.
I was alerted to this removal by an email from LinkedIn stating, “Your post goes against our policy on misinformation. It has been removed and only you can access it.”
LinkedIn didn’t specify in the email which post they were referring to, so I had to go to my feed and scroll through to discover which one. The email did explain that if I felt like they’d made a mistake, I could click a link to request reconsideration. After figuring out which post they were talking about, I did so, with the following explanation about why my post should be reinstated:
It is absurd that LinkedIn has removed this post of mine on the grounds that it violates your policies on misinformation, given the fact that the purpose of the article I was sharing is to fight the misinformation that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated. By removing my post, you are literally stopping me from helping to stop the spread of the misinformation that the virus does not exist. Please be reasonable and stop censoring me for sharing truthful information that combats harmful misinformation on the false grounds that by doing so I am spreading “misinformation”! Absurd!
Very soon thereafter, I received a response from LinkedIn, which stated:
After taking a second look, we confirmed your content goes against our Professional Community Policies, https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies. We understand that this might not be the response you wanted, but we work to apply our policies in a fair and consistent way for all of our members. Thanks again for being part of the LinkedIn community.
They closed the support ticket, which I reopened to submit the following additional response:
Please specify for me what policy you are accusing me of having violated and specify what information I posted you are alleging is “misinformation”. I do not believe that you are capable of doing so. I maintain that my post did not violate the LinkedIn guidelines in any way and that the article I shared the link to in fact combatted true misinformation. Specifically, the article debunked the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated. Why is LinkedIn defending this false claim by censoring an article explaining that the virus has in fact been isolated (it does exist)?
I have as yet received no response, and my post linking to the article correcting the misinformation remains censored. I anticipate that they will never respond to actually identify what it is that they are claiming is “misinformation” since I have been through this process before with a couple of other posts. Each time, I appealed their removal of posts of mine that presented accurate, factual information, and each time they simply replied to say that they are sticking by their decision, without ever even identifying what it was about my post that they were claiming was untrue. Each time I requested them to specify, they refused.
So, as you can see, both Twitter and LinkedIn, in their zeal to censor anything from Dr. Mercola, no matter how factual, have also blocked me from being able to share information to combat the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist, which truly is harmful misinformation.
Of course, I don’t agree that people making that claim should be censored, either, but in this particular case, the mutual censorship policy of Twitter and LinkedIn is working ironically to defend the misinformation. Those making the claim should be free to do so, those of us who don’t delude ourselves about it should be free to rebut their misinformation, and those observing the open public discussion should be free to evaluate the arguments on both sides to determine the truth for themselves.
Truly, the offensive and hypocritical censorship has gotten ridiculously out of hand. We must stand together to fight the censorship just as we must stand together using effective arguments to fight the authoritarian political agendas being protected by these social media companies’ censorship efforts.
If you’d like to follow me on social media, I’m on anti-censorship platforms, too. Here are links to where you can find me:
Jeremy:
With respect for your journalistic acuity,
please refer to Canadian Biostatistician, Christine Massey’s diligent worldwide FOIA requests and updated results as of January 15, 2022:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/
Regards,
Michael
Washington State
Massey’s FOI requests are a hoax. Naturally, when you request documentation of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods scientists use to isolate viruses, you will return no results. The proof of the virus’s existence is not hidden away in some secret institutional archives. It is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and international databases of genomic sequences of virus isolates.
Sad to say, you have also drank the Kool-Aid… The scientific method has not been used to isolate and purify a virus, according to 164 scientific and educational institutions. For you to brush this off as a “hoax”, without investigating the methods by which virologists identify a virus creating a toxic soup and then creating a genomic sequence from that in a computer, is unconscionable on your part as someone who boasts journalistic excellence.
Regards,
M
One of us evidently has.
You must be referring to those hoax FOI requests. Naturally, when you request documentation of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods that scientists use to isolate viruses, you will return no results. Proof of the virus’s existence is not hidden away in secret institutional archives. It is published in the scientific literature and publicly available in international genome sequence databases.
For you to claim I’ve “brushed this off…without investigating the methods by which virologists identify a virus” demonstrates how you are arguing from ignorance.
Sorry, Bub, but you are the ignorant one. I have a degree in biochemistry and worked for seven years in various labs at two of the premier research institutions in the world, Rockefeller University and MIT, the last three of which were in molecular biology studying… wait for it… an rna virus. It was a plant virus, alfalfa mosaic virus.
The unscientific “method” that “virologist” use to “isolate” pathogenic “viruses” was developed by people bound and determined to prove “viruses” exist, which is as far from true science as you can get.
Instead of using the standard method of isolation which is running the sample through a density gradient–the method STILL TODAY used for isolating bacteriophages and plant viruses of similar size–they cheated, didn’t isolate anything and used no controls in their experiments.
Go to this link and read the following under purification:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42685955
“A higher purification was achieved by centrifugation in sucrose density gradient (10%-40%).”
Here’s the standard method for isolating lambda phage:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-isolate-DNA-from-λ-phage
Note the use of a cesium chloride density gradient.
I can’t believe that you would criticize people the way you are. I listened to your interview and was appalled at the incorrect things you said, and you dare to call others ignorant? Did you ever work in a molecular biology lab? Did you ever do any basic research on viruses as I have? Do you know the first thing about dna or rna sequencing? Have you ever performed a pcr amplification?
Do you even know what a control is in a scientific experiment?
You are not simply ignorant, your are PROFOUNDLY ignorant, an ignoramus who, instead of admitting you don’t know and researching further, you persist in your ignorance and insult others who do know the truth.
A journalist you are not, that’s for sure.
Liz,
You have violated the terms of use of the comments section of this website and therefore have revoked your commenting privileges.
You claim that “the standard method” of virus isolation is centrifugation in sucrose density gradient, citing a paper on alfalfa mosaic virus isolated from a kenaf plant.
Implicitly, therefore, you are arguing that cell culture is not a “standard method”. But it is. As this paper states with respect to human viruses, “Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites and thus are propagated using living cells in the form of cultured cells, embryonated hen’s eggs, or laboratory animals. Culture has long been considered the ‘gold standard’ for viral diagnosis because it secuires an isolate for further analysis, is more ‘open-minded’ than methods that target single agents, and allows the unexpected or even novel agent to be recovered.”
https://doi.org/10.1128/9781555819156.ch7
Your claim also illustrates how you confuse “purification” with “isolation”. You treat these terms as synonymous, but they are two different albeit related processes. I would expect someone with a degree in biochemistry to be able to comprehend scientific papers, and certainly better than I can, but this argument illustrates your lack of reading comprehension. The paper is behind an access wall, but the first page is shown, and on it, they list steps taken to isolate and characterize the virus. Under the section subtitled “Virus source and host range”, it states that the plant virus “was isolated from a kenaf plant and propagated” on two other types of plant. That is, they “inoculated” the plants using the virus isolated from sap of the kenaf plant. Following is a section subtitled “Purification”, in which the authors explain that, “For purification, the AMV isolate was cultured in N. glutinosa.” So, you can see that isolation and purification have two different meanings. First, they isolated it from the kenaf plant, then they purified it by culturing it (yes, culturing it) in a tobacco plant.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42685955
Consequently, your own cited source refutes your implicit claim that culturing is neither a “standard” nor proper method to use in the isolation, identification, and characterization of a virus.
You also claim implicitly that no human virus has ever been purified using centrifugation with sucrose density gradient, but that is false, too. Here, for instance, is a paper (in a biochemistry journal) describing the purification of influenza virus: “The concentrated virus is further purified by a simplified density-gradient technique. No host cell protein is detectable in the final product. The technique offers a broad application potential for concentrating and purifying other viruses.”
https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(85)90103-4
In this article, Dr. Osamu Nakagomi, a professor of biomedical science at Nagasaki University, explains how rotavirus and other human viruses are purified using ultracentrifugation in sucrose density gradient. He notes that ultracentrifugation a “fundamental aspect of virology” for determining the physiochemical properties of viruses:
https://www.beckman.com/resources/reading-material/interviews/fundamentals-of-ultracentrifugal-virus-purification
This paper describes the process of purificating coronavirus virions using centrifugation with sucrose density gradient:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7123363/
When SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, scientists isolated the virus by first purifying the patient sample using centrifugation and then using the supernatant to inoculate human cells, using uninoculated cell cultures as controls. When cytopathic effects were observed in inoculated cultures, they collected supernatant and purified it using ultracentrifugation for observation using electron microscopy, photographing the characteristic structure of the coronavirus. They then did whole genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of the complete genome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/
You cite a second source that you describe as describing “the standard method for isolating lambda phage”. Once again, your own source describes how they culture — yes, culture the virus using bacterial culture, then extract the supernatant for centrifugation.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-isolate-DNA-from-%CE%BB-phage
Plant viruses infect plants. Hence plants are used to culture plant viruses. Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria. Hence bacteria are used to culture bacteriophages. Human/animal viruses infect animals. Hence human/animal cells are used to culture human/animal viruses.
To implicitly argue that culturing human/animal viruses in human/animal cells is somehow a wrong method on the grounds that plant viruses are cultured in plants and bacteriophages are cultured in bacteria is obviously nonsensical. Specifically, it’s a non sequitur fallacy.
In sum, we can see that everything I said stands, whereas your comment is demonstrably riddled with factual and logical errors.
Wow, you are so confused there is little point talking to you. If you have the nerve to post this, maybe it will help others.
Isolation/purification–the same thing–IS done by the standard method of density gradients for biological “particles” of the size that “viruses” are claimed to be. The fact that the voodoo virologists don’t use it doesn’t mean it’s not the standard method that SHOULD BE USED. It’s used everywhere else on particles of like size. Why is virology different??? The problem with virology is that it has strayed from standard methodology, including not using controls in their experiments. Especially because of that, virology is not a science.
Other items where you are demonstrably wrong because you don’t understand the science:
Samples should be isolated/purified directly from the patient, no tissue cultures should be used. The tissue cultures are an obvious source of nucleic acid contamination. Do you even know what’s in fetal bovine serum?
The bacterial cultures and the plant material are the cells that contain the virus and do not have contaminating source of nucleic acids. This is completely different from taking a sample from a person and putting it on a monkey kidney cell culture that has two sources of contaminating nucleic acids–the monkey kidney cells themselves and the fetal bovine serum. This is so obvious I can’t believe you would question it.
Centrifuging a sample from a tissue culture is NOT the same as centrifuging on a density gradient. These are different processes done for different reasons.
Exactly where has it been shown that da coveed actually causes illness? The only way to show its virulence is to expose people to the “virus” and if they get sick AND have the “virus” in their tissues, not a vero cell culture, then that is evidence of virulence. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. Don’t even bother with the baloney that it would be unethical to do such a study. That’s the liars in big pharma talking. There is nothing unethical about exposing subjects to a “virus” that supposedly gives people the common cold.
Exactly where has it been shown that MONKEYS GET DA COVEED?
The way the studies should be done is to take biopsies of the target organ of sick patients and extract the “virus” from there. If it can’t be found in the sick patients’ tissues, it’s not a viral disease, PERIOD. Once a “virus” is isolated/purified from sick patients, lots of them, then the “virus” can be analyzed for its proteins and sequenced. Also, the isolates can then be used to challenge healthy people to see if they become sick. Finally, any sick subjects should also be biopsied and shown to have the “virus.” This is the only protocol that can show there is a virus and that it’s pathogenic, and this has never been done.
You are wowed by the voodoo virologist telling you nonsense because YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE PAPERS, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE, AND YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE LOGIC.
No, in fact, these words have two different meanings, as I’ve already illustrated. Simply repeating a fallacy that has already been identified is not a rational argument.
Why do you persist in the false claim that virologists do use centrifugation with density gradients when I have already shown that assertion to be false? Again, simply repeating a claim that has already been falsified is not a rational argument.
Why do you persist in the false claim that virologists do not use controls in their experiments when I have already shown that assertion to be false? Again, simply repeating a claim that has already been falsified is not a rational argument.
You haven’t demonstrated any point on which I am wrong. You simply repeated the same false claims or logical fallacies that I already identified without actually addressing my counterarguments. This is most unreasonable.
Again, isolation and purification mean two different things, and to assert that cell culture should not be used is the fallacy of begging the question. I have already explained why this is a nonsensical argument since isolation of bacteriophages involves culturing in bacteria and isolation of plant viruses involves culturing in plants. Naturally, isolation of human viruses by the same standard involves culturing in cells.
I hate to break the news to you, but plants and bacteria also have DNA.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/plant-dna
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/bacterial-dna
This is a nonsensical statement. A sample from a tissue culture can be centrifuged using a density gradient, as I went over in my prior comment.
There is no point in discussing the role of SARS-CoV-2 in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 with someone who denies that SARS-CoV-2 exists. However…
For example, here:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2324-7
No, biopsies are not necessary. Swabbing the nasal passage, for example, can suffice.
Yes, which explains why there are hundreds of thousands of published whole genome sequences of isolates obtained from patient samples in international databases GenBank and GISAID.
To deliberately infect a human with SARS-CoV-2 would be considered unethical, which is why they have used animal studies instead, e.g., showing that monkeys inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 isolated from human patients develop disease.
The evidence presented in this thread contradicts your conclusion, illustrating the pure hypocrisy of this accusation.
Your disrespectful hostility toward me for merely presenting a well-reasoned and referenced response to a demonstrably erroneous argument violates the terms of use of the comments section of this site. You have thereby revoked your commenting privilege.
Well, i looked at two of the papers you said showed isolation of the virus, and they don’t. Their methods are getting rid of some maybe a lot of debris. But isolation of a virus they are not.
In the one using a modified sucrose density gradient, they did NOT use the density gradient to stratify various particles by density, they used the modified sucrose gradient to get rid of debris and they pelleted the supposed virus through the gradient. The sample they used for this process was not an isolate as they claimed, but was a sample of tissue culture that would have contamination from the patient, the vero cells and the growth medium.
See this link: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31175?fbclid=lwAR025YeZ64s3HyHaROFYnTSMbBmTHMQNRzmcDA8vBwQQs4Ao7oddPvqUk2M&_kx=e2Sev-pQ21B_tXUf_HiSpBIVGaa6ErWkaadgTGv–Xo%3D.TVKZzX
The second article used the same source of supposed virus, culture medium. They did NOT isolate a virus. They used this unpurified sample to sequence rna. ?!? What they’ll get is a mish mash of different sized and various types of rna from the patient maybe along with contamination from bacterial rna, and contamination from the cell culture that, as the above reference warns contains rna from the vero cells, the fetal bovine serum and possibly microorganism contamination in the medium.
They say they ran a control for the cytopathic effect cultures, an improvement, but they don’t give any details. They just say ‘mock infected.” ?!?
In describing the supposed virus they supposedly isolated, they said that the particles varied from 60 to 140 nm in diameter. That’s quite a range, and that is a strong indication that the sample is not pure.
I have to say, that the people crying foul in this comment section are correct. You can give us reference after reference, but it will be the same old story. It appears that you are not an experienced molecular biologist and you can’t understand what you’re reading. In this high tech field, it is very easy to pull the wool over the eyes of even other biologists. You haven’t a prayer.
ps maybe they seem hostile since you seemed hostile in calling the first guy ignorant. Turn about is fair play.
Yes, they do.
The second article used the same source of supposed virus, culture medium.
You are engaging in circular reasoning, assertion that culturing of virus is somehow invalid, which is a fallacy I have already addressed (and you are not addressing my explanations of why you are employing a logical fallacy).
Mock infected means a control.
Evidently, you are referring to my comment in my response to Michael, “For you to claim I’ve ‘brushed this off…without investigating the methods by which virologists identify a virus’ demonstrates how you are arguing from ignorance.” Which was certainly, by your own standard, “fair play” turnabout from his comment that started with “Sad to say, you have also drank the Kool-Aid”! Spare me your hypocrisy.
Hi Jeremy, it’s Helena.. I have to confirm whether to send your book I once bought, to Amsterdam or Prague (will reply to our email later)
Write to Senator Ted Cruz. He grilled Jack Dorsey in past. Matt Bellamy, lead singer of Muse, posted on his wall about Section 230. Congress/Senate should stop this ridiculous protection that Twitter has been using.
I got suspended by Twitter a month ago @k_helca & several days ago @SnowdogChampion
In past @Starsailoresss wrote a 102-tweet thread in reply to SwedenUN urgent call on Palestine, Jerusalem Embassy. I exposed everything I knew & demanded #FreeAssange, argumenting his “crimes” were not to be compared with those committed by the US=Israel/UK monster
With one hit, that account was suspended, WHEN Julian Assange was still “SAFE” in the Embassy
I know how you feel… I sent appeals about my last two suspensions, and Twitter replied that I violated the policy of having multiple accounts.. they added “don’t try to open a new account” read we know who you are; IP address I guess
Take care & keep publishing :) Helena
So far, none of my own articles have been blocked and I haven’t been deplatformed anywhere, but I have been notified by Facebook that my page is being penalized in its algorithms, and I’ve had numerous posts linking to others’ articles censored on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. I take great care not to share articles that do contain misinformation, that are strictly truthful and accurate, but of course facts don’t matter to the “fact checkers”!
I think the numerous people disappointed and obviously disagreeing with your claim that “yes, the virus is real” might be arguing this the wrong way with you. I agree with everything they are trying to convey but I think there is a simpler way to debate this. The virus has NOT BEEN FOUND in the bodily fluid or tissue of any person which is where they claim is the natural environment for their so called virus. Along with that, If viruses exist and cause disease, science must fulfill four common sense criteria known as Koch’s postulates to prove this.
Koch’s postulates are four common sense criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease and are the following:
1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
3. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
4. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
5. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
Virologist want us to believe that modern day concepts in microbial pathogenesis cannot be examined using the common sense Koch’s postulates, including viruses and asymptomatic carriers. Rather than looking into other reasons for illness like physical, chemical or emotional stress which includes toxicity or poisoning, starvation or deficiencies, mental stress or delusional thinking (for example an imaginary virus makes people sick).
In short, there is no science or isolation of the virus because again, it has never been found in the bodily fluids or tissue of any sick person nor any person for that matter.
If you mean that to determine whether the virus is present in the bodily fluid or tissue of a person, they have to take a sample from the patient, i.e., removing the virus from the body, to isolate it, then, yes, inasmuch as this is a tautology. If you mean that the virus has never been isolated, then, no; you are incorrect.
To identify a virus in a sample from a sick patient is to isolate the virus, so your logic becomes cirular: “since the virus has never been isolated, it has never been isolated”.
This is so crazy I can’t stand it.
We are saying, correctly btw, that the technique the virologists use to claim isolation does NOT actually isolate anything, certainly not viral rna. That is not circular reasoning. We are telling you that putting a mixed nucleic acid sample on a tissue culture with further sources of nucleic acid contamination is not isolation, it doesn’t matter what a virologist says.
Are you actually saying that the sample from a person’s lungs has nothing but virual nucleic acid? No human nucleic acids? No bacterial, no fungal, etc? What’s your basis for that? Show us the PEER REVIEWED study that says there are no nucleic acids in a lung fluid sample other than viral nucleic acids.
Are you saying that the nucleic acids in the tissue culture are not a source of contamination? Wow, this is simple logic, but since you would certainly want PEER REVIEW:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31175?fbclid=lwAR025YeZ64s3HyHaROFYnTSMbBmTHMQNRzmcDA8vBwQQs4Ao7oddPvqUk2M&_kx=e2Sev-pQ21B_tXUf_HiSpBIVGaa6ErWkaadgTGv–Xo%3D.TVKZzX
You are arguing like a 10 year old, “Yes it is. No it isn’t. Yes it is. No it isn’t.” How about you use some evidence?
Oh, wait, there isn’t any…
False. The methods scientists use to determine whether a person has a viral infection and, if so, to identify the virus most certainly does isolate the virus from the patient.
Your argument here is purely semantic, resting implicitly on the assertion that the use of cell culture isn’t “isolation” in a layperson’s dictionary-definition understanding of the word to mean complete separation of the virus from everything else, as though it were possible to suspend the virion in a vacuum for observation. Viruses require host cells for replication and therefore it makes sense and is perfectly valid for scientists to use cell culture in the process of isolating a virus from a patient sample.
No, I am absolutely not saying that. The assumption of your question is a strawman argument. Scientists purify the patient sample (with filtration or centrifugation) to separate the virus from other materials prior to inoculation of cell culture using control to ensure that any cytopathic effects observed are due to the presence of a virus.
If you mean that 10 year old children are capable of using facts and logic to arrive at conclusions, then I suppose so. I don’t suppose that is your meaning, though, so I’ll give you one warning that you are dangerously close to violating the terms of use of the comments section with this kind of personal insult. Violating the rules will result in your commenting privileges being revoked.
“Scientists purify the patient sample (with filtration or centrifugation) to separate the virus from other materials prior to inoculation of cell culture using control to ensure that any cytopathic effects observed are due to the presence of a virus.”
This is where your lack of laboratory methods and procedures shows.
THE VIRUS IS NOT PURIFIED BY THOSE PROCEDURES. Filtration will not remove small particles and dissolved biological materials. The centrifugation is not a density gradient run to equilibrium and fractionated.
Large contaminants are removed, but the virus is not purified. If it were, they would take electron micrographs of the purified sample that would show only virus. But they don’t. They take pics of the tissue culture, which is not a purified sample.
Further, once the sample is added to the tissue culture, it is further contaminated with the monkey cells, fetal bovine serum and possibly other sources of nucleic acids.
“Viruses require host cells for replication and therefore it makes sense and is perfectly valid for scientists to use cell culture in the process of isolating a virus from a patient sample.”
No, no, no. It makes no difference how a virus replicates, totally irrelevant. To perform biochemical analysis, the samples must be devoid of any materials that would confound that analysis. They cannot have multiple sources of nucleic acid contamination. Likewise for any samples used to show infection and resulting illness.
There is no way there is any logical reasoning to your crazy sentence because, clearly, adding an unpurified sample to a tissue culture is not isolation. It is contamination compounded.
Without a pure sample, sequencing cannot be done. Instead, they use computer models to produce a hypothetical sequence. These model can only be properly used for known genomes, not “novel” organisms. The faux virus genome has not been sequenced using wet chemistry which is the only valid way to sequence an unknown.
And your contention that these papers have controls is 100% wrong. They most certainly do not. Recently, spurred by many people noticing this fatal flaw, authors of recent papers say they use “mock cultures,” not a control, but THEY DO NOT DESCRIBE WHAT THAT MEANS. What are the conditions of these “mock cultures”? When several people have written to the authors for more information, there’s no answer. This is outrageously dishonest. If they had used a control culture, they would have called it a control and described the method. And you fall for this dishonesty?
And, btw, you just equated isolation with purification. You criticized someone else in this comment section for doing just that by saying those aren’t the same. Ja, ja, ja. Do you even remember what you say?
I really think it is past time to admit you are way out of your league. Simply say you don’t have an opinion on this issue because you don’t understand the science and concentrate on something else.
There is no shame in admitting ignorance. There’s plenty of shame in feigning expertise.
Yes, it is.
I have already provided references showing that viruses are purified by centrifugation with density gradient.
Here, for instance, is a paper (in a biochemistry journal) describing the purification of influenza virus: “The concentrated virus is further purified by a simplified density-gradient technique. No host cell protein is detectable in the final product. The technique offers a broad application potential for concentrating and purifying other viruses.”
https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(85)90103-4
This paper describes the process of purifying coronavirus virions using centrifugation with sucrose density gradient:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7123363/
In this article, Dr. Osamu Nakagomi, a professor of biomedical science at Nagasaki University, explains how rotavirus and other human viruses have been purified using ultracentrifugation in sucrose density gradient. Dr. Nakagomi also explains that, while density gradient centrifugation is required to determine the physiochemical properties of a new virus, it is not a requirement simply for determining whether a known virus that has already been well characterized is present in a patient sample, and he also explains that use of density gradient is only one method of ultracentrifugation:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210122050145/https://www.beckman.com/resources/reading-material/interviews/fundamentals-of-ultracentrifugal-virus-purification
When SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, scientists isolated the virus by first purifying the patient sample using centrifugation to remove cellular debris and then using the supernatant to inoculate human cells, using uninoculated cell cultures as controls. When cytopathic effects were observed in inoculated cultures, they collected supernatant and purified it using ultracentrifugation for observation using electron microscopy, photographing the characteristic structure of the coronavirus. They then did whole genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of the complete genome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/
Again, there are different methods of ultracentrifugation, and density gradient centrifugation is only one of them.
https://microbenotes.com/ultracentrifuge/
Different methods of centrifugation “are complimentary and not competitive”, and it is a “misconception that the biological agent under investigation has to be ‘pure’ before certain fundamental molecular parameters can be established.”
Isolation is the process by which scientists separate the virus from its host. First, “Virions in the liquid medium can be separated from the host cells by either centrifugation or filtration.” Then, since viruses require host cells for replication, viruses can be cultivated using cell culture:
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Microbiology_(OpenStax)/06%3A_Acellular_Pathogens/6.03%3A_Isolation_Culture_and_Identification_of_Viruses
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1128/9781555819156.ch7
Again, after cell culture, for further characterization of a virus, purification by centrifugation can be done, as already described.
Of course it is relevant that viruses require host cells for replication and therefore cell culture is used to cultivate viruses.
Which is why they purify virus isolates with centrifugation for performing those types of analyses.
False. In fact, with metagenomic next generation sequencing, they can sequence the whole genomes of numerous microorganisms at once, and this can be done with samples taken directly from the environment.
https://asm.org/Articles/2019/November/Metagenomic-Next-Generation-Sequencing-How-Does-It
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24515370/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8755271/
A mock culture is a control, by definition!
https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected
False. I did no such thing.
I don’t claim to have any expertise in this area. One does not have to be an expert to do a little research and recognize the factual and logical errors being made by those who are claiming that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.
There is an army of you saying the same things over and over again. If you don’t believe in viruses, just go about your life. What your overlords Cowan and Co. are doing is the equivalent of someone coming up to you at work and explaining how you’re clueless and then explain how you’re supposed to do it. You ask them how long they’ve been doing the job and they say never. They have zero experience and are telling you how you’re actually supposed to do it. In that situation, you’d probably not give them any thought. Which is the response you’re going to get – You’ve aligned yourself with a belief system that insinuates an entire field of individuals past and present around the world are either fabricating everything they do/ too dumb to realize what some clowns can figure out on google. Also telling said field what the terms defined in the context of their scientific discipline actually mean by pulling out the dictionary. Takes an insane amount of arrogance. I’m not sure if you’re even aware that the cowan and co arguments being parroted are simply saying that without 100% irrefutable certainty, nothing exists/can be known. You’re on the internet I assume to believe in electricity? We can’t isolate an electron how you’d like and even if you get an image of one, how do you know it’s an electron? It could be anything- so until then electricity doesn’t exist and nothing having to do with it is allowed. I assume you’re fine taking the world back to the 18th century by following your criteria? See how absurd that sounds? You aren’t going to consider a word I said bc of the ideological grounds driving your belief that are evidenced by your overlord being shown to directly contradict himself and keep saying the same things. Justify it however you’d like, you are wrong and will probably realize that in the future. Yourself and the team following Cowan, kaufman, lanka, etc. are encroaching on flat earth territory with this one. I am not sure how you became so confident, but get a grip.
Jeremy, You are so wrong. Scientists do not purify the sample from the patient before putting it in the culture. You can’t just make stuff up. Show us the paper of purifying the snot, please. I repeat what others have said. The virologists view isolation as taking UNPURIFIED patient sample, which has bacteria and fugus as well as human genetic material, mixing that with monkey kidney cells, bovine serum, (more genetic material) antibiotics, trypsin(protein digesting enzyme), and maybe other poisons. The final outcome is a mess of dead dying cells of all different sizes, with multiple sources of genetic material. There is no isolation at this step either. They find millions of genetic fragments, let a computer put them together. The compute finds more than one way to put them together, so scientists have to come to agreement on the “correct” one. The genome is a mishmash of genetic strands that means nothing. Many people can’t seem to see this but the truth is getting out. In our lifetime, Jeremy, virology will be debunked and shown to be the farce it is. And no, millions of scientists are not in on the scam, they are just bad scientists.
I have already shown your belief to be wrong. Once again, for example, when SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, scientists isolated the virus by first purifying the patient sample using centrifugation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/
Willful ignorance is not a valid argument. If you persist in repeating false claims that have already been shown to be false, your commenting privileges will be revoked.
“I don’t claim to have any expertise in this area. One does not have to be an expert to do a little research and recognize the factual and logical errors being made by those who are claiming that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.”
Listen, you are most obviously claiming to be an expert. You are doing so by arguing with people who do have expertise. You denigrate everyone who doesn’t agree with you with a smirk as if you’re so smart. That interview that I saw was infuriating. You argue with people who have the education and direct experience in this field, saying contradictory things in every post because you don’t understand the science, yet you call us ignorant and say over and over we’re wrong.
YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THE PAPERS YOU’RE READING. HOLY COW, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?
Example: Yes, they use centrifugation to clean up samples. I told you that. Cleaning up samples does not mean they have isolated a “virus.” That paper you linked to used a filtration kit or alternatively a centrifugation step to remove cellular debris, meaning large particles of junk that are big enough to be see with a light microscope. There is still a mix of nucleic acids from various sources in the sample. They cannot say what the origin of the rna is that they are fake sequencing. In fact, the rna in the sample is small fragments. There is no 30,000 base pair virus to be found.
Btw, that “simplified density gradient” is baloney. They ran a dirty sample–we know that because there was a pellet–and didn’t fractionate the sample. Then they took the pellet. ?!? This fooled people like you. It doesn’t fool me.
Of course I know there are various methods of centrifugation. I TOLD YOU THAT. The one that needs to be used is a density gradient, not simplified, if one is going to chemically characterize the “virus.” I don’t care what these voodoo virologists say. They have been using the wrong techniques for 70 years.
They have not sequenced the complete genome from an isolated/purified sample. The materials and method section describes the computer generation of the sequence. HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO. The “sequence” is nothing more than a computer model, Mr. Virologist.
And, oh did I forget, that “willful ignorance” article has NO CONTROLS. And here you go insulting me while you say the same baloney over and over, looking for more journal articles you don’t understand to find a gottcha. You haven’t. You haven’t found one gottcha and you won’t because there isn’t one.
Move on. Why anyone would pay attention to your version of analysis, I don’t know. Smug doesn’t even begin to describe this.
No. Again, I have most certainly never claimed to be an expert in virology. But by the very same standard you are applying to me, you are claiming to be an expert, yet you tellingly have not even provided us with your full name much less your background that gives you expertise in this area.
I didn’t argue otherwise. I noted that they purify patient samples with centrifugation to remove cellular debris prior to isolating the virus using cell culture. That is sufficient preparation for the process of cultivating the virus in cell culture.
This is false and nonsensical. They can say what the origin of the RNA is that they are really sequencing. If there were no 30,000 base pairs to be found, they could not sequence the virus’s whole genome. The reason they can sequence the whole genome is because that RNA is really there.
You have failed to provide us with a scientific reference showing that prior to isolating a virus using cell culture, ultracentrifugation with density gradient must be done, and nothing less than that. I, on the other hand, have provided numerous references showing that this is not so.
This is also false and nonsensical. They do isolate the virus using cell culture, and they sequence the whole genome of that virus. Yes, this requires computation, but they do not simply fabricate the whole genome sequence out of nothing. The RNA is there, and the computation assembles the nucleotide sequences.
In fact, they don’t even need to separate the SARS-CoV-2 RNA from other RNA in a sample to sequence its genome as they have technology enabling them to identify any coinfections or disruption of the microbiome with metagenomic shotgun sequencing straight from patient samples.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21361-7
False! The fact that you would lie like this when anyone here can click the link, read the paper, and see for themselves that they did use controls simply demonstrates once again your own complete lack of honesty. You have revoked your commenting privileges with this trolling behavior, violating the terms of use including by demonstrably lying in an attempt to substantiate your personal attacks on my character.
“Seven bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid specimens were collected from patients in Beijing hospitals with pneumonia of known cause to serve as control samples. Extraction of nucleic acids from clinical samples (including uninfected cultures that served as negative controls)…”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/
Figure 2 comparing a control culture showing no cytopathic effects with an inoculated culture showing cytopathic effects:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/bin/NEJMoa2001017_f2.jpg
And Jeremy, it is thought that “corona virus” attacks the lungs and nasal cavity of humans, right? So, then the best culture should be a human beings lung tissue, right? Why can’t the virologists take a lung sample of a sick person and find the virus? When a person shows symptoms, the virus should be multiplying, right. It should grow in the lung tissue. So why the need to take out the lung tissue sample or snot sample and mix it with other proteins and toxins like antibiotics and trypsin. Virology is a fraud on humanity that wanted to make a profit from vaccines and other pharmaceuticals. I don’t think it’s a plot to kill people or control people. It is just fraud committed to make profit. Just like the Federal Reserve on the financial side. But guess that’s a subject for another day.
SARS-CoV-2 infects cells lining the respiratory tract. It is not necessary to do an invasive procedure to obtain a sample from a patient’s lung in order to isolate the virus from the host. An upper respiratory swab is sufficient. And, yes, they can cultivate SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture using human lung cells:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8043574/
Was this supposed to be a gotcha? In an ideal world we could infect humans or take a tissue biopsy directly from everyone’s airway, but it is unethical. Our bodies produce trypsin everyday – calling it a “toxin” is laughable. I know you want someone to blame for all your problems but just denying the work of an entire field as honestly believing you’ve just googled your way into uncovering a huge conspiracy is bordering on the pathological side of coping mechanisms. Seek help
Note to others who may also be as confused as I was when first reading Val’s comment above: “Val” is a different user, evidently, than “val”, and here Val is replying to val, not to me.