We have mathematical constructed gene-sequences (de-novo-synthese) what we call „new virus“ and following researchers do their „alignment“. But we have no published results of isolated particles, biochemical examined or photographed in tissue, maks or whatever.
We have a lot of published results of treated tissue and in consequence to that tratement results of dying cells and their brakdown products we call „identify“ as „virus“. But none of the published results have controle-experiments. Expected „ill tissue“ gets exposed with antibiotics, become centrifugated etc. and analysed. But no not-“infected“ tissue is treated the same way and analysed the same way, where we would see the same results: particles of dying cells
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/scientific-evidence-demonstrates-that-covid-19-and-the-virus-that-causes-it-exist-and-are-different-from-the-flu/
The politization of the virus and the implied bio-politics are much more dangerous than the virus itself; this causes one rationally and ethically to create doubt about so called ‚policies‘ , i.e. there are many blind spots in the global agenda, which are occupied by all kinds of populism and fear.
The whole ‚virus fear‘ reflects our bad human relationships in general, the weakness of our egos, with respect to soulful respect for each other and sustainable solutions of living together on a crowded planet, where resources are naturally limited and human desires seem to grow unlimited.
Dear Jean-Pierre Dangy
...I just would like to have some answers. I know about the multi-dimensional aspect of life in general. I just would like to point out that too many fears lead in to many irrationality! - like the virus-theory.
It's not a theory you can find pictures of the different virus and even video clips of T Cells attacking viruses so they are evidences that not only they exists but also that they are harmful for the human organism
Do you have such pictures which are not from dying tissue? Or otherwise explainable? I would be very interested in because I would like to proove the scientific evidence... That would help me because I would like to believe in the normal virus-theory according to what I have learned. It would helpt to make the world easier for me....
Please don't waste your time. There is a wealth of data on the structure and mode of action of viruses. They no more need proof of existence than, say, the existence of mice. Why should we have to prove to you the existence of viruses to you, when you can do the research yourself – and learn a lot about transmissible diseases in the process?
You also have a very naive idea of what constitutes proof. For a more sophisticated and useful idea, have a look at, for example, the Bradford Hill criteria (also called the Surgeon General's criteria because their first very significant application was the Surgeon General's report on smoking and health, half a century ago now).
Exactely...we do not have to waste time. So just one paper...please!
https://www.liberation.fr/resizer/zMG6WtqQTkWev7fmtf4l22Dvrfw=/800x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70):focal(1378x950:1388x960)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/liberation/3LR57K27EVH6RFWQI6EC7ZO5TM.jpg
What does this picture show? Particles from dying cells or isolated particles agressing cells? Do you have the "material and method"-part of this picture?
SARS-CoV-2 infection triggering cell fusion and cell death (red) in bat (Myotis myotis) brain cells - Sophie-Marie Aicher & Dr. Delphine Planas
https://youtu.be/x-R10KsEzOE
You will find materials and methods if you look up the original paper. That's what we all do. Off you go. The exercise will do you good.
Sophie-Marie Aicher & Dr. Delphine Planas no further information on "youtube"... anyway. There is surely someone who is able to show me a paper with isolated viruses... that would help me so much...
What would you consider as "proof"? I guess, you will not consider scanning electron microscope pictures of a virus as evidence, will you?
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26516.pdf
So, what are you looking for? I think there is no "picture" within living tissue, since this is not possible with that technique. But if you are not willing to accept the evidence of "photographed" extracted virus bodies, you implicitly state that the results are fraudulent. Do you have evidence for it?
Edit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73162-5.pdf
The trouble with showing you a paper with isolated viruses is that (you may not be aware of this) viruses are very, very small. For this reason, imaging them with visible light is not possible. Researchers use cryo-electron microscopy, which has advanced amazingly in the recent past (see Article Cryo-Electron Microscopy Reaches Resolution Milestone
). It has been used to get us some of the best images we have to date. There has been a lot of cryo-electron microscopy work done, in particular, on the Covid spike proteins because of their importance in disease transmission and the immune response. Nice article here https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/novel-coronavirus-structure-reveals-targets-vaccines-treatments, but if you search Google scholar for cryo-electron microscopy of viruses you find a lot of interesting research.For a person who is so interested, you don't seem keen to do any homework…
I have not been following this discussion very closely, but have peeked at it now and then. Have any of you who are participating more actively considered the possibility of trolling?
Bruce Weaver – there is a distinction between nescience and ignorance. Nescience is not knowing something that you could not have known, while ignorance is not knowing something that you ought to have known. And ignorance is divided into vincible ignorance, which is amenable to learning, and invincible ignorance, which is immune to learning.
I tend to treat invincible ignorance as a diagnosis of exclusion : it can only be entertained when you have ruled out the other possibilities.
Which, I guess, Seán R. Millar , is where we are now.
Science means to be able to reflect own results. We need negative-corntrole experiments to show, that what we call "isolate" is just something we see in electron microscope as a product of treated tissue. But would we see it as well in controle experiments?! I think probalbly yes. So what would happen, if a so called "infected agens" (e.g. saliva) is given at cell-culture and after treating the culture with antibiotics, nutrition-restriction etc. is examined and we do the controle experiment: Examine the cell-culture treated as well just without the infective agens... hmh...maybe we could see the same things in our electron-microscope... So my only question is: Does anyone know about controle-experoments because it is the duty of science to try the disproof of results to make them more valid! Here in this communityit should be so simple to show I guess...
How about you actually read the papers that others have suggested and find it in there already?
I think you are not honest here. The demontration that bacteria and viruses exist does not only rely on microscopy and I am pretty sure that you know this.
We observed that substances cause diseases long before a visual proof (what do you think where dieatry rules/laws in different religions stem from, at least partially).We can also experimentally proof, if a substance is contaminated or not by giving it to subjects and observe if a disease occurs or not. So, you can demonstrate experimentally without a doubt that substances cause dieseases and for this it is not even necessary to know anything about bacteria or viruses. The microscopy and genome analyses came afterwards and are not THE proof, but additional information that substantiate all findings before it. If you really(!) doubt that bacteria or viruses exist, I suggest to take anthrax or rabies and wait what happens. I am also pretty sure you would not take it, would you?
Your argumentation sound like that of flat-eathers: "I dont believe the earth is an oblate spheroid, because I cannot see any curvature with my own eyes or from a plane. All pictures are fake or use wrong fish-eye lenses to 'proof' the earth is a sphere. There is no 'real' proof."
It is standard that negative/uninfected controls are analyzed. Often, these pictures are not shown in the main manuscript, but they should at least be checked in the review process.
This paper shows some electron microscopic images of non-infected controls (next to infected samples):
Article Zika virus induces massive cytoplasmic vacuolization and par...
https://www.samueleckert.net/isolate-truth-fund/
maybe someone helps this guy to proof...
Christian Jost
There was already a very similar "challenge" some years ago in Germany. Anti-vaccinationists granted 100,000€ for single proof that measles exist. The medical student David Bardens sent in several articles and claimed the price. A court officially decided that the anti-vaccinationists do NOT have to pay the price, but for formal(!) reasons (of course the anti-vaccinationists proclaimed that a german court officially confirmed that measles do not exist!!). The anti-vaccinationist clearly demanded ONE coherent proof that measles exist, but the medical student sent 6 articles, which taken together and in conclusion proof the existence. Hence, this formal detail led to the decision that they do not have to pay the price. You can read the story here for example (sorry only in german https://www.deutsche-apotheker-zeitung.de/news/artikel/2017/01/20/bundesgerichtshof-haelt-sich-aus-masernstreit-heraus). Same is true for your initial question, it is the incorporation of many different information and partial proofs, which in combination conclusively proof the existence of bacteria and viruses.
In essence, I would expect the same course of action for the challenge you provided, as with the former trial. For example, they clearly say that a virologist has to send the proof, therefore, I would expect that any proof from any other professional would not be accepted. And I would expect several other pitfalls that prevent them from paying. Additionally, "dont feed the troll", I am pretty sure the anti-vaccinationists would exploit any publicity in their favour and I would say that is exactly what we do not want, do we? We have better things to do.
You are right and I do not want to feed a troll. It would be better for my inner peace if the world would turn on as I got to know, that would be more easy. BUT:
As far as I know there are no complete presentations of a complete, direct isolated genome of a virus. Just short peaces of nucleic acids. Many of that short sequences were used to make calculations, statistical operations to „align“ a fictive genome. Software algorithms generate a theoretical genome from serveral short peaces. Such a generated cord (genome) is never shown in reality whreas we have standard-technics to define length and combination of nucleic acids. A virus genome is (as far as I know) just a combination of serveral short peaces aligned to a calculation. This is not a scientific proof.
Althogh many electron-microscope-pictures exits, none of them is from salivva, blood or mask-material etc. because the pictures are from dying cells. As far as I know we make cells hungry (increase their radiness for intake). After that e treat them with antibiotics so that the expected death is not due to bacterial infection. At least we inject blood or saliva from „infected“ people and describe what we see. But is there any controle-experiment in which we examine hungered and antibiotic-treated cells and examine them as well just without saliva or blood – addition?! For me it is possible that we may find the same results in this controle-experiments.
I followed up the measels-process and its consequences. The six publications you mentioned lack the controle experiments:
The first from 1954 (Enders Propagation in tissue cultures of cythopathogenic agents from patients with measles - Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86 (2):277-286)
The second publication (Bech V, Magnus Pv Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1959; 42 (1): 75-85) the authors point out that the technique from Enders is not suitable to isolate the measles virus.
The third (Nakai M, Imagawa DT Electron microscopy of measels virus replication J. Virol. 1696 Feb; 3v (2): 187-97) same pictures of cell-detritus were taken and interpreted as virus and no composition of the strucures were analyzed. they did the density-gradient-centrifugation and observed the detritus on the ground of the test tube...
The same procedere was done in the following two publications: Lund GA, Tyrell DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J. Gen. Virol. 1984 Sep; 65 (Pt9): 1532-42
...and: Daikkoku E, Morita C, Kohomo T, Sano K Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53 (2): 107-14
The last Publication of the process (Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 1995; 191: 35-50) is a review and describes the consensus-finding of genome finding (in DETRITUS!) They work as well with short peaces and align them.
There remain many questions....
¡¡Bombazo!! Sanidad reconoce que "no dispone de cultivo de SARS-COV-2" ni "registro de laboratorios con capacidad de cultivo y aislamiento para ensayos" - El Diestro
https://www.eldiestro.es/2021/09/bombazo-sanidad-reconoce-que-no-dispone-de-cultivo-de-sars-cov-2-ni-registro-de-laboratorios-con-capacidad-de-cultivo-y-aislamiento-para-ensayos/
Now what exactly do you want Christian Jost? I don't get it. Just look at for example the Nature paper link that Rainer Duesing suggested. The comparison is there. With pictures too.
'At 48 hpi, we compared the surfaces of mock and infected cells (MOI of 0.1) to highlight the presence of viral particles adhered to the smooth cell surface and to the SP (Fig. 1E, F). At the same time, and with a MOI of 1, viruses that egressed from a previous cycle of infection were observed during the process of attachment to the cell plasma membrane (Fig. 2A). The corona-like features of the SARSCoV-2 particles were discernible via SEM (Fig. 2B), and the measurements showed sizes of approximately 80 nm in diameter (Fig. 2C). Removal of the host cell plasma membrane before platinum sputtering exposed the interior of the mock and infected cells. While mock cells displayed a difuse distribution of organelles (Fig. 2D), infected cells exhibited a more polarized disposition of organelles and pit-coated vesicles approximately 100 nm in diameter (Fig. 2E, F).
This is the kind of thing where we need to believe the experts, but we also can infer the existence of these microscopic animals by means of some clever thinking. If you ever had a fungal infection, you can't see it (since it's microscopic) but you know it's there. If you apply a given poison, the microanimals are killed.
That same rationale holds for the viruses.
Very important article to read, before watching the "very important" film:
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/psychiatrist-who-calmly-denies-reality
Rainer Duesing and Ronán Michael Conroy
your efforts are most commendable. I would neither have the patience nor the will to keep hurling sound logic and irrefutable evidence at someone who is immune - no pun intended - to both. Speaking from the perspective of the Social Sciences, I really envy you to be able to state something as a "fact" in the first place. Oftentimes, we have to make do with less.
Do I know anything about viruses? No, but there are people who do. They are called scientists and science itself works by consensus, correction and repetition. The burden of proof squarely lies with those who put out hypotheses. Viruses exist. This is as certain as the fact that the Earth and the other planets orbit the sun.
There would be no progress whatsoever if we kept going back to square one on every single issue. To this day, this is most notably and sadly evidenced by some (US) talk shows. Two people - it used to be Bill Nye "The Science Guy" vs. some shouty dude - exchange arguments over whether man-made climate change is real, suggesting to the general public that this is, in fact, an ongoing debate. I consider this a fatal mistake on all parts, but that is a different story.
There is grace in accepting defeat.
Best
Marcel
Marcel Grieger – I think that the use of the word 'fact' can be misleading. We associate facts with tangible objects and observable events. In science, facts are better described as observed relationships – so we might observe a relationship between loneliness and boredom-proneness and cognitive decline in older people. And because of their reliance on observation, facts change. The observed protective effect of HRT on heart disease that was observed in a large follow-up study of nurses was reversed when HRT was subjected to randomised controlled trials – not the first observational 'fact' to be overturned either!
I would disagree that you know nothing about viruses. After all, only a tiny part of your knowledge comes from direct experience. How do you know that there are tomatoes in that can of tomato soup? Well, because the ingredients say so, and there is legislation in place that requires ingredients to be accurately listed. How do you know that the area of a floor is the length multiplied by the breadth – have you personally checked this?
Most of our knowledge is socially constructed and shared. Just because you have not personally watched the tomato soup being made, or cross-checked the formula for area, or conducted studies on viruses, does not mean that you are less certain – you are actually more certain than if your own experience were your only resource! Because the knowledge and experience of each person is incorporated in a much wider, deeper and more thoroughly-tested knowledge base of human culture.
This whole discussion has been interesting in the depth of misunderstanding that the question displays about the social construction of knowledge and the types of experience that constitute knowledge acquisition.
Thank you for the great contributions!
I would be more strict than Ronán Michael Conroy who said that "In science, facts are better described as observed relationships". Even in science, what we call "facts" should refer strictly to observations and measurements we made. We may observe a "relationship" between a sample of paired observations of A and B, and the "fact" is the relationship observed in this very sample. The "fact" does not extend to a general relationship between A and B. The observation of a different sample gives us a different "fact". We use these facts to formulate justified believes or expectations about the relationship between A and B. This relationship is a mental construct. Nature or reality gives not a damn about our mental constructs. They are only relevant for us to be useful and to give orientation. We may or may not belive that "good" constructs are closer to something we call "reality". This is irrelevant for ceration and usefulness such mental constructs.
Therefore, facts are not "overturned". Facts stay what they are - recoreded observations or mesaurements. Out interpretation or our mental constructs may change, when new facts come to our attention.
I fully subscribe to that "our knowledge is socially constructed and shared". What a wonderful sentence! It applies to the scientific community as well. The difference to the general public is that the scientific community shares strict rules of how knowledge is constructed. And this also explains why a scientist (a person who adheres to thes construction rules) cannot exist in isolation - because there cannot be a social construction of knowledge without a social frame. Science is not what an individual scientist does. Science is the emergent property of the scientific community, and scientific knowledge is what the (clear) majority of scientists agree upon (all adhering to the rules of how knowledge is to be constructed), where knowledge always has some associated uncertainty, that can be quantified, at least vaguely. The larger the associated uncertainty, the more the respective model, hypothesis, or idea is under discussion und subject to change.
The real world is more complicated, of course, because there are (rather many) people who call themselves "scientists", and who might have a formal education that should qualify them as scientists who do not really adhere to the "scientific rules" of how knowledge is to be constructed.
Jochen Wilhelm – I really like the idea of science being an emergent property! And the vital insight that the common stereotype of the scientist as lone genius is utterly nonsensical.
https://bnrc.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42269-022-00712-4
"After reviewing the different but diverging perspectives on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the premises used to justify it, it has become clear that the dominant scientific community (particularly the microbiologists/immunologists) is carrying out the necessary scientific procedures and the state /Promote academic transparency if the scientific community is to stop the spread of misinformation regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19." Lanka and Kaufman are explicitly mentioned: "And then, finally, there is this thesis: There is no novel and highly contagious pathogen that has been isolated and purified and shown to cause disease itself in an experimental setting (Lanka 2020; Cowan and Morell 2020; Kaufman 2020)."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Anatomy
- Tissue