The twelve behind COVID misinformation

vibise

Well-known member
it was taken using the obsolete test** on an asymptomatic 62 yr old female and not a group according to this.


here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms (she was asymptomatic) which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness...

** From your link.

Hygiene at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf by real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), as described previously (
---------

That looks like the test that was rendered obsolete referenced in my previous post. Perhaps two pages back. Because the test failed to distinguish the difference between flu and C-19.

So it sounds like you still have a difference in opinion among experts and the errors are things that i have been able to pull but it does sound reasonable to use multiple sick people and not just one 62 yr old asymptomatic female. That means she was not even sick.
The influenza and covid-19 viruses are very different viruses with minimal sequence homology.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The influenza and covid-19 viruses are very different viruses with minimal sequence homology.

Do you really believe that the (generally beneficial) detoxification of the flu is caused by a "virus"?

One that hijacks cell replication, bursts cells, and all that stuff?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
So now you take it upon yourself to set the rules as to what constitutes sequencing SARS-Cov/2 ?
As a medical and also a science research outsider, you have no authority to establish boundaries.

Your handbook when you are outside of a rational argument.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
 

vibise

Well-known member
Do you really believe that the (generally beneficial) detoxification of the flu is caused by a "virus"?

One that hijacks cell replication, bursts cells, and all that stuff?
I have no idea what you mean by "detoxification of the flu".

Flu is indeed caused by a virus, the influenza virus.

All viruses have small genomes and depend on cellular genes to complete their replication cycle after infecting a cell. Some viruses are lytic and will burst cells open, releasing progeny virions. Influenza does not do that. Its new particles are released from the infected cell by budding:

 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
The influenza and covid-19 viruses are very different viruses with minimal sequence homology.
Which has not one thing to do with my post. The point being the so called gold standard test could not distinguish between flu and C-19 and that is why it was removed. Prior it was touted as gold standard.
 

inertia

Super Member
As a medical and also a science research outsider, you have no authority to establish boundaries.

Your handbook when you are outside of a rational argument.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

That is why peer-reviewed, refereed, scientific journals should be used when sharing scientific information.
The most prestigious journals, such as Nature, are scrupulous in selecting papers for publication. Many scientific journals have higher rejection rates than others - even up to 90% of the papers they receive. Sometimes several months have elapsed since submission.

Reading and sharing these kinds of papers doesn't require specialized "insider" knowledge from a particular cohort. It's about sharing valid science. It's never been about insider information or one's authority on a given subject.


 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Which has not one thing to do with my post. The point being the so called gold standard test could not distinguish between flu and C-19 and that is why it was removed. Prior it was touted as gold standard.
So 15 days to flatten the curve 500 days ago.



Masks didn't work
PCR tests don't work well
Lockdowns didn't work
The jab is not working.
Social distancing didn't work
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member

inertia

Super Member
Is this a reference to:

Complete Genome Sequence of a SARS-CoV-2 Strain Isolated in Northern Germany
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7272567/

Do you have the exact title in Nature?
Maybe a url.

Thanks!

Searching...

This applied research was originally published by the Journal "American Society for Microbiology". Similar to Nature, this journal rigorously applies peer-review with working scientists globally.

(ASM Journals publish 26% of all microbiology articles and contribute 44% of all microbiology citations as of 2018.)

Here is the URL: https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/MRA.00520-20
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Twenty percent! ( inertia is rolling his eyes )

After hearing this on the news today, I thought that Mike Adams and Alex Jones would have made it to the top twelve. They didn't. Propaganda is an old and effective tool that isn't going away soon. However, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (the founder of Children's Health Defense) did. He is involved in the distribution of a fake documentary called "Medical Racism: The New Apartheid".

"The movie begins with a string of ominous news clips about the pandemic and the COVID-19 vaccines and includes short interviews with people of color who talk about COVID-19 being "propaganda" and why they don't trust the vaccine. Kennedy also appears to offer a warning to viewers about vaccines: "Don't listen to me. Don't listen to Tony Fauci. Hey, and don't listen to your doctor.

In addition to Kennedy, other producers helped make and market the film, including a prominent figure in the Nation of Islam, and a wealthy entrepreneur who recently made headlines when a private school he co-founded in Miami prohibited teachers who got the COVID-19 vaccine from returning to the classroom."

____
I am surprised Adams isn't on there, also. Especially after I listened to one of his rants a few months ago:


Remember this?


Look at some of the wild claims he made in this video. :rolleyes:

It is absolutely....awful. And this guy runs Natural News. And some people LIKE this website?? And try to use it to support their anti-C-vaccination opinions?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Can ya'll name the documented source of lying that doubled down and insisted Michael Mann (from global warming Mannia) won Nobel Peace Prize?

Double source of misinformation. The same global warming fear mongers pivot to Wuhan Fru fear mongering.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I have no idea what you mean by "detoxification of the flu".

Flu is indeed caused by a virus, the influenza virus.

All viruses have small genomes and depend on cellular genes to complete their replication cycle after infecting a cell. Some viruses are lytic and will burst cells open, releasing progeny virions. Influenza does not do that. Its new particles are released from the infected cell by budding:

Interesting...I didn't know flu viruses "budded". Thanks for the new news (to me, anyway).
 

inertia

Super Member
I am surprised Adams isn't on there, also. Especially after I listened to one of his rants a few months ago:


Remember this?


Look at some of the wild claims he made in this video. :rolleyes:

It is absolutely....awful. And this guy runs Natural News. And some people LIKE this website?? And try to use it to support their anti-C-vaccination opinions?

Yes, I do remember the thread. Thanks for sharing a portion of it again for reference.

( opening now...)

The web archive would not allow the video to be viewed. hmm...


 
Last edited:

Backup

Well-known member
Wow, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana have really low vaccine levels--and high new cases of covid.
COVID cases are twice as high in Republican counties than in Democrat counties, despite Democratic counties being more densely populated.
 

Backup

Well-known member
obviously your source is a crazy, anti-science conspiracy blog

What is interesting is that a climate denier blog has now largely become a COVID denial blog.

I started a thread about this the other week and got a lot of pushback, even though my observation was obviously correct, as always.
 

inertia

Super Member
it was taken using the obsolete test** on an asymptomatic 62 yr old female and not a group according to this.


here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms (she was asymptomatic) which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness...

** From your link.

Hygiene at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf by real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), as described previously (
---------

That looks like the test that was rendered obsolete referenced in my previous post. Perhaps two pages back. Because the test failed to distinguish the difference between flu and C-19.

So it sounds like you still have a difference in opinion among experts and the errors are things that i have been able to pull but it does sound reasonable to use multiple sick people and not just one 62 yr old asymptomatic female. That means she was not even sick.

Quantitative multiplexed real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the "gold standard". It's not obsolete.

"sounds like" doesn't hold any water


 
Top