The twelve behind COVID misinformation

vibise

Well-known member
Let’s start with a very simple question.

Who first came up with the theory of hijacking cell replication with lysis as a result?
What evidence was given and what peer review occurred?

Thanks!
I gave you an example of a specific virus (HIV) hijacking a specific cellular machine (nuclear import), with a link to a paper containing the data.

Why does it matter who first determined that viruses hijack cell replication? The earliest lytic viruses to be discovered were bacteriophages, first identified in 1915 by Twort. Here is a summary of the history of the phage work since then:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro3564

As I pointed out earlier, not all viruses are lytic. Many will bud out of living cells.

All scientific papers undergo peer review, which is more stringent in the topnotch journals.
 

vibise

Well-known member
I’ve seen a lot of circularity, no proof.
The paper I cited contains hard proof of the use of nuclear transport machinery by these viruses.
I gather you did not read the paper or even look at it.

Are you saying that viruses do not actually exist? Or that they are not obligate parasites? Or what?
 

Steven Avery

Active member
"developed strategies to usurp the nuclear transport machinery and gain access to the nucleus"

So the theory is that inactive/dead viruses develop sophisticated "mutations" or "strategies" to help in the hijacking. This would need a very high bar of evidence and proof, not simply circularity. Have you seen and reviewed the evidence?
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Why does it matter who first determined that viruses hijack cell replication?

All of the modern "life-cycle of the virus" theory is based on this idea, often they include lysis. So it would be fundamental to know who, and when, and with what evidence, it was applied. Most importantly to human health.

Or was it "new truth by osmosis"?
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Are you saying that viruses do not actually exist? Or that they are not obligate parasites? Or what?

On the bacteriaphages, would you agree that the bacteria do not have any replication hijacked?
Which would make them irrelevant to our discussion.

By the modern definition, if they are not obligate parasites, they are not viruses.

If the sars-cov-2 virus was really as described, you would have large numbers of broken or dead cells from lysis or budding, with gazillions of the virus easy to take from any diseased or newly deceased individuals.

Any evidence that this occurs?

And why would covid be so theoretically ubiquitous, attacking other organs, meaning that the viruses are five-tool players.
Do you believe that?
 
Last edited:

Whateverman

Well-known member
When fundamental questions cannot be answered, that can be a hint that a “scientific” con Is in play.
When you ask fundamental scientific questions in a conservative Christian forum, you're not really interested in getting answers.

You're just demanding that someone prove your opinions wrong, even though you've rejected the very idea that you can be wrong about it. That's what this conservative Christian forum is about: protection for Christian opinions.

It's certainly not about evangelism. Or science. Or even the bible.
 

inertia

Super Member
That's kinda like saying a geiger counter can detect all kinds of radiation..which it can...but it can't differeniate between the isotopes...nor tell you how much energy is being given off by the isotope.

It's kinda like....yop, it came back with a CPM indication so we have radiation. Were going to assume it's cesium ....or yup we came back with a positive test so we're going to assume it's covid.

No. A closer analogy is using a mass spectrometer where isotopes are easily differentiated.


 

Steven Avery

Active member
Please stop pretending you'll consider the answers to the questions you're barfing up here.
Thanks!

Look, I have done due diligence, spoken to scientists and journalists, looked at books.and papers.

And I don’t mind your bowing out with a big DUNNO, but cut the babble.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
No. A closer analogy is using a mass spectrometer where isotopes are easily differentiated.


Oh, so you're claiming the PCR test identify only-Covid 19?????? I truly hope you're not claiming that.

The geiger counter is a much better analogy.

The PCR test is like searching for the word...VID...which is a piece of the word Covid...and having it find the word VIDeo then calling "video" Covid.
 

inertia

Super Member
Oh, so you're claiming the PCR test identify only-Covid 19?????? I truly hope you're not claiming that.

The geiger counter is a much better analogy.

The PCR test is like searching for the word...VID...which is a piece of the word Covid...and having it find the word VIDeo then calling "video" Covid.

No.

Currently, we are able to use this to also detect Influenza A and influenza B viruses along with human rhinovirus in parallel and even extend its use for the detection of other pathogens.


 
Last edited:

vibise

Well-known member
So the theory is that inactive/dead viruses develop sophisticated "mutations" or "strategies" to help in the hijacking. This would need a very high bar of evidence and proof, not simply circularity. Have you seen and reviewed the evidence?
Viruses have genomes that encode proteins that assist in the earliest stages of infection, and then the viral proteins and nucleic acids are recognized by the cell and processed accordingly.

There is 100 years of evidence on viral replication and the different strategies used by DNA and RNA viruses. Methods of replication vary because the viruses are different. One classification identifies 7 groups based on the nature of their nucleic acid (DNA or RNA), whether they are single- or double-stranded, sense, and method of replication:
  • I: dsDNA viruses (e.g. Adenoviruses, Herpesviruses, Poxviruses)
  • II: ssDNA viruses (+ strand or "sense") DNA (e.g. Parvoviruses)
  • III: dsRNA viruses (e.g. Reoviruses)
  • IV: (+)ssRNA viruses (+ strand or sense) RNA (e.g. Coronaviruses, Picornaviruses, Togaviruses)
  • V: (−)ssRNA viruses (− strand or antisense) RNA (e.g. Orthomyxoviruses, Rhabdoviruses)
  • VI: ssRNA-RT viruses (+ strand or sense) RNA with DNA intermediate in life-cycle (e.g. Retroviruses)
  • VII: dsDNA-RT viruses DNA with RNA intermediate in life-cycle (e.g. Hepadnaviruses)

The evidence over 100 years is available as primary source papers with experimental evidence, or as summaries that are found in textbooks. And yes, as a virologist for over 50 years, I am certainly aware of this data, and have produced some of it myself.

Have you bothered to look up viruses and their replication cycles? There are plenty of sites with diagrams and explanations on the internet.
 

vibise

Well-known member
All of the modern "life-cycle of the virus" theory is based on this idea, often they include lysis. So it would be fundamental to know who, and when, and with what evidence, it was applied. Most importantly to human health.

Or was it "new truth by osmosis"?
Why the obsession with the idea of lysis, which is characteristic of only some viruses? Others just bud out, leaving the cell intact.

I already gave you the name of the person who first identified phages, and a link to a history of the study of viruses with key findings with dates and references in handy figures.

The actual evidence describing the various viral life cycles would take thousands of pages to describe.

We know that viruses cause human disease, or do you doubt that?
 

vibise

Well-known member
On the bacteriaphages, would you agree that the bacteria do not have any replication hijacked?
Which would make them irrelevant to our discussion.

By the modern definition, if they are not obligate parasites, they are not viruses.

If the sars-cov-2 virus was really as described, you would have large numbers of broken or dead cells from lysis or budding, with gazillions of the virus easy to take from any diseased or newly deceased individuals.

Any evidence that this occurs?

And why would covid be so theoretically ubiquitous, attacking other organs, meaning that the viruses are five-tool players.
Do you believe that?
No. All viruses are obligate parasites with the possible exception of the recently discovered giant viruses, which would seem to be an intermediate lifeform.

Budding viruses do not break open cells. The virus pinches off and the cell membrane closes shut behind them. Gazillions of virions are not produced by a single infected cell.

Five-tool?
If the receptor is expressed by cells in all or most tissues in the body, all of those cells can theoretically be infected.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Look, I have done due diligence, spoken to scientists and journalists, looked at books.and papers.

And I don’t mind your bowing out with a big DUNNO, but cut the babble.
But have you read anything that would actually fill in the large gaps in your knowledge of viruses?
 

vibise

Well-known member
Oh, so you're claiming the PCR test identify only-Covid 19?????? I truly hope you're not claiming that.

The geiger counter is a much better analogy.

The PCR test is like searching for the word...VID...which is a piece of the word Covid...and having it find the word VIDeo then calling "video" Covid.
no. Here is how PCR works. Below is a partial covid sequence. The PCR primers I randomly chose are bolded and in purple. They will amplify the segment in between if it is present in the sample being analyzed. The two primers and the amplified piece are both covid-specific. A BLAST search of these 3 sequences identifies only covid sequence entries in the first 100 hits. This would be a very specific test.

1 attaaaggtt tataccttcc caggtaacaa accaaccaac tttcgatctc ttgtagatct
61 gttctctaaa cgaactttaa aatctgtgtg gctgtcactc ggctgcatgc ttagtgcact
121 cacgcagtat aattaataac taattactgt cgttgacagg acacgagtaa ctcgtctatc
181 ttctgcaggc tgcttacggt ttcgtccgtg ttgcagccga tcatcagcac atctaggttt
241 cgtccgggtg tgaccgaaag gtaagatgga gagccttgtc cctggtttca acgagaaaac
301 acacgtccaa ctcagtttgc ctgttttaca ggttcgcgac gtgctcgtac gtggctttgg
361 agactccgtg gaggaggtct tatcagaggc acgtcaacat cttaaagatg gcacttgtgg
421 cttagtagaa gttgaaaaag gcgttttgcc tcaacttgaa cagccctatg tgttcatcaa
481 acgttcggat gctcgaactg cacctcatgg tcatgttatg gttgagctgg tagcagaact
541 cgaaggcatt cagtacggtc gtagtggtga gacacttggt gtccttgtcc ctcatgtggg
601 cgaaatacca gtggcttacc gcaaggttct tcttcgtaag aacggtaata aaggagctgg
661 tggccatagt tacggcgccg atctaaagtc atttgactta ggcgacgagc ttggcactga
721 tccttatgaa gattttcaag aaaactggaa cactaaacat agcagtggtg ttacccgtga
781 actcatgcgt gagcttaacg gaggggcata cactcgctat gtcgataaca acttctgtgg
841 ccctgatggc taccctcttg agtgcattaa agaccttcta gcacgtgctg gtaaagcttc
901 atgcactttg tccgaacaac tggactttat tgacactaag aggggtgtat actgctgccg
961 tgaacatgag catgaaattg cttggtacac ggaacgttct gaaaagagct atgaattgca
1021 gacacctttt gaaattaaat tggcaaagaa atttgacacc ttcaatgggg aatgtccaaa
1081 ttttgtattt cccttaaatt ccataatcaa gactattcaa ccaagggttg aaaagaaaaa
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
No.

Currently, we are able to use this to also detect Influenza A and influenza B viruses along with human rhinovirus in parallel and even extend its use for the detection of other pathogens.


So, they were using those instruments last Nov?
 
Top