/sci/ - Science & Math

Bad air.

>>15273295
What makes the air bad

Miasma

>>15273286

infection with a non-viral pathogen aka a bacterium or fungus.

Bacteria and fungi are the most common causes of the flu so probably one of those.

>>15273366
It's just bad, okay?

>>15273372
>infection with a non-viral pathogen aka a bacterium or fungus.
proofs?

Virus? More like vi-ruse, am I right, guise?

>>15273286
>viruses never isolated

Then what the fuck did I just use as my insertion vector for gene splicing this fucking e. coli? Magic?

>>15273286
>viruses have never been isolated
[citation needed]

>>15273286
To answer that we need to go back to the origins of what flu actually is and why it didn't exist the way it does now until the mid 1800s.

>>15274119
>[citation needed]
[citation needed]

>>15273286
>viruses have never been isolated
this meme can die now

How does a non pathogenic V. cholerae bacterium gain the gene for the cholera toxin if it's proven to not gain it from conjugation, transformation, or de novo mutation? Magic? I think it's safe to say lysogenic conversion is the culprit.

>>15274294
clearly.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

>>15274310
>www.fluoridefreepeel.ca
Mmm, credible.

>>15274311
They're FOI requests.

>>15274326
Sure they are. I have every reason to believe you.

>>15273286
>be trivialy poisoned
>by either
>environment
>acidosis due to sugar and alcohol
>stress and decomposition products of stress hormones
>necrotic tissue because cold slows metabolism, and then tissue dies, and decomposition process produces toxins
>metabolic acidosis which can lead to respiratory acidosis because of trivially poisoning caused by things I mentioned before
>dead cells get dissolved melted away by fever
>fever increases activity of white blood cells
>white blood cells decompose tissue and poisons
>excreted via multiple pathways
>shit piss snot mucus

Nearly all poisoning, may it be acidosis by yourself of by external influences.
May it be metal fume fever.
May it be chlorine poisoning or funghi poisoning.
All of these things have "flu like symptoms".
Literally.
From food poisoning to acidosis to sepsis.
All poisoning appear to be """"flu like"""".

Or do they cover up "poisoning"?

the collection of symptoms is the "cleansing" of whatever poisons you.

If everything is flu like, then... what is a "flu"?

>>15273286
Viruses exist and do explain certain illnesses.

Don't fall for attention wasting operations meant to trick imbeciles into weird disinformation.

>>15274119
>isolated
define isolated

>>15274395
>disinformation.
Exposed.

>>15273286
buy a microscope, you can BTFO the mongs in like 15 minutes

>>15273372
next time you get flu take anti-bactierial drugs and see if it goes away

>>15273899
y-your conspiring against US

>>15274329
if you ignore evidence contrary to your expectations then what will you ever find?

>>15274592
Your working definition of the word "evidence" is novel.

>>15273286
Kudos to you, you got me laughing. I am pretty sure "virus don't real" guy is just shitposting, so he probably got the joke too.

>>15274310
> Specifically, the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases apprises that CDC does not purify or isolate any COVID-19 virus in the manner the requester describes
Schizo requests information from an institution that doesn't do what he wants. Schizo gets told it doesn't do what he wants. Schizo declares conspiracy confirmed.
Man, I feel really bad for people with mental disorders like this.

>>15274546
>buy a microscope
Elaborate how a commercial microscope would prove the causal effect of a nanoscopic particla beeing the cause of a respiratory disease with vaguely defined and unspecific symptoms.
And describe the method of proof to establish the causal releationship

>>15274622
>evidence
Define evidence

>>15274644
So you know what method the "schizo" requested evidence of?

>>15274119
>viruses have been isolated
[citation needed]

>>15274645
>Elaborate how a commercial microscope would prove the causal effect of a nanoscopic particla beeing the cause of a respiratory disease with vaguely defined and unspecific symptoms.
>>The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way
Science does not "prove". If you require a formal proof you will not receive anything sufficient to match the criteria in the real world. We're well beyond the era of Bertrand Russell's fool's errand.

Since science does not "prove", define what standard of evidence you require.

>>15273372
>Viruses aren't pathogenic, your illness was caused by something that behaves exactly like viruses

>>15274678
>define what standard of evidence you require
scientific method.

>viruses aren't real
When did /sci/ become /x/?

>>15274682
>scientific method.
That doesn't help. I've no idea what you think "scientific method" means. Clarify precisely what your standard of evidence means, to you.

>>15274678
>define what standard of evidence you require.
The application of the scientific method
>you observe a natural phenomeon
>you have a dependent variable (the phenomenon, in this case disease) and a independent variable (the presumed cause of the phenomenon which you can manipulate, the virus)
>you have a hypothesis about the independent variable to be the cause of the phenomenon
IMPORTANT: Here you are required to have the independent variable at hand and be able to
- to manipulate it or
- add or substract it from the experiment to show it's CAUSAL effect
- if you cannot OBTAIN the independent variable, you cannot establish an causal releationship

>you conduct a experiment in which you change the variable, to demonstrate its influence or even cause of the phenomenon
>you conduct a valid control experiment under the same conditions without changing the variable in any way
>to show that the conditions of the experiment do nor or only marginally interfere with the phenomenon
>the results of the experiment can now be interpreted
>either the X causes Y or X does not cause Y (which is the null hypothesis)
- either the virus is cause of disease, or the virus is not cause of disease

>>15274703
Just post whatever you consider to be a convincing proof that viruses exist and cause diseases.

>>15274690
Newton?

>>15274728
Ah. The flat earther strawman of science. No, you do not require an independent variable you can manipulate. Simplification taught to children, so-called "pedagogical lies", are not rules set in stone. This is easily demonstrated by the fact induction is not rendered invalid merely due to lack of personally modified independent variable.
>>15274737
>Just post whatever you consider to be a convincing proof that viruses exist and cause diseases.
Not unless and until I know what would qualify. If what you consider "evidence" does not make sense, or is a strawman of something like "scientific method" seen here >>15274728 all discussion is meaningless.

>>15274762
>Ah. The flat earther strawman of science. No, you do not require an independent variable you can manipulate. Simplification taught to children, so-called "pedagogical lies", are not rules set in stone. This is easily demonstrated by the fact induction is not rendered invalid merely due to lack of personally modified independent variable.
I'm not surprised people hate science now if this is your reply to requests to perform it.

>>15274762
>Not unless and until I know what would qualify
Anything what you consider would qualify.

>if you question covid vax science you are a flat earther

>>15274779
>if you request scientists operate based on the scientific method you are a flat earther

>>15274768
>I'm not surprised people hate science now if this is your reply to requests to perform it.
Nothing to do with science, everything to do with your lying about what science is. Please explain what about the phrase "independent variable" makes you think "variable" means "constant"? What in the phrase or concept entails "you, personally, must be responsible for the varying"?

>>15274778
>Anything what you consider would qualify.
Hardly. You'd already be convinced. So the problem is not the evidence I think qualifies, it's what you think qualifies as evidence.

>>15274762
Dude, you're the one defending a hypothesis. Either post your arguments so we can discuss them, or GTFO.

>>15274795
>Dude, you're the one defending a hypothesis. Either post your arguments so we can discuss them, or GTFO.
I know it upsets you when people ruin your ability to equivocate by defining your terms. Too bad. You're not clever enough by half.

>>15274798
Your post is literally psychotic schizophrenia.

>>15274788
>Please explain what about the phrase "independent variable" makes you think "variable" means "constant"?

Please tell me how and what I zave to read to see anywhere here the claim beeing made:
>"variable" means "constant"

>>15274798
>no arguments
surprising

>>15274804
>Please tell me how and what I zave to read to see anywhere here the claim beeing made:
One possible option if you can directly manipulate something independently is to also hold it constant. I did not say he said it, I asked in case it intersected his flawed idea of what an independent variable was. Hence asking two questions.

>>15274798
>I know it upsets you when people ruin your ability to equivocate by defining your terms

Then elaborate why virologist equivocate on the term "isolation".

>>15274737
https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC6899062&blobtype=pdf

>>15274818
>Then elaborate why virologist equivocate on the term "isolation".
There are many methods of isolation. Your ignorance is not evidence of a fault in virology.

>>15274549
funny enough theres actually evidence antibiotics reduce flu symptoms significantly

>>15273865
It's just like that, ok? Why can't you trust people?

>>15274833
>There are many methods of isolation

So there are methods. And even multiple to achieve an endgoal.
Called
>isolation
But to verify that the end goal is achieved you require some qualitative attributes which the state of isolation has and describes.
So what is the definition of isolation?

>>15274833
>There are many methods of isolation.
Redefining the word "isolation" to not mean isolation doesn't make methods actually isolate a single particle. If you're not performing separation (in a centrifuge or by density or however you want to do it) then you're not isolating anything.

>>15274375
>acidosis
God you are so much a retard you don't even have an idea how much retarded is what you said. KEK, almost even LMAO

>>15274846
>So what is the definition of isolation?
For your purposes, Induction from said processes/methods sufficient to conclude causation.
>>15274848
>Redefining the word "isolation" to not mean isolation doesn't make methods actually isolate a single particle.
We've electron microscopy for that.
>If you're not performing separation (in a centrifuge or by density or however you want to do it) then you're not isolating anything.
On the contrary. Funnily enough refer to independent variables mentioned here >>15274728 because many methods, such as PCR, antibodies, etc, are plenty sufficient to so infer.

define yourself

>>15274855
Why settle for "inference" (especially with PCR, which is never never never meant for detection and diagnosis) when you can actually perform an isolation with a centrifuge and a density gradient? You're asking me to settle for less because... Scientists are too lazy to wait overnight for results?

https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/ling.htm

>>15274854

ICD-10 code E87.2 for Acidosis is a medical classification as listed by WHO.

Respiratory Acidosis E87.29

J96.02, Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypercapnia

Renal tubular acidosis (RTA) occurs when the kidneys do not remove acids from the blood into the urine as they should.

Case report:
https://www.immunopaedia.org.za/clinical-cases/drug-response/25-year-old-female-presents-with-persistent-flu-like-symptoms/

"A 25 year old female presents to her primary healthcare clinic complaining of flu-like symptoms which consist of a fever, headache, myalgia"

"In this case we have a raised anion gap which indicates the patient has a metabolic acidosis.

Causes of metabolic acidosis
This occurs due to an increase in production of organic acids, resulting in a fall in HCO3 or other unmeasured anions and is thus associated with the accumulation of acids.

Causes include:

Lactic acidosis caused by sepsis, shock or hypoxia
Urate caused by renal failure
Ketones caused by diabetes mellitus, alcohol or starvation
Drugs (salicylates, biguanides, ethylene, NRTIs)"

>>15274862
>Why settle for "inference" (especially with PCR, which is never never never meant for detection and diagnosis) when you can actually perform an isolation with a centrifuge and a density gradient? You're asking me to settle for less because... Scientists are too lazy to wait overnight for results?
Uhhh centrifuges generally are part of processes for fluid separation. Everything following from that, use of binding agents or other chemicals, etc, still the same sort of processes to increase the probability you have what you're after for whatever you're doing. Science is ultimately, formally speaking, an induction process.

>>15274855
>processes/methods sufficient to conclude causation

If you have a bag of mixed clothes, and I request from you to isolate a sock, you would search in the pile of clothes for the sock and get it out.

The virology approach is:
>take pile of clothes clothes
>add handkerchieves and towels
>then add hydrochloric acid to it
>then put all of it in a blender
>then pour it in epoxy resin
>then take a 1cm slice of the epoxy and textile block
>then make a photo of the slice
>then find a sock shaped textile fragment in the photograph of the epoxy slice
>then claim "I isolated the sock"

>>15274881
So you don't fundamentally disagree whatsoever with the process the other anon requests, you just hate him so much you forgot to think about it.

>>15274305
Yeah, it's magic. Viruses are magic.

>>15274885
>So you don't fundamentally disagree whatsoever with the process the other anon requests
Given you do not need to have an independent variable you can personally manipulate, no, he's still wrong on that. It is not "because I hate him".
>>15274885
Or the whole sock. Or a lot of whole socks. You can take your sock and culture it with other cells and find the same cellular presentation you've already seen as a result.

You can also watch this happen with electron microscopy.

>>15274912
>snot allegedly contains billions of viruses
>every organism is defacto a culture in which the alleged virus replicated to quadrillion copies
>one sneeze contains 18 Dan Bilzerial virus particles which could kill entire nations
>yet...
>yet you cannot directly isolate it from snot.
>you have to take the snot
>add the snot to a monkey kidney cell line
>add fetal bovine serum
>add neomycin, streptomycin, genramycin, antymycotics, penicillin to the cell culture
>and all of these substances are nephrotoxic
>and then when the monkey kidney cell dies
>you dryfreeze it
>add osmium and formaldehyde to it
>then stain it with uranyl acetate and lead citrate
>than fixate it with epoxy
>than take a 0.1mm slice of that
>then tKe a snepshot of it
>and claim cell death occured because of not two or three organisms, no you know exaclty which of the dots caused the death
>and you know that these dots are not artifacts from the procedure described
>then picrel
>"we found tha virus"
Not only that, you can even conclude from that image that this is the cause for an respiratory disease, without taking the particle and reinfecting a host to provw it causes disease.
You just know

>>15274952
>one sneeze contains 18 Dan Bilzerial virus particles which could kill entire nations
Pathogenicity and infectivity are not constants nor linear. So, no.
>and claim cell death occured because of not two or three organisms, no you know exaclty which of the dots caused the death
You absolutely can infer that. Stop equivocating between proof and evidence.
>and you know that these dots are not artifacts from the procedure described
Due to knowing the effects of the various procedures, counteracting them where necessary, yes.
>Not only that, you can even conclude from that image that this is the cause for an respiratory disease, without taking the particle and reinfecting a host to prove
Yes, you can infer causation. You continue to have problems with accepting that induction counts as evidence.

>>15274985
>Due to knowing the effects of the various procedures, counteracting them where necessary, yes.
Then show me a control experiment in which the same conditions (antibiotics and antimycotics, staining and fixation) just without the "infectious snot" are EM pictures created, which are distinguishable and show only CPE in the "infected" sample to verify that the virus and not the procudre induced CPE>>15274985
>Yes, you can infer causation
Why? In every other circumstance people cry "correlation != causation".

Why is it here ok to infer causation?

>>15275001
>Then show me a control experiment in which the same conditions (antibiotics and antimycotics, staining and fixation) just without the "infectious snot" are EM pictures created, which are distinguishable and show only CPE in the "infected" sample to verify that the virus and not the procudre induced
You could just look up each compound of concern for its effects on tissue or specific cells.
Or, far easier, look up other demonstrations of the same kinds using the same compounds. By exclusion, you then know those compounds are not responsible for those effects.
>Why? In every other circumstance people cry "correlation != causation".
Correlation ALONE is not evidence of causation. That is why people say that. You kind of "chinese room'd" your understanding of what that means.
>Why is it here ok to infer causation?
To understand that you want to do a lot of reading on causal inference and causal analysis. e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_inference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_analysis
It is okay here because we know what all the involved processes and compounds do and they don't do what the virus does. So one can infer it from an exclusion principle.

If you are implying it is somehow possible for some unknown factor to just coincidentally be chronic and yet simultaneously different for each kind of infection, that is what's known as an ad hoc hypothesis. You are creating this ad hoc hypothesis by reifying a logical possibility ("it is logically possible for this to happen") by claiming it is an actuality ("so it did happen"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

If that is not what you are implying, I am not sure what you are implying, as the exclusion principle is sufficient for induction here.

>>15275033
>Or, far easier
Do the control experiment and direct experiment, to not equivocate between proof, evidence, causality and correlation

>have a single patient with "atypical pneumonia"
>collect fluid from lungs
>the sample contains shitload of RNA from cells and probably bacterias, exosomes and who knows what else
>and MAYBE a virus
>don't even try to isolate the virus
>start reading RNA straight from the sample
>read 150-digit sequences
>keep reading until you have 56 million of them
>use two assemblers, Megahit and Trinity, to put together the genome
>obtain 384,096 sequences from Megahit, of length between 200 to 30,474 nucleotides
>obtain 1,329,960 sequences from Trinity, of length between 201 to 11,760 nucleotides
>have to pick one from almost 2 million options of varying lengths
>compare with a database of known viruses that were obtained by the same method
>find that the longest outputs from both assemblers are similar to a bat coronavirus
>pick the longer one, the one with 30,474 nucleotides
>it has 89% similarity to a bat coronavirus which is the same similarity a human has to a cat
>so it most certainly is a bat coronavirus
>never repeat the experiment
>don't do any control
this is how the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was obtained. this is the method they have used to justify putting the whole world on hold for 2 years. the same method that wouldn't distinguish a human and a cat.

>>15273286
humors. Check your phlegm and let the blood bro.

>>15275148
I prefer Imhotep's style. Specialists for each field.

>>15275157
>>15275148
Do what our ancestors did and use the flowers and trepidation. Maybe the Shamans if you wanna get fancy.

>>15275162
The fuck is this?

>>15275167
Exercise

>>15275131
>Do the control experiment and direct experiment, to not equivocate between proof, evidence, causality and correlation
I'm not the one equivocating. Causality is argued by induction with evidence. Science is not about proof. If you are unhappy with this, that's your personal problem. The world does not change how it works because you want to avoid changing your mind with evidence.

The really sad thing is whether you realize it or not, that seems to be what you are doing. You are unhappy reality does not work how you want, because you can't change how reality works on whim. So you exclude all possibility that leads to reality not being what you want as a result.

>>15275219
>Causality is argued by induction with evidence. Science is not about proof
No

>>15275219
>Science is not about proof.
That's pseudoscience.

>>15275145
>this is how the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was obtained.
Sounds retarded, did you killed the bat with a ventilator like the old innocent people too? Or what kind of symptoms did showed that poor animal you diagnosed with the rona?

>>15275467
What bat? There's no bat.

>>15274985
>You absolutely can infer that. Stop equivocating between proof and evidence.
>Yes, you can infer causation