Leading German Virologist says Viruses don't exist

[Anonymous No.11329892]

>claims viruses cannot have possibly evolved and either don't exist or are man made
>things like Measels, Aids, SARS have never been isolated and been shown to exist
>offered 100,000 euros to anyone who can demonstrate the existence of the Measels virus, German court ordered he had to pay, but won on appeal because the lack of proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxc1adZDnJ4

why are germans such autists?

[Anonymous No.11329905]

>>11329892
I mean plaque assays, sequencing and electron microscopy are pretty convincing to me

[Anonymous No.11329916]

>>11329892
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY

[Anonymous No.11329919]

>>11329892
He's probably right. When have we ever discovered any disease causing virus in the wild? They're only found in the tissues of a host presenting symptoms.

This was known all the way back in 1920. They called viruses filterable bacteria, and they knew that bacteria "emitted" them. It's probably our own cells emit them to perform various tasks.

[Anonymous No.11329930]

>>11329919
Oh, and I left out the most relevant part. Who had a major role in coercing our present notion of viruses and their nature into being? The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. Who at the same time were trying to weaponize polio,

[Anonymous No.11329960]

>>11329892
>Aids
Not even a virus, the virus is called HIV

[Anonymous No.11329968]

So if viruses don't exist, why do vaccines work

[Anonymous No.11329980]

>>11329968
>falling for the vaccine scam

[Anonymous No.11329982]

>>11329980
If viruses don't exist, what causes influenza and how is it transmitted between people?

[Anonymous No.11329987]

>>11329968
You've almost got it...

[Anonymous No.11329994]

>>11329919
What are "Virus" then?

[Anonymous No.11330000]

>>11329987
So vaccines don't work because viruses aren't real, and yet the sicknesses caused by "viruses" are reduced by vaccines...

[Anonymous No.11330001]

If you search measles virion electron microscope, you get pictures of it. Are these disputed as real?

[Anonymous No.11330009]

>>11329994
You can just Google it. The structure and composition of a viruses is as described. The function, origin, and nature of them is not. Viruses are just dispatched to perform various tasks, they're piezoelectric machines and charge carriers. Some bacteria, when stressed to the point of near death, emit a virus for whatever reasons.

If you take viruses one person's body generated for a certain purpose, and put them in someone else, it can cause problems. The notion that the virus is causative is what is in dispute, we only know that it correlates. Just like a fire truck correlates strongly with burning buildings.

[Anonymous No.11330019]

>>11330009
>The notion that the virus is causative is what is in dispute, we only know that it correlates
Hasn't virus DNA been sequenced? Haven't viruses been witnessed infecting a cell?

[Anonymous No.11330040]

>>11330019
>Haven't viruses been witnessed [doing X]
No. Viruses cannot be observed acting in real time, they're too small for visible light microscopy and the higher wavelengths damage or destroy the system under study, Electron microscopes also "destroy" the sample in that at the very least they have to be sputter with gold nanoparticles, sometimes put in resin, etc. They're frozen in time.

This is why the Rife microscope was such a big deal. He claimed to get around the optical limits by "staining" with polarized light, then separating the result into two beams which traveled close but never crossing through multiple quartz lenses. It took him hours to focus in a sample, but in doing so, he could observe viruses in real time.

This was the 1920's. Now of course all you hear about is how it's physically impossible, and he and the dozens of other biologists at the time.... were just stupidly seeing artifacts. Woops, amiright? Right? Wrong.

If I ever have the resources I'm going to replicate it. I'll even name it the Rife microscope so no one can ever forget that we got fucked for an entire century.

[Anonymous No.11330043]

>>11330040
>higher wavelengths
lower, rather.

[Anonymous No.11330051]

>>11330043
Although it's worth noting that mmWaves are used for identifying constituents of certain samples. I guess you could with a lot of processing infer structure from that. Still, these waves strongly act upon the sample and would alter its function.

[Anonymous No.11330107]

Kubrick faked each one.
Viruses can't persist on a flat Earth. They need to keep the virus lie to preserve the dinosaurs one. No vulcano ever could have them because the fossil giant trees wouldn't. People are so fucking domb. But Our Lord is Returning to Throw the disbelievers into the perpetual lava of Hell soon.

[Anonymous No.11330118]

>>11329919
>Viruses that cause disease have receptors that interact win receptors on the membrane of cells that are located in the systems that viruses cause direct damage to
>Viruses have the genome that encode for these receptors, as well as the capsule proteins and various enzymes involved in genome manipulation.
>Organisms that are only given the virus of these diseases still develop the disease
There’s plenty of evidence that the virus causes the disease, you just don’t know anything about biology.

[Anonymous No.11330122]

>>11330118
Refer to subsequent posts.

[Anonymous No.11330123]

>>11330118
Brainlet here, are Virus present in everyday environment? Like in our surroundings, like bacteria?

[Anonymous No.11330128]

>>11330123
>are Virus present in everyday environment
microbes are ubiquitous. they're literally everywhere, on every surface, unless you're in deep space

[Anonymous No.11330132]

>>11330009
>Some bacteria, when stressed to the point of near death, emit a virus for whatever reasons.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysogenic_cycle
Its well known that Viruses that integrate into bacteria genome (lysogenic cycle) will begin to form viral particles (lytic cycle) when the host bacterium gets stressed.

[Anonymous No.11330136]

>>11329892

Take person without measles mucus and eat it and rub it all around your mucus membranes multiple times. Constantly PCR the mucus of the person who got the clean mucus rubbed in them. Make sure to have primers for all viruses and bacteria that inhabit the mucus membranes . Do this multiple times.(and make sure to PCR before and after exposure) Expected results - PCR DNA from resident microbes but no DNA from measles

Next take person who is the clean mucus donor and infect them with measles and let it incubate . Then take their now measles infected mucus and rub it in your mucus membranes . Repeat PCRS - expected result PCR or RT PCR will show new DNA .

Ok now we have the first line of proof.

Next lets develop an antibody with flurochrome that binds to the surface protein of the virus only in the virion confirmation. Use the RT PCR to get the gene for the structural proteins and express it in a vector to make a control. Mix your antibody with these isolated proteins that are not packaged into a virion
-expected results no fluorochrome activity when hit with correct wavelength

Next get some of that measls mucus and mix it with with the antibody
-expected results : fluorochrome activity at appropriate wavelength.

Next pulldown that antibody from the mucus and unbind it from the virus (this would be very difficult without destroying the virus) - would need another antibody that binds the first and makes it change confirmation and unbind. (better than using salt to denurture)

Then take this solution and give it to a person or infect a cell culture (after doing the first PCR test of all resident microbes or expression )

Ill take about 40,000 euroes for this part of the proof . Thanks Ill send my bitcoin address when you are ready

[Anonymous No.11330139]

>>11330123
Basically every organism has a virus that has evolved to exploit it. Since life of found basically everywhere on the surface of the earth, viruses are found almost everywhere as well. Bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) can be found in almost every body of water, and are being researched as a potential replacement of antibiotics (since they kill bacteria pretty effectively, and would evolve alongside the bacteria to keep them in check).

[Anonymous No.11330141]

>>11330132
And it's also well known that human tissues, including the brain, have their own microbiome. We have L-forms wandering aroudn everywhere, fungi, bacilli, etc.

This still leaves the origin of such viruses to be determined. They're already in the "host" cell.

[Anonymous No.11330144]

>>11330141
That’s still something that virologists are trying to discover, I’m not gonna try and bullshit this. That doesn’t take away from the massive pile of evidence that undeniably indicates that virions cause disease.

[Anonymous No.11330145]

>>11330136
Oh and before you say what if their exposure to the measles made them express genes that made a virus from their own cell. Well then we will biospy the mucus membranes before and after exposure and run RNA-seq and microarry to determine all mrna's being made before and after. Also we will sequence those cells before and after (full genome sequencing ) to determine if those genes are actually in the chromosomes.

Expected results : altered expression of many genes but apperance of new mrna after exposure.

Expected results from sequencing : no new genes added into the chromosome that match the mrna being made

Conclusion the mrna being made must be made from an external source and not off the chromosome

[Anonymous No.11330147]

>>11330144
I didn't say they couldn't cause disease. I essentially stated, with regard to the burning building, some of them come with trucks full of water. Some come with trucks full of kerosene. It is no coincidence that cancers develop in tissues with poor blood flow, that are acidic, irradiated, etc. These all stress microbes living in the body, weaken natural cell defenses, and disrupt membrane mediated signalling. It is this disrupted signalling which causes a tumor to form. Some experiments show carefully taking cancerous daughter cells out of the tumor environment, and placing them near normal cells, they differentiate and revert to normal functioning. So what differs between they and the stem cells? Viral infection vs aberrant membrane signalling.

[Anonymous No.11330153]

>>11330147
Not the op you are responding to but I understand what you are saying with
> These all stress microbes living in the body, weaken natural cell defenses, and disrupt membrane mediated signalling. It is this disrupted signalling which causes a tumor to form. Some experiments show carefully taking cancerous daughter cells out of the tumor environment, and placing them near normal cells, they differentiate and revert to normal functioning.

And I agree I have seen these expirments

But what do you mean by ?

> So what differs between they and the stem cells? Viral infection vs aberrant membrane signalling.


>>11330132
In regards to this post maybe the virus integrated near a stress response element (DNA transcription binding factor sequences that bind different transcription factors that are activated by stress mediated signals or ligands) and expression of the virus gets activated because of this ?

[Anonymous No.11330161]

>>11330153
>But what do you mean by ?
A neighboring organism has emitted a virus and infected a cell. These are cancerous cells, they will replicate and spread to a degree. The surrounding cells will receive signals from these cells, which become like pacemaker cells, and they begin to behave cancerously. This is why most tumor promoters alter membrane signalling of some kind, whether chemical, mechanical/structural, or electromagnetic.

[Anonymous No.11330170]

>>11330147
I don’t understand what your point is. Are you saying stress conditions cause cancer to form (this is true, and unrelated to viral infections and cancer s induced by viral infections)? Are you saying that environmental stressors cause bacteria to release viruses that cause human-infecting disease? This thread is about viral disease (and if viruses cause them), not tumors or cancer.

[Anonymous No.11330174]

>>11330170
The two are connected.

[Anonymous No.11330186]

>>11330174
I do agree that they are connected, but for a different reason. Some viruses will insert themselves into the DNA of host cells. When this happens to be within the oncogenes of the cell, it essentially disables them, acting like any other form of DNA mutation that causes cancer.
I don’t really know much about cell signalling and cancer. Perhaps there is some way that a viral cell could behave in a way that causes cells to behave cancerous, but I doubt that would cause the necessary DNA damage and other alterations require to create cancer.

[Anonymous No.11330189]

>>11330186
All cancers have essentially the same core features though, with few exceptions. Strictly glycolytic, nagalase expression, unchecked growth, often p53 deactivation. They're all very similar, which leads me to consider that instead of being the product of an odds game, many cancers are caused by an organism which acts with a very particular logic.

[Anonymous No.11330196]

>>11330186
hpv causes cervical cancer. hepatitis causes liver cancer. EBV causes lympathic system cancer/ it's really a google search away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus

[Anonymous No.11330203]

>>11329892
>>11330040
Very interesting, thanks for posting

[Anonymous No.11330218]

>>11330196
I was explaining the mechanism for how viruses cause cancer. If you read that wiki article, it basically says the exact same thing I did.

>>11330189
>Cancers all share a bunch of core features
>Among those is a list of mutations within some key genes involved in DNA repair and regulation of mitosis/apoptosis
>It isn’t those mutations randomly occurring by a bunch of factors directly related to causing DNA damage, it is an external organism causing cancer
Are you saying that this organism just happens to coincide with a bunch of unrelated carcinogens like asbestos, UV radiation, radioactive materials etc,
>All building fires share the same features (heat, burning wood, lack of oxygen), therefore there must be some organism causing all house fires acting with a very particular logic.
Surely you see the error here.

[Anonymous No.11330234]

>>11330218
>Are you saying that this organism just happens to coincide with a bunch of unrelated carcinogens like asbestos, UV radiation, radioactive materials etc,
These stress the organism, weaken the defenses of the host tissues, and disrupt membrane signalling. This is the point. When you have trench foot, burns, lack of blood flow, no one is surprised that gangrene forms, yet when cancer forms it's considered mysterious and requiring all this precision and finesse to understand.

[Anonymous No.11330248]

posting conspiracy shit should be bannable

[Anonymous No.11330252]

>>11330248
>muh cunspurracy
Clamped.

[Anonymous No.11330267]

>>11329892
We need Platelet Lolis to solve this

[Anonymous No.11330342]

>>11330234
Inflammatory responses create elevated levels of mutagens including things like free radicals. These free radicals can then go on to cause DNA damage, developing into cancer. Membrane signalling disruptions are a secondary effect of the damage done to the DNA; it isn’t the cause of the cancer.
Also, nobody is mystified by the formation of cancer these days. Unless you have a two digit IQ it’s a pretty easy concept to get your head around. It’s about as mysterious as getting a cold; only problem is that cancer doesn’t go away after a few days.

[Anonymous No.11330352]

>>11330252
>he is so much of a manchild, he still has the umbilical cord attached
Wouldn't have expected better from a poltard.

[Anonymous No.11330400]

>>11329892
Easiest 100 grand you'll ever make. Worth the flight. Gogogogogogogogo!

[Anonymous No.11330405]

>>11330009
>for whatever reason
You do realize that the bacteria is giving a final "fuck you" to the world? That's what it is. Viruses are final emmission 'missiles' of certain bacteria. It was always good cop vs bad cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPO76Jlnz6c

[Anonymous No.11330590]

>>11330009
>Some bacteria, when stressed to the point of near death, emit a virus for whatever reasons
So do some human cells.

It's just that the virus doesn't have a better way of escaping the host cell than killing it. Other viruses cut their way out and use the cellular membrane for themselves but if a virus doesn't want the skin, it's much easier to just kill the cell and float away when it bursts.

[Anonymous No.11330604]

>>11329892
based

[Anonymous No.11330634]

Retards falling for pseudoscience again?

[Anonymous No.11330638]

Are Virus similar to Bacteria? If not, how are they different?

[Anonymous No.11330715]

>>11330638
they dont have cell structures ,they are just protein machines that replicate by abusing host cell resources.

[Anonymous No.11330724]

>>11330352
Vaccinated.

[Anonymous No.11330733]

>>11330638
Are you retarded?
They're completely different from bacteria. Viruses are smaller and don't even count as alive

[Anonymous No.11330744]

>>11330638
Bacteria have much larger/complex genomes, usually compartmentalised, with organ like systems. They resemble live animals in their metabolic habits (eat and shit).

Viruses typically are comprised only of dna, some sort of environmental packaging, and require a host's genetic equipment to replicate itself.

Speed of replication of single celled bacteria is very high, viruses potentially many orders of magnitude greater rates of replication. A virus, once inside a host cell, typically quickly uses up all the available resources of the cell to replicate it's DNA. Infection response initially will usually result in the infected cell being destroyed by apoptotic cell surveillance processes, which release these viral dna particles to infect new cells.

The immune system responds to the proteins a virus encodes, and the viral dna. After a few weeks the antiviral response of normal immune reaction has produced very large amounts of antibodies to the specific features of these viral particles which circulate and bind to and inactivate their mechanisms of cell invasion.

Which means the dangerous period is between the initial infection, and the time the immune system can produce enough antibodies to overwhelm the virus. This is the time where life threatening reactions drive symptoms as the bloodstream is filled with viral particles, debris from exploding cells, and inflammatory immune modulators.

[Anonymous No.11330760]

>>11329892
Given our understanding of how cells function with DNA and RNA is it really that hard to believe that “rogue” genetic material without its own cell exists and can use the processes occurring in cells to replicate itself?

[Anonymous No.11330764]

Sounds crazy on its head, BUT, I give you...
ERVs.
Random recent article:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/50/12565

[Anonymous No.11330769]

>>11330000
It's pretty much settled that all the major vaccines were introduced after disease rates were already drastically falling due to increased sanitation. Running water and industrialized production of soap and bleach are responsible for most of the decrease in disease over the last century.

[Anonymous No.11330775]

>>11330744
>to the proteins a virus encodes, and the viral dna.
No, There a few mechanisms (NK and NKT are not that well understood but are known to be able to operate without MAPs), but T-cell detection works by identifying MHC-I associated peptides (not proteins) as well as cytokines (also peptides) released by various monitoring systems. Many infectious agents (colon cancers, some viruses) actively suppress MAP generation which allows infected cells to completely avoid T-cell surveillance.

[Anonymous No.11330805]

>>11330733
Well, I'm not a Microbiologist. But Virus always creeped me out. It's like they're not even alive and aren't supposed to exist.

[Anonymous No.11330861]

>>11329919
>>11329930
>>11330040
You again
https://pastebin.com/aYNv0zFc

[Anonymous No.11330883]

>>11330861
The pastebin is infinitely more pathetic than the poster and makes you seem like a grade A clinical retard

[Anonymous No.11330886]

>>11330883
How dare you respond to me

[Anonymous No.11330892]

>>11329892
>German thinks germs don't exist
super duper kek

[Anonymous No.11331014]

>>11329892
>tfw that "lmao what an idiot" feeling you had is a consequence of stupidity.

[Anonymous No.11331033]

>There’s now schizo threads about microbiology

Hidden.

[None !AnOnYMous2 No.11331056]

>>11330861
ooo can you make one for me? I normally tripfag on /pol/

[Anonymous No.11331092]

>>11329905
Sequencing says "there is some (R/D)NA", it doesn't say that it comes from a foreign body, unless you think cancer is a kind of virus (protip: no).
Plaque assays are formed by taking an infected sample and presenting it to healthy samples, letting infection spread. It doesn't say anything about the nature of the infection (viral, environmental, functional, or otherwise) beside the fact that it can spread.
Electron microscopy cannot tell you anything about the functioning of the virus on the cells. This guy is not saying "viruses don't exist", he's saying "viruses aren't causing anyone any illness, they are a natural part of life and the stuff from which life is born". Keep in mind that he is the discoverer of the first megavirus, he wouldn't have discovered a megavirus while claiming viruses don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11331580]

>>11329892
people like this deserve to be ignored forever

[Anonymous No.11331615]

This is an interesting thread imho. Just wanted to say that.

[Anonymous No.11331636]

>>11331580
>censorship

[Anonymous No.11331645]

>>11331636
nope you're not entitled to my time

[Anonymous No.11331648]

>>11331645
>you aren't entitled to internet access

[Anonymous No.11331650]

>>11329905
kek, this

[Anonymous No.11331657]

>>11331645
>>11331648
>I get to dictate what everyone else gets to see
Hi Xi. I see you found a way out of your own firewall.

[Anonymous No.11331675]

>>11331657
nice strawman
>>11331648
that really depends. if i don't want your presence in my little digital property, i can always point you the door.

but usually i just ignore like i originally said >>11331580

[Anonymous No.11331709]

>>11330136
Too many big words for sci

[Anonymous No.11331717]

>>11331675
You justify censorship by saying others aren't entitled to your time therefore you wish to dictate what others see. I don't even need to remember my study to know you're an egomanic. Or NPD under the dsmv.

[Anonymous No.11331747]

>>11330136
Then do it.

[Anonymous No.11331756]

>>11330861
>t. clamped

[Anonymous No.11331763]

>>11330136
>Ok now we have the first line of proof.
No. What if exposure to similar negative environmental conditions lead to spurious mutations, the result of which induces the symptoms? It says neither anything about the dna being from viral origin nor of that dna causing the symptoms, for example it could be a signaling mechanism or a response element.

>Next lets develop an antibody with flurochrome that binds to the surface protein of the virus only in the virion confirmation.
Due to the above, this is no longer an option. You are developing an ab against something you have decided as priori to be a virus that causes measles without actually having demonstrated any of these aspects.

>>11330145
>microarry
What is this, the 70's?
>all mrna's being made before and after.
>sequence those cells before and after (full[sic] genome sequencing ) to determine if those genes are actually in the chromosomes.
You have literally 0 clue how rna expression and translation works whatsoever, this is pathetic.

Your own logic would find that every cancer is of viral origin.

[Anonymous No.11331805]

>>11331717
>your time
>others see
"others" will see whatever garbage they want to see. they don't come into the equation.

>you're an egomanic. Or NPD under the dsmv.
no that's you. i'm not a tool for you to exploit, you're not entitled to my eyeballs and ears, your ideas aren't of any importance to me

[Anonymous No.11331820]

>>11331805
You are part of my flock. You are my responsibility always, on some level. You will get what you are given, you will learn to deal with it because you have no choice. The only thing you can control is yourself. If you want to control someone else, you must control yourself to do so.

[Anonymous No.11331825]

>>11330883
That's not the point of it?

[Anonymous No.11331829]

>>11331825
What is the point of it?

[Anonymous No.11331835]

>>11331820
>You will get what you are given
you're also getting what you are given. take this (you).

[Anonymous No.11331838]

>>11330136
You aren’t as smart as you imagine yourself to be. The scientist who claimed „that no viruses exist“ it was himself not a leading scientist, but a PhD virologist. And he, if I remember correctly promised a decent sum of money. Some physician, probably smarter than you, no offense, came up with papers about viruses and methods to find them. I speed it up a little bit. It went to court; the court called several leading specialists and they all basically said, yes there is stuff in the environment that makes us sick (that’s what the experiment you suggest proves), but we don’t really know in the end there isn’t even one coherent definition of what a virus really is. Sure we do have good models, we can decently work with, but that’s not to say there isn’t a real agreement on the deep stuff. You can go and look the papers up yourself, on how the definition of what a „virus“ is changed over time. That’s science deal with it. End of the story the court agreed with the experts and he did not have to pay the money to the physician.

[Anonymous No.11332182]

>>11331838
Brainlet here, is that got to do with Virus not having a cellular structure that some consider them to be spores of sort?

[Anonymous No.11332233]

>>11331835
I browse in a private window and reopened the window, and thus I am deprived of my (You) proper. But I accept it in spirit.

[Anonymous No.11332266]

>>11329892
wew lad, so if I fill up a syringe with Ebola viruses and inject someone, they won't become from them?

[Anonymous No.11332275]

>>11332266
He claims that if you take a syringe from infected person 1 and inject this in healthy person 2, person 2 might become sick because person 1's cells are now inside person 2, and person 1's cell are in an ill state.
He is claiming (and he is technically right) that nobody has ever seen a real virus having real effect on anything. Like usual in most science, we have correlations and hypotheses, so if we see a thing on a microscope of ill people but not healthy, and when we kill these things the person stops being ill, we assume the things are what are causing the disease. That's not necessarily true, it could be that the things were a result of some underlying phenomenon (e.g. environment or emotions or whatnot), but that once the disregulatory elements are thus created, they then cause the disease. So indeed you cure the disease by killing these disregulatory elements, but they're not necessarily viruses. They're just called viruses because they otherwise have the hallmarks of one. Example: semen also has DNA. If I make you swallow my cum, assuming I'm healthy, am I now a virus within your body? Typical virology analysis would say "yes", and I, as a human, would be considered to be a half-virus (half my DNA is viral!)

[Anonymous No.11332281]

>>11332275
Literally how is anyone supposed to argue against that hypothesis.

It can't be proven.

If I extract viruses from the body of a diseased person, purify the sample of all impurities, create a mixture of viruses and water, then inject this inside another person, and observe the other person becoming diseased in the same way, you could say "Oh, look! The virus is actually just person 1s cells! Correlation not causation, the emotional disturbances resulting from injection made him sick!"

[Anonymous No.11332330]

>>11332281
>you could say "Oh, look! The virus is actually just person 1s cells! Correlation not causation, the emotional disturbances caused the 1st cell to become evil and you injected it, making him sick!"
Fixed for accuracy. That is what he claims.
He explicitly claims that different circumstances should generally give rise to different ills, so injection can't give the same exact illness as the one whoever died had (unless that person died shortly after being injected with something).
>it can't be proven
That's kinda his point (or rather, the converse, is): you can't prove that viruses did it either. It's all correlation, not causation. If the prevailing hypothesis was humors (as it used to be in mind shit), then what? You'd call him crazy by the same token, even if he were arguing in favor of viruses over humors.
There are 2 ways to prove him wrong: demonstrate that his theory of disease is wrong (then the goal is for him to have a new theory based on the evidence). This could be done simply by showing no difference in the healing ability of spas, as he claims spas can heal you of impurities.
Or, you can do something like a mixed ribo-seq cryo-em xray kinda bullshittery timed in such a perfect way that it definitely shows a virus, and definitely shows it actively affecting an otherwise healthy cell, and that in a way that the resulting symptom is clearly consistent.
That's not impossible, it's merely out of reach with current tech and methods.
Otherwise, you always have the choice to ignore him.

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.11332338]

>be about Measels Virus
>see retards moving the goalposts
>>11329892
>claims viruses
no.
A recent episode in Germany created a suppressed stir in the field of microbiology when microbiologist Dr. Stefan Lanka claimed he would award anyone 100,000 Euros who could prove the existence of the measles virus.

At first it appeared he had lost. But Dr. Lanka took his loss to a higher court with more experts and the backing of two independent laboratories. He wound up not having to pay. It turned out that the “proof” provided was a composite of several different electron microscope images. And the composite involved different components of damaged cells. The composite could not be duplicated. The German Federal Supreme Court confirmed that there was not enough evidence to prove the existence of the measles virus. (Source)

So how are they making MMR vaccines with attenuated measles viruses? That’s Lanka’s contention. He and several other virologists have also challenged the HIV virus as a valid viral entity and even if so, as the cause of AIDS. Some question how one virus can cause a myriad of diseases.

They all question the fact that the virus is not isolated in diagnosis. Instead, unreliable antibody tests are performed to put someone into life or death crisis over a virus that many claim really doesn’t exist.

These are prominent virologists like professor Peter Duesberg, whose contention that HIV does not cause AIDS (Acute Immune Deficiency Syndrome), has caused him to be cut from research funding and marginalized by many of his peers in the scientific community.

[Anonymous No.11332604]

>>11332338
Then what is causing the disease?

[Anonymous No.11332608]

>>11329968
How do you know that they work if viruses don't exist?

[OP No.11332892]

>>11331763
How is it wrong? Sequence the genome and scan the reading frames for viral genes. (you wont find any for measles it doesn't insert into the genome)

No shit all the genes wont be expressed and the expression will be different depending on whats going on, but if you look at the mrna expresison after exposure , you will detect viral mrna.

Ok then run RT PCR of that mrna and make it to DNA and sequence it. Then align it to the previous genome sequencing and you wont find it match any reading frame.

Thus the new mrna must be from a virus.

How is it wrong?

[OP No.11332893]

>>11331838
ahh I didnt realize it was an argument of semantics about the definition of virus . You BTFO me

[Anonymous No.11332896]

>>11331763
Also the point about the mutations is a good counter argument , I will have to think about how to overcome this for my "though experiment"

[Anonymous No.11332898]

This is an >>>/x/ tier thread

[Anonymous No.11332952]

>>11330769
>Conveniently ignores that the smallpox vaccine gave people immunity to the disease and allowed us to eradicate it

[Anonymous No.11333025]

>>11332338
>So how are they making MMR vaccines with attenuated measles viruses? That’s Lanka’s contention. He and several other virologists have also challenged the HIV virus as a valid viral entity and even if so, as the cause of AIDS. Some question how one virus can cause a myriad of diseases.

HIV has been isolated, see picture.
It also doesn't cause multiple diseases, it kills most T cells which makes the immune system unable to respond to pathogens that are harmless to healthy people. It's high affinity to CD4 receptors on T cells is well established as the cause of it's specific invasion and subsequent lysis of T cells.

[Anonymous No.11333150]

>>11332893
Well did I really? There isn’t an ideal language of science, contrary to what many believed and some still believe. It’s more complex than just saying there is the real world and there is the world as conception. However for us the real world and our conception of it are one. So arguing about semantics is in the final sense also the argument about the real world.
>>11332182
Well there are many disagreements, for example, while in the minority, a decent amount even says that, since the virus is exposed to the force of evolution, it is a living being. Some say the virus is a parasite, while others disagree. There is also stuff like Chromulinavvorax destructans and the sphores you mentioned, both commonly classified as bacteria, but in fact in a grey area between virus and bacteria. Also discovery of Prions did have a significant impact on the paradigm as a hole. There is much more; especially historical there is an insane amount that could be said. The concept is very fluid and there is nothing that indicates of this changing in the future. But in essence it‘s only a little hyperbole (if at all) to say a virus is just, what the experts give to the others to make them grasp, what he does. Can be a mechanism of understanding and science teaching tool, but there is much more.

[Anonymous No.11333279]

>>11332952
You have no proof, just your msm propaganda bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11333994]

>>11332898
Intellectually clamped and circumcised. Obviously vaccinated, but that's systemic clamping and circumcision.

[Anonymous No.11335688]

>>11331838
This is an extremely brainlet post. You don't even realize how much of a small brain sub-humanid you are in comparison to OP - Dunning Kruger at its finest. You're either < 20, black, indian, or mexican

[Anonymous No.11335703]

>>11329892
Fake news. he is no leading virologist and was sued by David Bardens (medical studend) to pay the 100.000€

the court in the end said that he has not to pay because the initial task was done by the explicit ... bla bla blub jura bullshit

[Anonymous No.11335712]

This interesting thread turned to shit quite fast.

[Anonymous No.11336099]

>>11335703
Phoneposting or just a lazy fuck?

[Anonymous No.11336176]

>>11335712
>4channel.org

[Anonymous No.11336324]

>>11329905
>electron microscopy
show me a pic pls

protip: It doesnt exist

[Anonymous No.11337000]

>>11329892

[Anonymous No.11337003]

>>11337000
Old and fake, experts vouched for him on appeal and he didn't have to pay.

[Anonymous No.11337004]

>>11337000
https://www.thelocal.se/20150320/sweden-doctor-in-huge-measles-court-case-win

[Anonymous No.11337815]

>>11336324
I literally posted a picture of HIV under electron microscopy a few posts higher.
Dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.11337826]

>>11337815
Congrats, you're a pop-sci retard.

[Anonymous No.11338330]

>>11337826
Nice argument. How about you fuck off and go to /pol/ where you belong?

[Anonymous No.11338368]

>>11329919
>they aren't viruses they're just cells created by organisms that infect host organisms to force the host organism to produce more not-viruses
??????????????
????????????????????

[Anonymous No.11338448]

>>11338330
He's right though. Do you even know how electron microscopy works?

[Anonymous No.11338456]

>>11338448
Not the same guy but what the fuck does it mean, a 3 second research can show you that. And either way, are you going to argue that anaesthesia doesn't exist because anyone barely knows how it works?

[Anonymous No.11338461]

>>11338448
I know any sort of technology appears foreign to you poltards :)

[Anonymous No.11338694]

>>11333279
>My head is so far up my ass that I deny basic history

[Anonymous No.11338763]

>>11338448
Are you going to argue that since we only see an image of electron-rich structures it's not the 'real' structure? That's obvious, they are only approximations and don't show how the structure looks like in vivo. Limitations of of TEM are well known, but it works relatively well for vesicles and large, compact structures, both of which are the main parts of HIV.

[Anonymous No.11338873]

>>11338456
>>11338763
What you "see" from an electron microscope is an image induced from the electron-rich structures you can see, it doesn't even remotely resemble the reality, and hell, it doesn't even resemble what the microscope sees. It's great to tell "there is a thing there" and it's good (but not great) for "and this thing is not the same as that thing", but you can't see nor identify things with it.

[Anonymous No.11338987]

>>11338873
And your point is..? Yes, it's not a picture of reality, but close enough to it and you can identify structures with it.

[Anonymous No.11339022]

>>11338694
There is no proof. Smallpox was already going to end without the vaccine.

[Anonymous No.11339025]

>>11338987
>close enough
That's the point: not even remotely. It doesn't tell you anything that could say "this is a virus", let alone "this is THE HIV".

[Anonymous No.11339091]

>>11339025
>Isolate infected person's T cells
>blood would do too, probably
>sequence their RNA
>get retroviral RNA :O
and
>isolate small particles from infected cell culture
>double check if it's the same virus by dissolving the particles and sequencing the RNA
>it is
>observe the virions in TEM
>there are small particles with a very distinct shape everywhere
>the image is HIV positive

It's not rocket science. You have particles of a certain size in your solution, so the particles of the same size in TEM image are obviously THE particles.

[Anonymous No.11340018]

>>11338456
>>11338763
Firstly, this: >>11338873
Secondly, it only works on static structures, meaning the virii are dead, dysfunctional and probably underwent changes.
The point was that you cannot see the virus in action and no proof of their actions exist.

[Anonymous No.11340063]

>>11340018
>you cannot see the virus in action
Definitely not with electron microscopy.

> no proof of their actions exist
False. Add some viruses to a cell culture and measure their lysis. You can also take a TEM photo during the infection, in my previous post there is an image of a virion escaping from a cell.

[Anonymous No.11340269]

>>11339091
>>get retroviral RNA :O
Ever heard of ERVs? They're all over your genome. You're getting retrovial RNA from a clean person's just about anything being sequenced.
Not to mention that you have yet again decided to define "cancer" as "viral" when it's not.

>>double check if it's the same virus by dissolving the particles and sequencing the RNA
Not how it works.
>>observe the virions in TEM
That's the part that doesn't happen either.
>You have particles of a certain size in your solution,
That could come from anywhere. It's a good occam-satisfying hypothesis, but it's no proof. That's his contention.

>in my previous post there is an image of a virion escaping from a cell.
>artist renditions are proof now
>literally "solving cancer with photoshop" but not as the usual meme everyone in the field is aware of, for real coming out of the mouth of a real person
Amazing.

[Anonymous No.11340453]

>>11340269
>You're getting retrovial RNA from a clean person's just about anything being sequenced.
You're not getting HIV RNA from a healthy person.
>Not to mention that you have yet again decided to define "cancer" as "viral" when it's not.
Are you implying AIDS is caused by cancer or something like that? It's well established that HIV binds to CD4 on T cells.

>Not how it works.
What exactly is your problem here?

>That could come from anywhere. It's a good occam-satisfying hypothesis, but it's no proof. That's his contention.
They don't come from "anywhere", but from sick people or cell cultures. Most viruses cannot invade T cells.

>artist renditions are proof now
How is 'e' an artist rendition?

[Anonymous No.11340476]

>>11340453
>You're not getting HIV RNA from a healthy person.
Prove it.
>Are you implying AIDS is caused by cancer or something like that? It's well established that HIV binds to CD4 on T cells.
Congrats, you've just proven you're clinically retarded. Stopped reading here.

[Anonymous No.11340497]

>>11329892
So what how the fuck do viral infections spread?

[Anonymous No.11340522]

>>11340497
He says that if you're in the same environment eating and breathing the same poisons, of course you'll develop the same conditions. He also says that impurities can cling to you (especially your skin) and that your skin is used to usually get rid of impurities (hence why spas and thermes were supposedly used to get rid of them, as well as the grandma's "knowledge" that sweating gets rid of the devil in you). From this it's implied that a sick person can transmit the sickness as their body is full of the toxins that cause given symptoms.

[Anonymous No.11340526]

>>11332275
> that nobody has ever seen a real virus having real effect on anything
Ahhh so he's taking the creationist approach and the courts decided to validate it.

[Anonymous No.11340531]

>>11340522
What toxins?

[Anonymous No.11340538]

>>11340531
He did not specify. If he has a thesis somewhere it would help clarify his thoughts. I think that he's at the stage where he believes viruses aren't the effector of disease (completely? for the most part? only some diseases? not sure on that either) but isn't sure what the right effectors are and probably has only recently gotten resources to experiment in that direction, if ever.

[Anonymous No.11340539]

>we must cleanse the toxins

[Anonymous No.11340544]

>>11340526
Anti-creationist, rather. "If god exist you must be able to prove it to me. I'll give you 100k". Christcuck sends him a copy of the bible, he says "those are just words and not proof". He wins as a result. He's not asking to prove a negative, as a creationist proof requires.

[Anonymous No.11340545]

>>11340538
yeah, viruses make a lot more sense than vague arguments of some unspecified toxins.

the real fucking question is prions. it seems 99.9% sure we have prion diseases figured out, but we still don't know the actual how misfolding occurs

[Anonymous No.11340546]

>>11340538
So he has absolutely no evidence against the theory of viruses causing illnesses, it's just a type of god of the gaps argument, interesting.

[Anonymous No.11340557]

>>11340544
You're an imbecile, confusing "observation" with physically seeing something is a classic creationist tactic. Our understanding of viruses is capable of making predictions just fine.
He's not a moron, though, he's probably a malignant narcissist trying to get people killed by intentionally spreading bullshit. With this type of person, any suffering or death caused is additive to their perception of their self worth.

[Anonymous No.11340570]

>>11340546
Yes, that's exactly it. He's not saying "I have proof viruses don't exist", he's just saying "there is no proof viruses (as effectors of disease) exists" (and the part that they must be effectors of disease is important to his views, he is 100% on board with viruses exist; is credited for the discovery of the first megavirus; and in the video, he says viruses are the origin of life and that he thinks they're not much more than that) and seems to imply (based on some comments I've heard/seen that one of his and others' points of contention is "how are they making the measles vaccine") that the way some treatments are created does not come from well-grounded biomed science but rather humor-style handwavings that might actually be hurting people in the long run.

>>11340545
>yeah, viruses make a lot more sense than vague arguments of some unspecified toxins.
Yes, definitely. Though it's still healthy to realize that while the theory seems to make sense, there's no definitive proof of it and for all we know he could be right and it turns out everything we called a virus that causes disease really wasn't one.
>>11340557
And newton's gravity allows us to do predictions just fine, doesn't mean relativity isn't real. What are you even doing on /sci/ while being so cluelessly retarded?

[Anonymous No.11340584]

>>11340570
>no definitive proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_virus
the fact that we can hack genomes using viruses demonstrates we have a pretty good understanding of how viruses work. to assert they naturally can't cause disease seems absurd

[Anonymous No.11340599]

>>11340584
>the fact that we can hack genomes using viruses demonstrates we have a pretty good understanding of how viruses work
Not at all. It says at best that we can piggyback on the pack-transcribe machinery of specific viruses to achieve controlled tasks. Even that description is not accurate as most viruses used for this are modified from their natural form. Even your wikipedia article acknowledges this, for example with
>This was achieved by joining DNA from the monkey SV40 virus with that of the lambda virus. However, it was not established that either of the two viruses were capable of infection or replication.
>to assert they naturally can't cause disease seems absurd
He's arguing on the 'seems'. "just because it seems nonobvious doesn't mean it's not true/just because it seems obvious doesn't mean it's true".

[Anonymous No.11341475]

>>11340476
>Prove it.
https://www.healthlabs.com/hiv-rna-testing
These kind of tests wouldn't be used otherwise.
>Not to mention that you have yet again decided to define "cancer" as "viral" when it's not.
So what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.11341907]

>>11340063
Have you read anything in this thread at all? It seems you're ignoring all the points made.
>virion escaping from a cell
Could just be the stress-viral-discharge mechanism already mentioned.

[Anonymous No.11341985]

>>11341907
It could in theory, but where's the evidence? And why would antiretrovirals delay AIDS / make it not happen at all if HIV release is symptom rather than cause?
It can't be activation of an endogenous retrovirus as healthy people don't have it in their genome.
Also, HIV does escape from cells under some kind of stress, as in it's latent phase it's dormant for a long time, slowly killing most of the T cells in the body. This requires for the organism to be already infected with HIV.
The points in this thread are very weak and counter arguments are hand-waved away because it's not 100% proof, even though that's impossible. Also, that anon at the top of the thread who dismisses electron microscopy, but believes in the Rife microscope, which supposedly achieves the same resolution as TEM and is cheaper AND much simpler, but somehow nobody nowhere replicated it and it's results. Hm, I wonder why..
The HIV infection mechanism has been elucidated in so, so much detail yet it's ignored here because one scientist said so. Nothing that makes sense is offered in place of HIV as a cause of AIDS, and the current 'model', if it can be called that, enabled effective treatment.
Someone earlier brought up Occam's razor so I'll use it too. The simplest explanation of AIDS cause is what the current scientific consensus, based upon more than 30 years of research, says, which is that HIV infection is the cause.

[Anonymous No.11342212]

>>11341475
This doesn't check the existence of the HIV RNA, but rather its concentration over some level. Please don't post ads on /sci/, instead post scientific articles if you can't be bothered to inform yourself.
>So what the fuck is this supposed to mean?
The same test you suggest (that RNA not in the healthy host is in the unhealthy one) would also be positive for cancer.
Now off to >>>/x/ with you.

[Anonymous No.11342229]

>>11341985
>And why would antiretrovirals delay AIDS
Could be that the stress-viral-discharge mechanism is regulated by ERVs.
Etiherway, it can be like taking a cold compress to an inflamed area. Yes it will reduce of end the inflamation but it won't fix the problem.
>endogenous retrovirus as healthy people don't have it in their genome.
Congrats, you are not allowed anywhere near /sci/ with this level of abject ignorance and complete unwillingness to even inform yourself in the slightest.
>The HIV infection mechanism has been elucidated
Fucking lel'd.

[Anonymous No.11342634]

>>11342229
>endogenous retrovirus as healthy people don't have it in their genome
'it' was supposed to refer to HIV, not ERVs. I phrased that poorly, I meant to say that healthy people don't have HIV in their genome.
Even if ERVs regulate viral discharge of HIV then it's still HIV doing the damage.
>Etiherway, it can be like taking a cold compress to an inflamed area.
A compress that lowers the risk of getting cancer significantly.

[Anonymous No.11342696]

>>11342634
>I meant to say that healthy people don't have HIV in their genome.
OK, then prove it.
>Even if ERVs regulate viral discharge of HIV then it's still HIV doing the damage.
I don't think he's against that notion, though not sure.
>A compress that lowers the risk of getting cancer significantly.
>AIDS is cancer
?????

[Anonymous No.11342723]

>>11329892
>Leading
If you're going to arbitrarily stick adjectives to his title, why go halfway? Make it "WORLD-RENOWNED" or "FATE-KISSED" or something else with a bit of oomph.

[Anonymous No.11342843]

>>11342696
>OK, then prove it.
Why don't you prove that it is in our genome? You seem fairly certain, so it should be no problem showing me an alignment from software of your choice.
>I don't think he's against that notion, though not sure.
Then what's his point?
>AIDS is cancer
You're just showing your ignorance here lol, AIDS increases the chance of getting some cancers that are caused by viruses. Who could guess that acquired immunodeficiency makes your immune system deficient and unable to fight viruses. Crazy, I know.

[Anonymous No.11342857]

>>11342843
>Why don't you prove that it is in our genome?
Because the onus is on you. You claim that HIV is an external agent causing bad shit, but you have no proof.
>Then what's his point?
(You)
>AIDS increases the chance of getting some cancers that are caused by viruses.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11343032]

>>11342857
>Because the onus is on you
You claim that HIV is in our genome, I claim it's not. I ran a blast with a random 1000 bp sequence from HIV against refseq's homo sapiens database and found nothing. I don't have anything to show you because there is nothing to be shown, since HIV is not in our genome. If you know it's different, then do show it, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.
>AIDS increases the chance of getting some cancers that are caused by viruses.

Established science is /x/ now? How far has /sci/ fallen.. Ever heard of "AIDS-defining cancer"?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034114001415

A review about AIDS defining and non-defining cancer rates before and after modern anti-retroviral therapy.

It's becoming clear to me that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and can't do basic research on the topic.

Interesting how when I claim that there's HIV in the electrographs, and you say it's not, it's on me to bring proof, and when you say there's HIV in our DNA and I say there isn't, it's on me again to bring proof? How does that make sense?

If it wasn't you but another anon - I don't care.

[Anonymous No.11343057]

>>11343032
>a random 1000 bp sequence from HIV
>against refseq's homo sapiens database and found nothing
That's the problem. Come back when you have even a single clue about what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.11343095]

poo pants fart bum

[Anonymous No.11343107]

>>11329982
got’em

[Anonymous No.11343112]

>>11329982
If influenza is caused by a virus why does el vaccine no worko?
>got'em

[Anonymous No.11343202]

>>11343057
Are you going to present some evidence of HIV in our genome then?

[Anonymous No.11343223]

>>11340522
>Le miasma

[Anonymous No.11343622]

>>11343202
>post a retarded strawman
>turns out there actually ARE HIV sequence matches (very high or complete match) in GRCh38.p12
>even though you'd expect it to only appear in affected individuals and not in the reference
>even though he pretends he did the exercise
BTFO
Search results: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?CMD=Get&RID=33PURMFD01R#
Data was
SRR002347, SRR002348, SRR002349 and SRR002350 in a single fasta.

HIV rna is known to be highly varying aside from some constant factors like base composition bias. This would be consistent with the purported scenario where HIV would come from inside, not outside, as the host genome would be responsible for these variations.

The following article, published in Cell,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867402008644
also makes the same observations.
In a word, you're full of shit and a retard who belongs on /x/.

[Anonymous No.11344266]

>>11343622
The link doesn't work for some reason.
>(very high or complete match)
42% and 50% query cover is a complete match? Okay buddy.
Two can play this game.
The first blast is Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 proviral partial gag gene for p24, subtype A, isolate 97FR.MP759 and the second is AJ276596.1:4866-5156 vpr gene. This is most probably noise just noise.

>The following article, published in Cell
..tells us that HIV preferentially integrates into genes and avoids integrating into ERVs. It doesn't say anything about HIV being already in the genome before infection.

[Anonymous No.11344271]

>>11343622
>>11344266

[Anonymous No.11344283]

>>11344266
>100% is not high enough reee
Every time.
>It doesn't say anything about HIV being already in the genome before infection.
The paper quite literally looks at some HIV sequences on the reference genome using blast and finds matches which they analyze. Wow you're dumb. Quote from the article since you're literally too stupid to even read:

Sequence matches (identified using BLAT, UCSC Human Genome Project
Working Draft, December 2000 freeze) were judged to be authentic only if a match to the human genome (1) started at the
junction with the HIV terminal (5-CA-3) sequence, (2) extended
over the length of the high-quality sequence with average
identity 98%, and (3) yielded a unique best hit in the BLAT ranking. Identical sequences from different clones were judged to represent
multiple isolates of a single integration event. Of 642 sequences
analyzed for the in vivo infections, 524 could be placed on the
genome, 16 showed matches to multiple locations in the human
genome, and 102 sequences did not yield a high-quality match to
the genome and were excluded as low-quality sequence reads,
sequences too short to determine a unique placement, or integration
events in parts of the human genome that are still unsequenced

[Anonymous No.11344294]

>>11344283
Didn't even mention yet the fact you're too retarded to know what an e-value is or does.

[Anonymous No.11344444]

>>11344294
Not him, but I think you two should meet up and GET A BIG FAT ROOM, WHERE YOU WORK ON THIS SHIT AND MAKE MILLIONS.

[Anonymous No.11344452]

>>11344444
Nice numerals but I'm not even claiming that the anti-virus dude is saying is true, just clarifying what exists in biology and what doesn't. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to switching from cancer to HIV if you had the several millions we need for basic equipment.

[Anonymous No.11344734]

It became interesting again!

[Anonymous No.11344777]

This is the dumbest fucking thread I've seen since the 5G spammer shit. Schizos are a fucking disease on this board

[Anonymous No.11344832]

>>11330040
>higher wavelengths (sic... lower, rather) damage or destroy the system under study,
If they are so fragile that they can not even be observed, why are they so hard to eliminate?

[Anonymous No.11344964]

>>11344283
>Integrating into active genes may have evolved to facilitate efficient HIV gene expression after infection. Verdin and coworkers have reported that integration of HIV at different chromosomal loci correlates with quite different levels of gene expression (Jordan et al., 2001). Differences could be attributed to the local chromatin environment—thus, integration targeting to active genes may be important for efficient expression of the HIV genome.

Quote from the article, since you are too dumb to read lol. What they were looking for (and found) were sequences in our genome where HIV integrates into. Since integrating into active genes was advantageous, HIV evolved similarity to their specific sequences.
Nowhere do they imply that these sequences were placed there by HIV or that HIV "comes from inside".

50% query cover doesn't help your case. Where is the rest of the gene and how would it join up with it to make a functional product? There should be a mechanism to explain that.

[Anonymous No.11344977]

David Bardens (born 27 April 1984 in Homburg, Saarland) is a German physician whose case was reported internationally in Spring 2015, after the district court of Ravensburg had ruled that he should get the €100,000 prize money, the pseudo-biologist Stefan Lanka had promised to anyone who could provide information about the size of measles virus. This award was however overturned by the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Stuttgart in 2016 as Bardens submitted several publications instead of just one as requested by Lanka.

[Anonymous No.11345212]

>>11344964
That's just one interpretation of the observation, whereas the other direction (it's already in the DNA and just getting translated) is just as valid. Stop being retarded please, you're embarrassingly /x/-tier and this isn't exactly the most straightforward /sci/ thread in existence. It also doesn't refute anything I've said so far so thanks for adding yet more evidence that you can't read. You even quote shit that goes against your own argument now.
>hurrrrr why isn't HIV a literal clone of a human durrrr
My fucking sides.

[Anonymous No.11345303]

>>11329994
They don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11345381]

>>11331636
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11345624]

>>11345212
>whereas the other direction (it's already in the DNA and just getting translated) is just as valid.
Any papers to back this up? If it's just as valid, there should be papers discussing it.
> It also doesn't refute anything I've said so far
The authors propose a hypothesis that is in direct opposition to your claim and the paper doesn't give you any arguments. They were blasting HIV's terminal sequences which, in order to be able to integrate into host genome, have to be homologous to host DNA. This explains why some homology exists.

You still don't explain what mechanism would lead to assembly of HIV from random parts of its genes spread all around the genome or from whatever else. You need to have strong proof when you're going against the consensus.

[Anonymous No.11345677]

>>11340570

>that the way some treatments are created does not come from well-grounded biomed science but rather humor-style handwavings that might actually be hurting people in the long run.

>And newton's gravity allows us to do predictions just fine, doesn't mean relativity isn't real. What are you even doing on /sci/ while being so cluelessly retarded?

does that imply that we have to do all the simple mechanical engineering assuming general relativity equations? That's retarded, just like your line of argument.

[Anonymous No.11346634]

>>11345624
>If it's just as valid, there should be papers discussing it.
No, because it's not the prevailing opinion on the direction of effect. That's how science usually works, someone proposes a theory that makes sense at genesis, and people work off of that theory until strong proof is shown of the reverse, while everyone's aware some other hypothesis would do just as well, until such time the proof becomes undeniable for the prevailing theory.
It's the same reason electrons are "negative charge" and not "positive charge" like they should be.

>The authors propose a hypothesis that is in direct opposition to your claim
No. >>>/x/

>the paper doesn't give you any arguments
It did the same experiment as I did for the sake of this thread and obtained the same results, demonstrating that it's no fluke or artifact or parameter tuning or what.

>They were blasting HIV's terminal sequences which, in order to be able to integrate into host genome, have to be homologous to host DNA. This explains why some homology exists.
>get BTFO
>grasp at the most nonexistent straws around
lol, classic.

>You still don't explain what mechanism would lead to assembly of HIV from random parts of its genes spread all around the genome or from whatever else.
Holy strawman batman! As a bonus
>cancer doesn't real gais
>>>/x/

>You need to have strong proof when you're going against the consensus.
The consensus has no proof. What can be asserted without proof, etc.

>does that imply that we have to do all the simple mechanical engineering assuming general relativity equations? That's retarded, just like your line of argument.
Oh the irony

[Anonymous No.11346756]

>>11330107
it did sound like a bizarre claim that the people that got volcanoed in new zealand where suffering from some prehistoric never seen before viruses that somehow managed to stay active despite the temperatures and pressures involved

[Anonymous No.11346824]

>>11339022
If villages have clean water, electricity, heating etc. most infectious diseases will drop, with or without vaccine

[Anonymous No.11346838]

>>11346824
Correct.
On top of that, vaccines would of course further limit the spread of some diseases by playing the number's game, but that's it. It's no miracle. If we had vaccines before proper hygiene was developed, we might have considered vaccine researchers to be crazy kooks trying to murder us all with their deadly plagues.

[Anonymous No.11346902]

>>11329919
This is your brain on HRT

[Anonymous No.11347998]

>>11329892
In Germany the highly educated are very vulnerable to pseudo science as opposed to the uneducated for whatever reason. If there's believers in micracle healers, crystal energy, spirits of the mountains etc they almost always have a degree.

[Anonymous No.11348029]

>>11329968
Huh... Who's gonna tell him?

[Anonymous No.11348115]

>>11342229
Anti-retrovirals work in a number of well established ways
-Interfere with the binding of the virus onto cell receptors that HIV targets
-Interfering with reverse transcriptase and the function of reverse transcriptase (this is an enzyme which turns RNA into DNA)
-Interfering with integrase (an enzyme that inserts the viral DNA into host chromosomes)
-Inhibiting viral proteases that enable HIV virions to bud out of the cell
It’s pretty ironic that you talk about ignorance and unwillingness to be informed.

[Anonymous No.11348127]

>>11347998
That they bought in Eastern Europe.

[Anonymous No.11348129]

>>11339022
>There is no proof. Smallpox was already going to end without the vaccine.
Maybe in the first world, but that definitely was never going to happen in the third world without the extensive vaccination program that was implemented.

[Anonymous No.11348185]

>>11346634
>It's the same reason electrons are "negative charge" and not "positive charge" like they should be.
The charges' names are completely arbitrary, retard.

>grasp at the most nonexistent straws around
Paraphrasing the hypothesis of the linked paper is grasping at straws? What?
>cancer doesn't real gais
I never said that and I have no idea where you are getting this from.
>What can be asserted without proof, etc.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045911
Under same conditions only HIV infected cells produced HIV. This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be explained to anyone.

[Anonymous No.11348291]

>>11348115
>Anti-retrovirals work in a number of well established ways
Not really. I know you're painfully retarded so you have enormous trouble reading the thread but try picturing someone with a fever putting a wet towel on their head. This is the suggested action of e.g. anti-retrovirals according to op's guy.

[Anonymous No.11348299]

>>11348129
>The charges' names are completely arbitrary, retard.
It's related to the direction of current travel, retard. It's not arbitrary, it was wrongly thought that the charge was the other way around. There was a 50% chance to get it right and it was wrong, but there was too much work based on that to fix the convention.
>Paraphrasing the hypothesis of the linked paper is grasping at straws? What?
You are literally too retarded to read such a clear paper yet you pretend you are able to paraphrase it. Stop being a literal moron anytime.
>I never said that and I have no idea where you are getting this from.
You say that literally every time you post but you're too inbred to realize because that's how clueless you are.
>Under same conditions only HIV infected cells produced HIV. This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be explained to anyone.
You have 0 idea how rna expression works. Stop talking about things that are billions of lightyears above your head. Just keep your head down in the sand where it belongs. Or better yet, off yourself instead of making such a ridiculous buffoon out of yourself.

[Anonymous No.11348305]

>>11348299
Meant for >>11348185

[Anonymous No.11348320]

>>11337003
He didn't have to pay because of semantics.
He demanded a single piece of work proving that measles exist, the other guy presented multiple pieces of work proving it exists

[Anonymous No.11348331]

>>11348299
>It's related to the direction of current travel, retard. It's not arbitrary, it was wrongly thought that the charge was the other way around. There was a 50% chance to get it right and it was wrong, but there was too much work based on that to fix the convention.
Which law of nature statues that the positive charge is the moving one again? Positive and negative are just arbitrary labels given to different things. They could also have named them xaxa and tete if they wanted.

[Anonymous No.11348343]

>>11348320
No, the doctor presented multiple pieces of work, none of which proved it existed. The doctor claimed that together, they proved that measles existed, but that was not true either.

[Anonymous No.11348381]

>>11348299
Keep embarrassing yourself with your lack of understanding of highschool physics, lol. You've given no proof of your wild claims, so if its going to stay this way, you might as well just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11348390]

>>11348381
What are you negative-IQd moron even doing on /sci/ when you clearly meant to be on >>>/x/ anyway? Even /b/ would be more apt at science discussion than your ilk.

[Anonymous No.11348433]

>>11348343
>The doctor claimed that together, they proved that measles existed
Court ruled that they did, and only because of the semantics decided that he didn't have to pay. And I'm going to believe them more than some /x/ schizo

[Anonymous No.11348437]

>>11348433
You can read the court transcript yourself since it's publicly available. But you're dumber than a garden variety rock, so you won't.

[Anonymous No.11348451]

>>11348437
>Die Beweiswürdigung des Landgerichts dahingehend, dass aufgrund des eingeholten Sachverständigengutachtens bewiesen sei, dass die vom Kläger vorgelegten Publikationen in ihrer Gesamtheit den Nachweis für die Existenz und die Erregereigenschaft des Masernvirus belegten […], ist im Ergebnis nicht zu beanstanden.
Kys

[Anonymous No.11348459]

>>11348451
>can't read the transcript, doesn't even know about the appeal, thinks he can somehow post on /sci/
You must be 18 or older to browse this board

[Anonymous No.11348461]

>>11348459
Please link me to the transcript if you're so smart. I doubt it will say anything else than I posted, but let's play pretend

[Anonymous No.11348466]

>>11348459
Oh wait, nevermind, you ARE retarded and also don't speak German, so you don't understand what I posted. Those lines are from the appeal and say that the second instance agrees with the basic argument.

[Anonymous No.11348474]

>>11348466
Thanks for proving you are not as smart as the bacterias living in the soil stuck under my shoes.

[Anonymous No.11348481]

>>11348474
>no arguments
>ad hominem
Thanks for playing, /x/

[Anonymous No.11348581]

Aaaand it's shit again.

[Anonymous No.11348681]

>>11348390
SEETHING

Just accept that your are wrong and move on. To your dearest >>>/x/ , perhaps.