/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12674127]

Why don’t conspiritatds understand that mRNA cannot and does not alter DNA?

[Anonymous No.12674145]

>>12674127
>tfw compromised/weak immune system so very well could die taking the vaccine
>tfw 22
I somehow survived Hep B from my first time having sex so I can survive this

[Anonymous No.12674169]

>>12674127
Pic says it better than I can.

[Anonymous No.12674214]

>>12674127
If you want the real answer, it's because science is doing a terrible job of presenting itself to the average person, and even to the average scientist.
The kind of shit that the WHO pulled off, the kind of conflicts of interest that exist behind publications nowadays, anyone with half a brain notices this, and it causes legitimate discomfort.
So when someone gives you some "obvious" information like "mrna vaccines are totally safe, they don't alter your dna", you correctly should doubt the construction of that sentence. mrna vaccines have not been applied before in humans in long term studies, we don't know yet what will happen, and even if in theory there is nothing in them that directly affects DNA, it still doesnt immediately mean they are safe.

When you put yourself on this position of superiority by calling them "conspiratards" you only make it worse. Don't get me wrong, most of them are being manipulated into a frenzy, 100%. But at the same time hypocrisy and dishonesty is also rampant on the scientific side of things.

[Anonymous No.12674314]

>>12674127
>what is reverse transcriptase
>what are retroviruses
>what is HIV
kys brainlet

[Anonymous No.12674641]

>>12674214
I get thee communication/image problem, but t hasn't helped that republicans in USA have been pushing anti-science rhetoric forever, and distrust is disproportionate to the level of fuckery that actually happens in science.

[Anonymous No.12674644]

>>12674127
>what is a retrovirus

[Anonymous No.12674658]

>>12674214
Reasonable post.
>>12674641
>distrust is disproportionate to the level of fuckery that actually happens in science
lol

[Anonymous No.12674680]

>>12674641
>republicans in USA have been pushing anti-science rhetoric forever
The phenomenon you're observing is a biased media claiming political opinions are fact, and anyone who disagrees with those opinions is wrong. Those media personalities are silent on other scientific topics that disagree with their political opinions, such as population statistics and reproductive biology.

[Anonymous No.12674716]

>>12674644
is coronavirus a retrovirus? do we have significant non-telomerase reverse transcriptase activity that causes mRNA insertion into the genome?

[Anonymous No.12674727]

>>12674680
I'd add to that, not only are you wrong if you disagree. You are racist, bigoted, or evil for holding a perfectly valid complaint or query. Believe it or not the south China morning post put the political split in what I think is the best way here: https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3116825/china-mocks-us-double-standards-over-capitol-chaos-vs-hong.. "US siege partly a result of deep divisions in the country, between people who benefited from globalisation and people who suffered from it, analyst says." This is more a /pol/ post, but has relevance to science too. Because if we selectively ignore data like we have been doing in popular science we are going right back to the dark ages. Sociologists and political analysts ignored the working class in America and guided us off a cliff. Similar cliffs are to come in science.

[Anonymous No.12674739]

Haven't been here for 3 months. Are republitards still scared of the vaccine(s)?

[Anonymous No.12674759]

>>12674739
>inb4 we're not scared we're just asking legitimate questions does the jewish space lasers make your dick mrna liberal

[Anonymous No.12675006]

>>12674127
what do they think happens with the normal virus RNA?

[Anonymous No.12675019]

>>12674127
Because conspiracy tards operate with a non-scientific epistemology by definition, so an appeal to science and evidence is not going to convince them to alter their beliefs. To the conspiracy theorist, science is tainted by "them", i.e. by the nefarious and morally/ethically bankrupt actors who are perpetrating the conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.12675562]

>>12675019
>it isn’t

[Anonymous No.12675579]

>>12674127
Well. I will disprove all your nonsense about the safe „vaccine“ very rapidly. Let’s take Biontech/Pifizer. If you don’t know, what is in it and how you get the mRNA (the process) I won’t waste my time. So you start and explain, what’s in there and why it’s safe. I will intervene, if you get things wrong.

[Anonymous No.12675590]

>>12674127
What cells does it enter?

[Anonymous No.12675591]

>>12674127
*without reverse transcriptase.

[Anonymous No.12675688]

>>12675019
Whatever. Before you fly off into the epistemological critic of different methodologies and (alleged) axiomatic systems, you are also invited to answer this >>12675579
>>12675591
Yes, but even better. It‘s not just LINE-1 etc. but also something else. I will wait for somebody with knowledge to show up and if he is up to my challenge, he will present it to everybody.

[Anonymous No.12676012]

>>12674145
Are you sure you really had a virus? What was it qPCR and the usual „hull“ protein test or ELISA? Did they even try biochemical analysis and „advanced“ toxicology screening?

[Anonymous No.12676044]

>>12674641
Stop talking about politics of science, you obviously don't do science or math, the politics that anon is referring to are not partisan. Get the fuck off my board

[Anonymous No.12676094]

>>12675579
I don’t feel like giving a lecture and I hope somebody, who isn’t just mindlessly spreading claims, about the genetic modification, will show up. Since I don’t know, if any of the people, who actually do understand it, will show up (probably they will only know small bits) and likely they are advised to not talk about it; I will give a couple of hinds about the lipid nanoparticle. Look up (repeated) exposure to polyoxyethylene and cationic lipids. There is enough other stuff to test them.

[Anonymous No.12676472]

>>12675579
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.12676482]

If this shady hacker wants to put some software on my computer, then I'd better avoid it, no matter what technical terms does he use.

[Anonymous No.12676490]

>>12674127
....unless the proteins it codes for affect dna

that's like saying it was okay to give the russians nuclear secrets because the secrets themselves are not bombs

[Anonymous No.12676498]

>>12676482
Decent analogy. However an argument against it could be that if that shady hacker doesn't put that software in your computer you are at risk (a higher risk than the one you always have by using a computer) of losing important information or having a long term malfunction in your computer

[Anonymous No.12676502]

>>12674127
Cognitive dissonance, willful ignorance, malicious intent. The holy trinity.

[Anonymous No.12676522]

>>12676482
>>12676498
Analogical reasoning is the stupidest way of attempting to find truth or discover scientific fact.
If you want to use your example, it's actually if your company's OS like Microsoft or Apple or Google or whatever sent an antivirus protection update to download to prevent a computer virus from causing your computer to crash and your data from being stolen. The software update is written in a relatively new language with which you're unfamiliar but actual CS experts say it works and has been tested on millions of computers worldwide showing efficacious results.

[Anonymous No.12676564]

>>12676522
Good example, software giants now are even more malignant than pharmaceutical giants.

[Anonymous No.12676615]

>>12676522
lol the same cs experts who say signal is safe because it has e2ee while running firebase dependencies that may be invalidating that? and that there hasn't been enough time to see what bugs can come down the line because its only been out for so long?

[Anonymous No.12676621]

>>12674127
this was from the hack on the ema committee tasked with the approval.

[Anonymous No.12676643]

>>12676621
>man with 8th grade biology doesn't understand carcinogenicity
do you also freak out at california "know to cause cancer" warnings

[Anonymous No.12676651]

>>12676621
>No genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided. The components of the vaccine
formulation are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential.
>The novel excipient ALC-0159 contains a potential acetamide moiety. Risk assessment performed by the
Applicant indicates that the risk of genotoxicity relating to this excipient is very low based on literature
data where acetamide genotoxicity is associated with high doses and chronic administration (≥1000
mg/kg/day). Since the amount of ALC-0159 excipient in the finished product is low (50 µg/dose), its
clearance is high and only two administrations of the product are recommended for humans, the
genotoxicity risk is expected to be very low.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
Page 55
Stop making dumb assertions.

[Anonymous No.12676660]

>>12676621
Also this is the list of IARC 2B agents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_Agents_-_Possibly_carcinogenic_to_humans
Good luck avoiding these.

[Anonymous No.12676679]

>>12674314
what op means is that putting the mRNA there with a needle instead of a virus doesn't alter pre-existing DNA.

[Anonymous No.12677682]

>>12676651
>formulation are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030120X
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?start=10&q=cationic+lipids+genotoxicity&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DdOpdGJe1X4AJ
You are clearly clueless about cationic lipids. I can tell you exactly, what they do with cells and how the periportal region of the liver looked in the test animals.
>but it’s just 50 µg/dose
That’s high. Since the substance isn’t native to the body and causes massive oxidative stress in cells. The rats lost ten percent of their body weight, if you tell me that’s not a clear sign for massive damage, than I don’t know. Sure it was a higher does per kg, but it was healthy rats and clearly aren’t exposed to many factors present in humans. No repeated exposure(like with the genetic modification in humans) and no long term monitoring. The sample size is a joke on top of it.
>RNA
Except it isn’t really mRNA, but something else. Since they had to figure how to deal with RNases and APOBECs etc. But keep trying.
> the genotoxicity risk is expected to be very low.
Except that contradicts the fast majority of existing research and they have next to nothing to back it up.

[Anonymous No.12677738]

>>12676660
One of the least trustworthy and transparent organizations out there. Nobody with a modicum of common sense will consider their advice to be worth much.

[Anonymous No.12677757]

>>12674127
Why do scientists keep shilling for the flu vaccine when it's confirmed useless? The scientific elite in this country take the view that the average people are just nigger cattle that they need to herd by hook or by crook. 50 years of this breeds distrust.

[Anonymous No.12677769]

>>12674127
just a virus itself alters DNA that is why it is used for crispr. Why are stupid people always trying to tell other people what is and isnt the truth?

[Anonymous No.12677778]

>>12677769
wat
are you esl?

[Anonymous No.12677780]

>>12674214
Bingo.

[Anonymous No.12677787]

>>12677769
>just a virus itself alters DNA
LOL

[Anonymous No.12677793]

>>12677778
Maybe he is but he's obviously responding to the fact that OP's diagram is terrible and can give lay readers the impression they're being injected with some form of the virus.

[Anonymous No.12677824]

>>12677787
is this real?

[Anonymous No.12677842]

>>12677793
>can give lay readers the impression they're being injected with some form of the virus
I mean they are, its just part of its genetic code, that winds up using proteins in our white blood cells to make a small chunk of sarscov2. Which then triggers the white blood cells to target and make anti-bodies for the foreign body produced by the vaccine.

[Anonymous No.12677845]

Lipid nanoparticles are known to be cytotoxic and genotoxic.

Severe inflammatory responses were observed in the rodent models for the COVID vaccines.

makes ur noggin jog

[Anonymous No.12678244]

>>12677682
>The sample size is a joke on top of it.
Please show your work demonstrating that the sample size has insufficient power to detect statistical differences between the groups.

[Anonymous No.12678736]

>>12678244
>insufficient power to detect statistical differences.
What is insufficient is completely subjective. It goes into an insane amount of people. No going to jump through you silly loops, given the possible dangers it’s much too low. If you are half way honest it’s obvious.

[Anonymous No.12678737]

>>12678736
No, it is quite literally the opposite of subjective. There is an objective, quantitative answer to my question. Either a sample size is large enough to have the power to detect a difference between groups, or it is not.

[Anonymous No.12678741]

>>12678736
did you never take stats? lol

[Anonymous No.12678759]

>>12674127
How do you understand that?

[Anonymous No.12678765]

>>12674127
How do you understand that? Can you prove it isn't possible? Retroviruses can do that. Why should anyone blindly trust a field as untrustworthy as medical science?

[Anonymous No.12678768]

>>12678765
Is coronavirus a retrovirus? That's news to me.

[Anonymous No.12678783]

>>12674641
>but t hasn't helped that republicans in USA have been pushing anti-science rhetoric forever
This sentence alone discredits you. Republicans are not pushing for trans & gender ideologies that ignore basic biological literature. Among other things.
>>12674658
pic related

[Anonymous No.12678787]

>>12678783
>defending republitards
They and the dems are both antiscience because they're procorporations retard.

[Anonymous No.12678815]

>>12674127
mRNA is DNA's encoder.

It can affect DNA pretty well.

[Anonymous No.12679025]

>>12678737
>>12678741
You are wrong. Look up any introduction into hypothesis testing and confidence intervals.

[Anonymous No.12679059]

because the elites, the ones who brainwashed you to call anything you don't like a "conspiritard" make it so painfully obvious
DNA - destroy North America
mRNA - Masons rebuild North America

[Anonymous No.12679073]

>>12674759
>Jewish space lasers
A man who listens to what the media says a person said, not what they actually said

[Anonymous No.12679079]

>>12678815
what?

[Anonymous No.12679085]

>>12679073
yeah dude it was by the Rothschilds who are jewish but that doesn't mean the space laser is jewish and my conspiracy theory is antisemitic
yes all these evil people in my conspiracy theory jewish even the ones who aren't jewish "officially" but I call them jewish
that doesn't make me antisemitic!

[Anonymous No.12679088]

>>12679079
It's a /sci/zo. Ignore and sage.

[Anonymous No.12679104]

Look man, I don’t even buy the first generation of a fucking video card so why would I want the first generation of a rushed vaccine? Call me in 3 years when y’all get your shit together and can form a narrative that doesn’t change according to the election cycle.

[Anonymous No.12679111]

>>12679104
nobody cares what you think

[Anonymous No.12679113]

>>12674641
>republicans in USA have been pushing anti-science rhetoric forever
Sure, blame only the republicans when you have people claiming people with penises are women

[Anonymous No.12679131]

>>12678768
Read more carefully.

[Anonymous No.12679134]

>>12679104
I agree.

[Anonymous No.12679524]

>>12679025
Two key factors (not the only ones, but IMO critical ones) for determining if a sample size is large enough are whether you have a representative population and whether, for a given effect size, you have enough individuals in your test that a statistically significant difference could be observed.

On the first question: the study used an F1 cross of CBA x C57BL/6 mice. Those strains are basically clonal. There's extremely little genetic variation present in those lines, so you don't need many individuals to capture all of the remaining variation in your experiment.

On the second question: This is a question of statistical power, and it's an easy one to calculate. Since the other poster is asserting that the sample size was too small, I assumed that they must have performed a power calculation of their own.

So, since the representative sample requirement is almost certainly met by the genetic nature of the animals, the next question is, was their power high enough? If anon is asserting the sample size is "a joke", I assume they have reasons for saying it. I want them to support their statement.

[Anonymous No.12679556]

>>12679079
Isn't RNA encoder to DNA?

[Anonymous No.12679601]

>>12679556
generally, no. There are reverse transcriptases that will turn RNA into DNA but they're only used for extending telomeres and it's not a willy-nilly process. Viruses that integrate into the DNA bring their own reverse transcriptases with them in their genome there's some genetic elements that hop around the genome with their own reverse transcriptases (retrotransposons) but there's not many active ones in any given person's genome and the ones that are capable of jumping around don't do it a whole lot. the risk is quite low.

[Anonymous No.12679779]

>>12679601
Mostly correct. With a small correction their activity seems to greatly vary and there are many functions, obviously most aren’t understood. It isn’t easy to study. Basically the risk is unknown.

[Anonymous No.12679820]

>>12679524
I have approximated it. And I think it’s a tactic to prevent discussion of the actual matter, hence I won’t elaborate further. It’s open to every interested individual to exactly determine, if it satisfies their standard. And no it’s not hard. I think the rats won’t tell you much anyway. But back to the matter.
>On the first question: the study used an F1 cross of CBA x C57BL/6 mice. Those strains are basically clonal. There's extremely little genetic variation present in those lines, so you don't need many individuals to capture all of the remaining variation in your experiment.
I won’t get into the details. It’s just about making it possible for things to be seen. But you are correct. Mice lie. I won’t consider any animal model even human primates as a valid model. Without ten to twenty years of observation in humans, it’s speculation anyway. My point was it’s a few lab animals of one breed. Nothing to even really start considering putting something that new into any human.

[Anonymous No.12679826]

>>12679820
>even human
even non human

[Anonymous No.12679860]

>>12676012
Well they tested for antibodies and it turned up positive. That means I'm immune to the virus in theory :^)

[Anonymous No.12679884]

>>12679860
I’m glad you are well.
I won’t start here on the antibodies. I fear it could get the thread archived like the last one. My fait in astrology is magnitudes stronger than in Ig testing. Roughly 70 conditions are known to make HIV-1/2 antibody tests turn out positive.

[Anonymous No.12679888]

>>12679820
if you have the data and refuse to share it then you've failed the basic, fundamental requirements for discussing scientific research. Criticizing the study for a procedural point without backing up your argument is exactly the "tactic to prevent discussion" you refer to. you asserted a statement, back it up!

[Anonymous No.12679913]

>>12679884
Thank you! I learned my lesson I will never get another prostitute again. I was mortified when my mom said I might have Hep B. Literally blood drained from my face, kind of a life shocking moment. I'm turning towards the Catholic faith because I realized in that moment it is better to believe in God.

[Anonymous No.12679919]

>>12679888
Nice try. You are correct. I will write it down, what I calculate, if Biontech/Pifizer publishes the raw data for all trials.

[Anonymous No.12679947]

>>12674127
Has the virus been isolated yet?

[Anonymous No.12679954]

>>12679947
Talking about Koch's Postulate

[Anonymous No.12679962]

>>12679888
I don’t even know, if we are talking about the same study. I referred to Study 38166. Nothing about mice, but it doesn’t really matter. Like we already discovered.

[Anonymous No.12679976]

Why dont popsci soibots understand that it doesn't need to, and even then it can cause harm to your system.

IT maks you reproduce unknown proteins. Have fun with that. I won't.

[Anonymous No.12679998]

>>12679976
Most fancy part they also considered self amplifying mRNA, which they claim not to use in the type with the emergency use authorization. I really hope somebody runs a lot of primers and does a lot of electron microscopy on a probe.

[Anonymous No.12680051]

>>12679962
i was talking about the specific study that was linked and discussed in the chain of comments

[Anonymous No.12680054]

>>12680051
>https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
That one?

[Anonymous No.12680070]

>>12679947
>>12679954
That’s the large elephant in the room.
Maybe there is a reason, why the virostatics have proven useless once again, but medication against parasites like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in fact did work.

[Anonymous No.12680261]

>>12680054
no, not that one. this one https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.04.011

[Anonymous No.12680283]

>>12680261
Do you really think anybody will click your nonsense. That wasn’t linked anywhere.

[Anonymous No.12680286]

>>12680283
possibly, yes, i expect that someone might click on it

[Anonymous No.12680319]

>>12674127
Where’s the part where it shows if the rna degrades ? What happens if it’s in the presence of reverse transcriptase from anther virus ?

[Anonymous No.12680348]

>>12680319
all mRNA degrades. "from another virus" it is distantly possible that a reverse transcriptase enzyme MIGHT pick up and integrate an mRNA molecule. I ask you to consider: the veyr low probability that can happen, and the probability that a foreign mRNA is present in that particular cell, and the number of cells, and the relatively small number of foreign transcripts. it's very very very rare that it might happen, and even if it does happen, there is a vast swathe of your genome that is pure junk that the mRNA might be inserted into

[Anonymous No.12680570]

>>12674127
doesn't a bunch of human DNA have its origin in virus RNA that somehow found its way in there? how did that happen? genuinely curious

[Anonymous No.12681463]

>>12680348
>big part of the genome is pure junk
That’s very likely wrong. We just don’t understand it’s functionality. But, if you tried to claim it matters where exactly it would be integrated I would agree.
>>12679779

[Anonymous No.12681479]

>>12677787

[Anonymous No.12681544]

>>12674214
>you correctly should doubt the construction of that sentence. mrna vaccines have not been applied before in humans in long term studies, we don't know yet what will happen, and even if in theory there is nothing in them that directly affects DNA, it still doesnt immediately mean they are safe.
Even IF the vaccine is proven 100% safe you still have to trust that is what they are giving you.

[Anonymous No.12681703]

>>12675019
>non-scientific epistemology
Kek

[Anonymous No.12681902]

>>12680570
I hope someone, who will try to push the official narrative will come along and argue it, so we can discuss. But think about it that way. If we find our own genetic material in probes taken from our own bodies (mixed with the cells of other species before, since you allegedly can’t extract active virus directly from samples), couldn’t it just be we are looking at our own genome. Or transcriptome, which is much larger than our genome. The key is the algorithmic (in silico) methods. Nobody ever found intact viral material. It’s always short snippets and they get puzzled together to from a theoretical genome of the virus. If you search for new genomes it’s called de novo alignment. There are massive gaps between the puzzle pieces, but the program bridges them and makes you believe it’s there.

[Anonymous No.12681909]

>>12674214
This
https://archive.is/ZjMKK

[Anonymous No.12681925]

>>12674214
This. Don't forget that there was a time when leeching was considered efficacious, when doctors advocated smoking cigarettes, when sugar companies lobbied the shit out of nutritional scientists, when doctors considered electro shock therapy a valid fix to homosexuality, when most people were stuffed into cement boxes and expected to stare at computer screens so as to earn the right to belong in this society.

It blows my mind that someone can't relate to someone not trusting something that has been routinely not trustworthy. Even worse, insulting someone is the absolute best way to guarantee that you will not earn their trust.

[Anonymous No.12682290]

>>12674127
Stefan Lanka PhD translation
>The increase is nothing more than the body's reaction to poisoning [adjuvants], when the body is poisoned, these poisons tear holes in the cells and break the cells. The reaction of the body when cells break down is to form sealing substance (globulins), small protein bodies which immediately expand in acidic conditions, become flat and with their hydrogen sulfide groups, in which energy is stored, to network with other proteins and other things.

>These start blood clotting and wound formation, and these seal our cells when toxins are implanted in the body. But even if you get a blow on the muscle, with a bruise, or a blow on the kidney (particularly sensitive) or the liver, the titer increases immediately. The body reacts to sealing the damaged cells and naturally growing cells.

>It's like building a house which is initially leaking until the windows are in and isolated, that is then referred to as an antibody and even a specific antibody, that's not true, the binding property of these proteins with your hydrogen sulfide group is not specific, it binds to it Anything can be manipulated in the laboratory by changing the acid value, adding detergents (washing-up liquid) that change the mineral concentration, so you can achieve a bond, or not.

>A pregnant woman's blood is full of globulins to seal off the placenta, which is constantly growing, in order to carry the substance to the child. The blood of a pregnant woman has to be diluted 40 times so that it is not assessed massively positive in tests, including the HIV test

[Anonymous No.12682302]

>>12682290
https://www.arznei-telegramm.de/html/2001_04/0104041_01.html
translation
>Increases in titer caused by vaccines are also unreliable replacement criteria for effectiveness. What benefits or harm the vaccinee can expect cannot be derived from such findings

[Anonymous No.12682325]

>>12682290
>Stefan Lanka PhD
>googles name
>A vaccine denier bet $100,000 the measles virus ‘doesn’t exist.’ He lost.
>His position is that the disease is “a psychosomatic illness” caused by “traumatic separations.”
Absolute state of /polsci/

[Anonymous No.12682331]

>>12682302
Antibodies don’t really protect you against anything specifically. It’s just a theoretical value.
Plotkin SA. 2001. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 20(1):63–75
>Thus protection is a statistical concept. When we say that a particular titer of antibodies is protective, we mean under the usual circumstances of exposure, with an average challenge dose and in the absence of negative host factors.
Quiet a admission.

[Anonymous No.12682338]

>>12682325
https://www.deutsche-apotheker-zeitung.de/news/artikel/2017/01/20/bundesgerichtshof-haelt-sich-aus-masernstreit-heraus/
He won.

[Anonymous No.12682359]

>>12682325
Two labs did the negative control experiments
>Depending on the non-viral and non-infectious substances added, changes in the cell morphology could be observed at different times, which since 1954 has been equated with the "isolation" of the "measles virus". Particularly after the addition of high concentrations of penicillin / streptomycin (20%) or cultivation under deficient conditions (1% FCS), changes in the cell morphology were found that were microscopically identical to the syncytia formation described by the measles virus

[Anonymous No.12682391]

>>12682338
https://openjur.de/u/892340.html
translation
>Otherwise, the submitted publications did not meet the requirements for evidence. The phenomena reported as measles viruses are actually cellular transport vesicles (vesicles). None of the documentation presented is based on experiments in which the pathogen - as required - was previously isolated and biochemically characterized or even such an isolation was scientifically documented. The type of evidence used in the experiments on which the plaintiff relies does not correspond to the state of science and technology and does not correspond to the requirements for evidence taking into account K ... 's postulates. In addition, the work presented is unsuitable because, without exception, they came from the time before the IfSG came into force on 01.01.2001 and did not constitute a publication by the RKI. The determination of the diameter was also not made properly. The size range of 300 to 1000 nm given in one of the publications presented already refutes the thesis of the virus, since viruses are characterized by a slight variation in their diameter between 15 and a maximum of 400 nm. Incidentally, from an information from the RKI from January 24, 2012, it emerges that the diameter of measles viruses should be 120 - 400 nm and that ribosomes are often contained in their interior, although the latter would prevent the existence of a measles virus

[Anonymous No.12682501]

>>12682391
Those were his critera
here the result
>As a result, the appeal, insofar as it is admissible, was successful because the claimant did not meet the criterion of the claim of proving the existence of the measles virus through “a scientific publication”. As a result, the plaintiff is not entitled to any pre-trial legal fees.

[Anonymous No.12682521]

>>12681925
Yes, trust the same doctors who will chop off your son’s penis and install a permanent flesh wound to treat his mental health problems. Trust those guys. There’s gotta be something in the water...

[Anonymous No.12682575]

>>12676094
Let's hope they also glow in the dark

[Anonymous No.12682659]

>>12679913
>I will never get another prostitute again. I was mortified when my mom said I might have Hep B
You told your mum you fucked a prossie?

[Anonymous No.12682983]

>>12674127
https://mobile.twitter.com/TravelLightP1/status/1322979745211056131

[Anonymous No.12683057]

>>12682575
Since they probably won’t come. I will give the big secret away. We always talk about mRNA ending up being integrated into the human genome via the endogenous reverse transcriptase route. But maybe we just need an endogenous integrase, because the process of making the mRNA involves DNA templates, from which the mRNA is „copied“ by RNApol. The claim is they make sure there is no DNA by using deoxyribonuclease. Hence they claim, they made sure there is no DNA in the vaccine, but my personal take is the public needs all the data to evaluate the validity of this claim.

[Anonymous No.12683071]

>>12679913
Peace be with you, Anon

[Anonymous No.12683081]

>>12683057
And to usual suspects. Yes, I know it’s not real mRNA, but has a modified base. I‘m using the term mRNA to not further complicate the matter. Properly it’s synthetically modified mRNA.

[Anonymous No.12683990]

>>12674127
The question is, if they couldn’t really isolate it, why do we even need a vaccine?
Does anybody know how many virologists are needed to kill a monkey cell line? Recent studies suggests it’s approximately twenty.

[Anonymous No.12684105]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vaMZ4NyNCwI&feature=youtu.be
That’s what the discoverer of the technology, the PCR test, which is currently used to ruin ordinary peoples life, has to say about the test pandemics.

[Anonymous No.12684108]

>>12684105
appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.12684127]

>>12684108
You are correct I was playing their game. I shouldn’t, the truth should speak for itself and we should regard every expert as just another ordinary citizen. How can you prove gene snippets corresponds to something, if you haven’t isolated and purified it and proven Rivers postulates? That is what you have to prove, if you claim the test is useful. Forget about his credentials, where is the flaw in his reasoning?

[Anonymous No.12684493]

>>12684108
I hope this thread stays around and there will be an answer.

[Anonymous No.12684496]

>>12674127
Why the fuck would you think altering RNA is safe?

[Anonymous No.12684503]

>>12680070
Remember how paranoid they were about people partying on UV rich sandy beaches?

[Anonymous No.12684509]

>>12684496
Government scientists said so.

[Anonymous No.12684652]

>>12676522
Yea, but why does windows 10 have built in advertisements?

[Anonymous No.12684663]

>>12678787
So anybody that says either party is pro-science is merely brainwashed cattle.

[Anonymous No.12684667]

>>12679524
>Those strains are basically clonal.

Wouldn't that make it blind to the much larger genetic variation that exists in a diverse population?

The other thing that interests me is possible interactions. My Boomer parents swallow a fistful of pills errday. I wonder what possible interactions could be.

[Anonymous No.12684678]

>>12680070
>medication against parasites like hydroxychloroquine

You really have to wonder what would cause governor's to ban a medication that's been around for ages.

[Anonymous No.12684694]

you WILL take the shot
you WILL be happy

[Anonymous No.12684935]

>>12684678
It's pretty clear the actions some took greatly increased the impact of Covid.

[Anonymous No.12685035]

Everyone seems to be assuming that the mRNA vaccines can enter the nucleus (or if it does, in measurable quantities) in the first place, but I haven't seen evidence suggesting that. Nucleo-cytoplasmic fractionations aren't rocket science so I'm sure somebody has tried that at some point.

[Anonymous No.12685073]

If something is obvious, I accept it as is.
If something is not obvious, I look at people who present it as truth and accept it if I respect them.
Covid affair made the scientists authority hit the rock bottom. Now they need to dutifully work to restore it. Meanwhile I'll ignore their claims.

[Anonymous No.12685115]

>>12685035
Basic stuff mRNA can enter into the nucleus. For the individual mRNA it’s unlikely, but if there is a lot of mRNA it is a possibility. Same goes for the DNA; if that is left from the mRNA production. If there is mitosis it doesn’t even need to enter the nucleus.

[Anonymous No.12685123]

>>12685115
>Basic stuff mRNA can enter into the nucleus
Should be easy to demonstrate then, right?
These mRNA vaccines are heavily modified, so I suspect the answer might not be so obvious.

[Anonymous No.12685141]

>>12685073
better to beliefe the nutjobs on 4chan that just claim the virus isnt real, but also nobody dies from it, but also all the people that die are useless anyway!!!
sitting back and not doing anything doesnt make you look smart

[Anonymous No.12685182]

>>12685141
/sci/ in a nutshell:
>corona isn't real but also created in a lab in china
>corona is a nothingburger but hydroxychloroquine will save us all
>nobody dies of corona but all the fat boomer fucks deserved to die
>corona is a nothingburger but the vaccines IS SCARY AS SHIT

[Anonymous No.12685192]

>>12685141
>all the people that die are useless anyway!!!
Were these people staying home and going out in hazmat suit once a month?
Were they living normal lives instead?

[Anonymous No.12685196]

>>12685123
>These mRNA vaccines are heavily modified, so I suspect the answer might not be so obvious.
You can’t easily show it with the genetic therapy directly. Since there have been no studies on it, at least to the best of my knowledge. But even with the one slightly modified base it’s mRNA; there isn’t really a mechanism preventing it.

[Anonymous No.12685197]

>>12685182
>corona isn't real but also created in a lab in china
Corona is seasonal cold-tier no matter if its origin is natural or artificial.
>corona is a nothingburger but hydroxychloroquine will save us all
It is nothingburger, but supposedly there are people who claim that it is ultradangerous, so they can use it.
>nobody dies of corona but all the fat boomer fucks deserved to die
See >>12685192
>corona is a nothingburger but the vaccines IS SCARY AS SHIT
Yes, corona is seasonal cold and vaccines are shady shit government is trying to force on you.

[Anonymous No.12685218]

>>12685182
>corona isn't real but also created in a lab in china
If you think about it that’s true. The theoretical genome was created in a Chinese lab. They puzzled it together from the transcriptome of the BAL from people with atypical pneumonia.
>corona is a nothingburger but hydroxychloroquine will save us
We discovered it’s likely not really viral pneumonia, but parasites causing it, since hydroxychloroquine is a anti parasitic medication. Only some people panicked and some still panic, because they follow mainstream media misinformation.
>nobody dies of corona
Correct since Rivers Postulates couldn’t be proven for SARS-CoV-2.
>vaccine is scary
Not if you don’t take it.

[Anonymous No.12685243]

>>12685218
Virus is a real nothingburger but created in a lab but it’s actually a parasite because HCQ works.

Got it.

[Anonymous No.12685257]

>>12674214
during the communist rule of my country (we actually had some diabolical half capitalism half communism shit but it worked and people were very happy) no one fucking doubted doctors - and our state produced a bunch of vaccines that worked nicely.
No one ever even thought about being anti vaxx - because the goverment wasnt tottaly corrupt and top goverment officials would always urge people to respect doctors and scientists and we had this culture where we all wanted to be doctors and scientists.

Now as the country has gone to shit, as we have a idiocracy/cleptocracy, when mafia rules everything and our infrastructure has gone to shit, people are in general suspicios of everything and everyone, and once the anti vaxx propaganda was planted it spread like wildfire - because people have become paranoid over the course of 30 years.

Once your goverment becomes corrupt and incompetent, people suddenly realise that, everyone else who works with the goverment (most of our health work comes from social programes, so free healthcare buts its state healthcare (and its gone to shit no surprise there)) might be also full of shit.

[Anonymous No.12685271]

>>12681909
1500 researchers lol

Those all might be just retards

[Anonymous No.12685279]

Don't worry, Peter Daszak and the WHO will make sure the virus originated in the wet market on December 16th 2019.

[Anonymous No.12685297]

>>12685243
>Virus is a real nothingburger but created in a lab
I don’t think you got it. Ever heard of a process called alignment? As in de novo assembly/alignment. The virus is there as a concept in silico and in the minds of humans. But as of yet there is no prove of the physical thing.

[Anonymous No.12685301]

>>12685297
>But as of yet there is no prove of the physical thing
You’re arguing this as you claim Covid-19 is caused by a parasite?

[Anonymous No.12685307]

A cell is not some perfect assembly line.

It's just a random motion of molecules shoving against each other. Of course mRNA can alter DNA, it can bond with it right? That means it can alter it.

[Anonymous No.12685313]

>>12685301
I‘m not arguing against it being caused by one or more parasites and a myriad of environmental factors. I‘m arguing there is no prove it’s caused by a Sarbecovirus.

[Anonymous No.12685323]

>>12685313
But there’s proof of parasites causing this?

[Anonymous No.12685341]

>>12685323
>But there’s proof of parasites causing this
Not proof, but somewhat decent evidence. Since the virostatics aren’t working and the anti parasitic medications do in a reasonable number of cases. So to me it seems parasites could be a part of the different things labeled COVID-19. As of yet hard evidence is lacking.

[Anonymous No.12685371]

>>12685323
This guy is an obvious troll. There's no point in replying to him.
Wait until he peddles MMS too.

[Anonymous No.12685380]

>>12685341
Amazing for me how you simply seem to reject every evidence there is for this being a virus and that it is causing covid-19 and instead believe in an extremely thin theory of this being in large part caused by a parasite because of HCQ which has repeatedly been proven not working.

[Anonymous No.12685450]

>>12685380
I was thinking mostly about ivermectin. The HCL is more complicated, since it was overdosed at the beginning and given to people, who had contraindications. But I can give you the literature suggesting remdesivir, lopinavir, ritonavir and favipiravir are useless. Ivermectin looks very good, since there weren’t the HCL issues. I can show you the literature.
>large part caused by a parasite
I didn’t claim that it was a large part. Obviously parasites are usually there where they have a chance. I think it’s more complex than just parasites.
>evidence there is for this being a virus
Zero evidence for that. I looked at at least 15 publications claiming to have isolated it. Nobody has it was always the same nonsense with VERO-E6 and Huh-7 monolayer cells, FBS, medium and antibiotics. Or worse straight up real-time-qRT-PCR and related in silico stuff. There is nothing.

[Anonymous No.12685555]

>>12674169

This.

You see a parallel thing in paranoid schizophrenia where the patient can become deluded that the CIA is beaming thoughts into their head. They cannot be reasoned with and sometimes even acknowledge that the idea is absurd but that doesn't remove the feeling that it's happening.

[Anonymous No.12685557]

>>12685450
>Zero evidence for that
How would you isolate it armchair expert?

[Anonymous No.12685716]

>>12674169
This, it happens for example when you say gender is a social construct or that mental illness is just alternative thinking, really. Retards with deeply embedded core beliefs will seethe and screech at you.

[Anonymous No.12685764]

>>12685557
You would probably know, if you had any hard science oriented biology or biochemistry education. Standard laboratory techniques ultra centrifugation, band extraction, electron microscopy and FC. If you want I can explain it in detail and give the literature. Regularly done e.g. with mega viruses (which is a misnomer), bacteriophages (also a misnomer) and all kinds of cell parts, most notably apoptotic bodies and EVs. Their trick is, they claim it’s an obligate intra cellular parasite, hence it‘s somehow magically jumps from host to host and you can’t find it in body fluids for some reasons. Just after you mix it with aforementioned ingredients it manifests. In the 1930th and 1940th they searched (with the electron microscope) for it that way and couldn’t find it. After most virologists had given up, Enders came along around 1955 and started inducing the current in vitro nonsense. It was with measles. When he poisoned the cells with antibiotics and starved them of fetal bovine serum. He saw the syncytia formation (giant cells). And assumed it was cytopathic effects caused by viral replication. He looked in the electron microscope and shaw the apoptotic bodies, which he called measles virions.
Negative control line, dummy or mock infections are never serious. They just use the medium, not the body fluids of non infected individuals or individuals with inflammations caused by something else and not the antibiotics etc. Nowadays some try to hide the real methodology in a supplementary appendix or just don’t publish it, which means it won’t reach the eyes of anybody other than the usual people. Keyword being „reasonable“ request.

[Anonymous No.12685794]

>>12685450
>HCL
Lol
>remdesivir is useless
Lol
>COVID is caused by a parasite
Lol
How about you take some "HCL" as ppx? You can find some in your gastric juices.

[Anonymous No.12685807]

>>12685764
Publish your findings

[Anonymous No.12685883]

You vill eat the bugs, ya...?
You vill own nothing, ya...?
You vill take the shots, ya...?
You vill be happy...? ya...

[Anonymous No.12686777]

>>12685807
I am not the first one to have noticed it. Many famous people before were/are open about it to varying degrees. As if this stuff gets published anywhere, where people can actually see it. One of the pioneers of sea algae virology has been completely open about it. He got excommunicated and was never seen in any virology journal again. Who owns the journals and who pays the scientist? It’s a gigantic industry.

[Anonymous No.12686785]

>>12685883
Wear the FUCKING nothing
Own the FUCKING bugs
Eat the FUCKING mask

[Anonymous No.12686847]

>>12685182
>/sci/ is one person

It's almost as if a place with free and open discussion has a multitude of opinions. Mindblowing.

[Anonymous No.12686876]

>>12686777
>One of the pioneers of sea algae virology has been completely open about it. He got excommunicated and was never seen in any virology journal again.

This reminds me of a certain someone commenting on DNA and intelligence. People wonder why there is distrust of science as it gets more and more cult-like.

[Anonymous No.12686923]

>>12674127
BECAUSE
THE
FUCKING
ASTRAZENECA VACCINE
IS NOT
AN MRNA VACCINE
IT IS A
DNA VACCINE

[Anonymous No.12686955]

if normies think they can inject me with this shit then they can expect dispute over shoveling snow.

[Anonymous No.12687035]

>>12676679
Yeah well that's not what he said and that's not what we're arguing about

[Anonymous No.12687736]

So, since the retarded golem/NPC/goyim are going to get injected with a mutagen once every two months, what can we expect ?
Aside from mass sterility.
I want to exploit the situation for profit, let's think about it fags, come on chop chop.

[Anonymous No.12687774]

plaque assays see
>>12685764
Conclusion they don’t mean anything. So we could stop here, since that means we don’t even have anything to work with. But let’s look at the other way they claim to find it.

de novo alignment /PCR
hear it from them
>rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article
They don’t have it. It’s just a puzzle they think, they somehow did correct, even though there is no evidence for this being the case. That’s the reason we have found the sequences in old waste water samples or in animals. And why you can test posting again and again (long COVID-19 and testing positive after 60 days again). The amount of different mRNA sequences is much larger than the genome itself, since mRNA can be processed and doesn’t have to correspond to an existing sequence in the DNA. If you are ill that means, there will be more damaged cells leaking mRNA and certain sequences of mRNA related to proteins dealing with the illness at hand (could be anything), hence more mRNA of this type (which the test likely is biased for since the theoretical genome was picked together from samples of sick people) and more mRNA in general. Therefore there is an elevated chance to test positive by qRT-PCR. Same goes for samples that are taken with a lot of force or moving the swab around for a long time, since there is more genetic material, which means elevated risk the mRNA molecules can be found.
The conclusion can only be it’s useless. Since they didn’t have the isolate purified. Which means there is the whole transcriptome. We can’t possibly know, what is what.

[Anonymous No.12687852]

>>12684667
>Wouldn't that make it blind to the much larger genetic variation that exists in a diverse population?
if they were humans, yes. these are mice. you cannot be sure how any genetic variation in a mouse population corresponds to variation in a human population. however, you can (and people have) estimate how well results in a defined animal model translate to humans. then, if you perform your experiments in that very well defined model, you can start to make some hypotheses about what would or will happen in humans. it's all about having a hierarchy of models, from in vitro to cell culture to animals to humans.

[Anonymous No.12687890]

>>12685307
>Of course mRNA can alter DNA, it can bond with it right?
I recommend that you look up an undergrad level molecular biology textbook and read about transcription. Generally, RNA does not bond with or alter DNA, except in some very specific circumstances through specialized enzymes that people have talked about elsewhere in the thread.

[Anonymous No.12687956]

>>12687852
The point is that it is blind to all the variation that exists within natural populations. All you've done with the clones is see the effects on a population that is virtually genetically identical. If there were distinct mice clone lines that mimic some major human variations you would get a better picture.

[Anonymous No.12687995]

>>12687890
In my humble opinion the game is played as follows. In the trials, where all the animals die/get severely ill, because the next emerging thing is so scary inbreed animals very sensitive to everything are used. Unrelated, has anybody seen the toxicology data one these supposedly mice or ferret adapted Mers-Cov and pH1N1 strains/supernatants? Many of these commercially available lab animals even have hints attached to what purposes they should be. Like suited for x,y and z. Many of them almost completely lack a microbiome, which is advertised. They basically drop dead, if you look at them the wrong way. And if that’s not enough, there is the variant with the wrecked genome. Humanized mice for example the ones with the ACE-2 receptor. Strange, how ACE-2 is really rare in the human respiratory tract, but SARS-CoV-2 is still spreading so well. But I’m sure, that can’t have anything to do with Influenza A, B and C disappearing. Many non human primates also fall into this category. Or in the words of a famous virologist monkeys exaggerate. Maybe that also has something to with green monkey kidney epithelium cells being used in the monolayers, but what do I know.
If the test is about the animals surviving the toxic bombardment, to prove the next wonderful cure has arrived, the preferred animals are different. It’s definitely outbreed animals. Often rats. If they have to do it in monkeys, only the best of the best are taken. Mostly points of euthanasia are carefully chosen etc.

[Anonymous No.12688051]

>>12687890
Sorry
>>12687995
was for
>>12687852

[Anonymous No.12688352]

>>12687890
First I wanted to agree, but than I thought about indirect siRNA/miRNA/RNAi and direct RdDM and retrotransposons etc. In the end the cell and even the organism and everything around are one complex universe. Our understanding of components is just arbitrary and meaningless. The border doesn’t really exist. How can we say it’s just the genome in the haploids cell of the parents, if we know the proteins/lipids and the mRNA are constantly interfering with the DNA and each other? You probably shouldn’t tell that to somebody with an introductory textbook in his hands.

[Anonymous No.12688399]

>>12688352
>indirect siRNA/miRNA/RNAi and direct RdDM and retrotransposons etc
retrotransposons have been discussed elsewhere in the thread. RdDM probably won't matter since it's a viral transcript being delivered, and I have no idea if the transcript even has a chance of entering the processing required for that or other silencing mechanisms.

and ultimately, what you're getting at is a larger point of, how can we know our knowledge is accurate? we don't! we can't! but if that's your position, don't take any drug. take no medicines. never go to the doctor again. that kind of informational nihilism isn't useful to the current discussion. at some point to interact with medicine at all we need to make some baseline assumptions about the biological phenomena at play and we need to test what we don't know to be true. we've done the tests and we have good biological foundations for assuming that in an emergency like we are in now, we can trust what we've found to be extensible to other biology

[Anonymous No.12688406]

>>12687956
there is no such distinct mice clone lines that mimic human variations, because that's impossible. if you had mice that captured human variation, you wouldnt have mice, you'd have humans. testing in animals will always be a tradeoff of ease of experimentation vs abstracted inference.

the best we can do is generate an animal line that specifically mimics one biological phenomena. that's why you have humanized mice lines, specific strains that respond to certain drugs in human-like ways, or that respond to biological damage in human-like ways. it's why we use cats for optical and neuro studies and why we use pigs to study skin damage. but even if you use a single animal line that replicates a single biological phenomena, you can't capture all the biological variation of humans with one experiment in animals. you never can, and never will be able to. that's not the point of those experiments. animal experiments are not meant to be the end of the line in biomedical research, they're part of a treadmill of increasing complexity as you move from simple models to, eventually, human trials. the only reason we're referring to an animal trial now is because we just dont have the time to wait for a full human trial

[Anonymous No.12688426]

>>12679104
This. Rushing tests with genetic information is bound to cause errors (e.g. misfolded proteins from incorrect mRNA protein sequences).

[Anonymous No.12688429]

>>12688426
*mRNA sequences, my bad

[Anonymous No.12688434]

>>12677787
>>12674127
The coronavirus uses mRNA in the same way that the vaccine does, except the coronavirus does it in a much more dangerous way.

[Anonymous No.12688449]

[Anonymous No.12688458]

GET THE SHOT
GET THE SHOT OR THIS BLACK KID GETS IT

[Anonymous No.12688501]

>>12688406
>no such distinct mice clone lines that mimic human variations, because that's impossible.
> that's why you have humanized mice lines

Cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.12688538]

>>12688501
"humanized mice lines" are mice lines that are modified so that they express one specific (or a very small handful of specific) human proteins.

[Anonymous No.12688550]

>>12688538
So it should be entirely possible to humanize mice lines to express human variations...

[Anonymous No.12688647]

>>12688550
if you wanted to express, say, several different alleles of the same protein, yes. that is an infinitesimal fraction of the available variation in human biology. and even just generating a few lines that express a handful of proteins is years of work, and at the end of the day you have one or two human proteins expressed in a single mouse background. that tells you nothing about how those handful of proteins will behave in other mouse lines, because all of that work will test those human proteins in the biological context of a mouse's body. also, we're discussing immune responses and complex phenomena here. the scale of the problem is impossibly large. the only way the experiment makes complete sense is to test it in humans. but that's not ethical without testing it in animals first and getting a small amount of preliminary data we can extrapolate from. it's a bad proxy, but it's the only proxy we have.

[Anonymous No.12688673]

>>12688647
>we're discussing immune responses and complex phenomena here.

Exactly why I was thinking of different mice lines mirroring differences in human immune codings, along with perhaps some other major possible differences.

But fuck it, test it on one entirely genetic homogeneous population and call it safe.

[Anonymous No.12688698]

>>12674127
What about mRNA that codes for restriction enzymes?

[Anonymous No.12688731]

>>12688673
the problem there is that you're not testing human genetic variation, you're testing mice variation

[Anonymous No.12688733]

>>12674145
>I somehow survived Hep B from my first time having sex so I can survive this
pay for a better whore next time

[Anonymous No.12688754]

>>12684105
>faggot doesn't think AIDS is real
Okay.

[Anonymous No.12688878]

>>12688731
Yes, I agree with your fundamental point that testing in animals will always fall drastically short of actually testing humans.

I just don't see how anyone can take the results from one homogeneous population and apply it to the diverse human population and be satisfied.

[Anonymous No.12688896]

>>12688698
If restriction enzymes could actually get into our cell nuclei and digest our DNA, we'd be completely fucked already. It doesn't happen.

[Anonymous No.12688897]

>>12674127
LMAO!
This nigga never heard of siRNA/miRNA

Point and laugh senpai

[Anonymous No.12688906]

>>12688897
>mRNA
>siRNA and miRNA
Oh, I'm laffin alright

[Anonymous No.12688917]

>>12688906
>implying mRNA can’t degrade and result in mi/si

[Anonymous No.12688945]

>>12685450
>>12685764
>>12686777
>>12687774
Now this is some amazing pseudoscientific drivel. Actual fucking denial of viruses being real because you can't comprehend how modern techniques work?

[Anonymous No.12689709]

>>12688945
>amazing
>Actual fucking denial
You seem quiet excited. Almost like it’s a quasi religious feeling.
>comprehend how modern techniques work
Yes. For all intents and proposes required regarding this matter. The plaque assays aren’t really modern, basically that’s the same. Safe for some new cell lines and small changes in the formulation of the medium etc. I have yet to see a pure sample being used and scientifically characterized like it should. Interestingly enough the knowledge of how sequences motives, which are being assumed to belong to viruses look, is derived from the characteristic of bacteriophages. For which the proper procedures were truly done and hence we know how the sequences really look. The thing is the virus is assumed a priori, but from other disciplines we know cell lines can die for any number of reason. Before I forget it the phages aren’t really poisonous dead things that attack bacteria. You can think of them as “sperm” and super control structures in a certain group or bacteria. They transfer energy and information from one bacteria to another. Hence even this analogy with the viruses is probably completely flawed. Essentially the same goes similar mechanism in other lower organisms.

[Anonymous No.12690062]

>>12676679
>what op means
no, that's what you wish he said.

[Anonymous No.12690485]

Ever wondered, why Neil Ferguson et. al. always spectacularly failed to predict anything. What if the thing with the transmissions isn’t really happening.

[Anonymous No.12691249]

>>12676522
yeah exept my body wasn't built by microsoft anon
and the antivirus wasn't long term tested and if that wasn't enough the virus it tries to prevent from spreading isn't damaging in 99,9% of the cases and it doesn't prevent it from spreading anyway

[Anonymous No.12692037]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWO4i_6ROdc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KsiagDC52C0
If you want to look it up, how virology is literally transforming itself into a field of finding short sequences in humans, labeling them as cause of diseases. Dropping any pretense, it’s about finding the actual particle in unadulterated samples. Look here.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369527416300479
The definition of, how to find or prove a virus gets weaker and weaker. Currently we are at “metagenomics Kochs”. Does this look to you like scientists, who are really sure of their thing?

[Anonymous No.12692108]

>>12688399
>retrotransposon
I know. It was mainly by me and wanted to emphasize it’s not something rare. There is a large variation in the activity of them and even to our limited understanding, they seem to indeed play an important role. It’s certainly not a curiosity, but a very relevant part of the cellular machinery.
>is a larger point of, how can we know our knowledge is accurate
This was what I expressed, albeit a little more nuanced.
>don't take any drug. take no medicines
>never go to the doctor again
Thanks for the valuable advice. Even officially iatrogenic causes are the third leading cause of dead. Jokes aside, I actually think you can do make things worse by going to a doctor. Especially, if it’s the wrong one.
In my eyes anything is a drug. It’s always a mix of many different chemical substances. And basically always something affecting your metabolism in a relevant way is in it. At least, if consumed regularly. Concerning the synthetical drugs, you probably alluded to, some are useful and many just make you feel better for a little while at a price.
>We need baseline assumptions.
That’s exactly our problem. We need to question the assumptions. In my opinion a large part of the replication crisis is based on scientist not being able to question assumptions. If you don’t search for other explanations and try to disprove your hypothesis, you will just invent auxiliary hypothesis and perpetuate wrong thinking.
>we have good biology
I would agree. However we also have a lot of mediocre biology and a lot of really bad biology.

[Anonymous No.12692140]

>>12688878
i doubt anyone is "satisfied", I bet everyone involved would LOVE to have better data. The point isn't "this one study said this so it's definitely safe", it's "this one study said this and we have literally no other information to guide us, so... hope it's safe!"

[Anonymous No.12693398]

>>12688406
The humanized mice are useless. It's mostly just a mice with genetic troubles, due to off target effects and biochemical trouble because of proteins with subsequent protein interactions, that shouldn’t be there. I don’t see it as anything else than another animal model. Probably in many cases it will tell you less than normal mice.

[Anonymous No.12694171]

>>12688878
It’s even worse, since there is not long term data in animals and the raw data isn’t available.

[Anonymous No.12694619]

>>12674127
More and more “outbreaks” after vaccination.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nKSIPzJpjj0&feature=youtu.be

[Anonymous No.12694744]

>>12694619
You know, I developed the whole gambit of covid symptoms within 24 hrs of someone within my household getting the second shot... I haven't had a cold or flu for over a year before that.

[Anonymous No.12694791]

>>12694619
>More and more “outbreaks” after vaccination.

Look at Israels deaths. It spiked significantly higher than the cases, in the middle of the mass vaccination campaign.

I suspect the vaccine wiped out a lot of old people and they put them under covid deaths due to side effect denial.

[Anonymous No.12694830]

>>12694791
Seems like a lot of governments are finding it beneficial to have the elderly who consume a large share of healthcare spending to die off quickly. During normal times the only way to kill them off is through neglect but now with the pandemic they can be pushed over the edge easily and without anyone questioning it.

[Anonymous No.12695213]

>>12694744
Did the individual, who received the vaccine also show symptoms?
I have my suspicions, why so many people get a fast from of COVID-19 and test positive by qRT-PCR.
See
>>12687774
Where I explain it.
>>12694791
I have seen something similar with the cases in Scotland after vaccine introduction. Norway has banned vaccination of people actually at risk entirely, because of serious adverse events in this group.

[Anonymous No.12695273]

I wouldn't take this vaccine for the sake of being a skeptic. I was researching a few things and found something interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tozinameran the covid 2019 vaccine is apparently named "Tozinameran" that which is a very strange term perhaps its an anagram for a wider hidden meaning. Possibly it could be "Notarize Man" which implies they want to embed our body with these solid lipid nanoparticles but inside the vaccine they are having a deceitful mechanism so they can document our genetic code and implement into a database etc. God knows what's the hidden agenda behind this orientated fear propaganda and current hysterical timeline

[Anonymous No.12695317]

>>12681925
>when most people were stuffed into cement boxes and expected to stare at computer screens so as to earn the right to belong in this society.
Wait when did this change?

[Anonymous No.12695442]

>>12695213
>Did the individual, who received the vaccine also show symptoms?

No. The only symptom she developed was tiredness. But then, she had a previous shot as well as whatever else is in there.

[Anonymous No.12695460]

>>12695442
goyim

[Anonymous No.12695503]

>>12695442
And she probably didn’t get a PCR
test. Would have been interesting because many, who aren’t getting seriously ill, are being tested positive. Their excuse for people getting sick and/or testing positive after the vaccination is obviously the protection wasn’t ready etc.

[Anonymous No.12695885]

>>12695273
>Tozinameran
https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/druginformation/issues/WHO_DI_34-3_PL124-SpecialEdition.pdf
And it’s on page 666 well I don’t know, if that’s a play on us. I don’t know, how they came up with the name.

[Anonymous No.12695928]

>>12674127
Getting any vaccine is like putting your hand purposefully on a hot cooking plate, so that you can remember to not do it in the future.
The only thing your body will remember is that you have been an asshole to him, for putting him under so much stress unnecessarily.

[Anonymous No.12695930]

>>12695885
It would basically just be resume fluff which is fine as long as you have other meaningful projects there as well.

[Anonymous No.12695940]

>>12695885
https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/pfizer-biontech-select-comirnaty-as-brand-name-for-covid-19-vaccine

[Anonymous No.12695977]

>>12688754
that's not at all what he is saying
he is talking about the cause and the nature of aids

[Anonymous No.12695986]

>>12695928
Why go by deaths? Surely treatment could have been a major reason for reduced fatality rate. Going by cases seems to make more sense.

[Anonymous No.12697047]

>>12695986
Not him.
Because diagnoses don’t show anything, if the physicians get told something is rare, they are less likely to diagnose it. In fact we would need all deaths caused by any illness with similar symptom/sign profile, since there isn’t really a way to properly determine, if viral material is present, as was shown in the thread.

[Anonymous No.12697076]

>>12674214
Well said anon.

[Anonymous No.12697111]

>>12674214
This post does a good job whiteknighting for all the deranged vaccine disinformation masquerading as legit skepticism.

[Anonymous No.12697123]

>>12697111
This post does a good job of checking and rekting by saying absolutely nothing, but remaining vaguely supportive of the status quo.

[Anonymous No.12697150]

>>12697111
Get AWAY you pestering locust. Unlike you, most of /sci/ is competent to read, and doesn't have to worry about falling victim to "disinformation". Jesus fuck why are you even on this board.

[Anonymous No.12697175]

>>12685257
ah,the beautifulland of Ukraine/Russia/most ex soviet states. Everything is great with that approach except for overtreatement now that treatments are available

[Anonymous No.12697180]

>>12697150
>Unlike you, most of /sci/ is competent to read, and doesn't have to worry about falling victim to "disinformation"
A few posts up you can read about how SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses are not real. Am I allowed to point out how ridiculous that is?

[Anonymous No.12697186]

>>12697180
Yeah, and most of us can discern that it is ridiculous, but the open discussion is worthwhile. You on the other hand are shitting up the board.

[Anonymous No.12697192]

>>12697186
>but the open discussion is worthwhile
Unless you disagree with you it would seem.

[Anonymous No.12697206]

>>12697111
>deranged vaccine disinformation
Of which there is nothing in this thread. What kind of criticism is deranged in your opinion? Show us examples and we will look at it.

[Anonymous No.12697208]

>>12697180
>SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses are not real
Than go and prove them wrong, if it’s so ridiculous. I would be interested, if you have something that can show isolation and purification directly from a sample.

[Anonymous No.12697225]

>>12697206
Microchips is pretty deranged.

[Anonymous No.12697234]

>>12685716
My entire core friend group is like this. I am mentally I'll and white. They are all POC.
The last 10 years has been hell.

[Anonymous No.12697244]

>>12674169
Or reality doesn't pick sides, and an individual is free to groove with infinite paths.

[Anonymous No.12697254]

>>12697225
I haven’t seen independent analysis of it with raw data presented. So it’s equally speculative, like the claims about effectiveness of the vaccine.

[Anonymous No.12697332]

>>12697225
Are microchips technically possible? Yes, we already have less-than-mm chips.
Are microchips politically possible? Yes, after all the shitshow they are not far off.
Will they happen? Maybe they will, maybe they will implement something as bad but somewhat different.

[Anonymous No.12697343]

>>12697244
My fist in your face is just my chakra being misalligned, dude.

[Anonymous No.12697918]

>>12685141
What are you going to do when something crazy happens and they're proven right in a weird way? What if there is no outside sickness and human beings are exhaling this in a colony action to purposefully kill off a percentage of the weak old and defective, and that we've filled the atmosphere and wherever you go and whatever you do there is no safety or solution?

[Anonymous No.12697955]

>>12674641
It’s not necessarily anti-science. Democrats/scientists want you to zero in on the science and ignore everything else but that’s not really how the world works.

If we institute climate-friendly practices and China doesn’t, our companies will no longer be able to compete with China. Even if China instituted them, they could still be lying about it behind the scenes. Now, if our companies have to fold and China corners the market, now none of the climate-friendly practices are being followed and we have no ability to fix the system.

That’s just one example of how good intentions can lead to deleterious outcomes in climate policy.

[Anonymous No.12698628]

The game seems to be to claim it was SARS-CoV-2 after they were vaccinated. Because if the vaccine does kill you within 3 weeks, there allegedly was just an incomplete immune response.
https://dailymemphian.com/article/19893/surgeon-died-of-suspected-delayed-immune-response?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3utdmkqsbcM64HTobPsPS2mEiPBCRRVUjHCJCjuZyemxuAZ24e7kL5SXw#/questions
He was just 37 years old. Basically next to no chance he would die due to COVID-19.

[Anonymous No.12698687]

>>12697955
>Even if China instituted them, they could still be lying about it behind the scenes.
Speaking of which, recently it was detected that large amounts of CFCs were leaking from somewhere in China into the atmosphere. Everyone, including China, agreed decades ago to stop using CFCs for most purposes and to enact procedures to prevent their leakage for the remaining applications. China denies that it was releasing CFCs into the atmosphere but after being confronted about it, the leakage suddenly stopped. You simply cannot trust them on anything. They'll sign any treaty you put in front of them that gives them an advantage but will never live up to the requirements of the treaty.

[Anonymous No.12698940]

>>12674127
doesn't the sputnik vaccine alter dna though?

[Anonymous No.12698951]

>>12698940
Well. Allegedly it doesn’t, but realistically speaking it could.

[Anonymous No.12698953]

>>12697208
Prove to me the sky is blue

[Anonymous No.12699028]

>>12685257
>No one ever even thought about being anti vaxx - because the goverment wasnt tottaly corrupt
no , no one though about being anti vax because a totalitarian government has the mechanisms to silence anti vax agitators.
A liberal democracy simply isn't equipped to deal with those kinds of people.

[Anonymous No.12699041]

>>12698953
I think you are unserious. I hope somebody will make a better case. It makes it all more credible, if there is next to nothing beyond ad hominem arguments or begging the question.

[Anonymous No.12699086]

>>12692037
>Deny HIV/AIDS
>Die of HIV/AIDS
IT JUST KEEPS HAPPENING

[Anonymous No.12699100]

>>12699086
I actually remember there was aan aids denialist magazine that shut down because all of it staff died of aids related complications.

[Anonymous No.12699114]

>>12674127
All the Trumptards and assorted right-wing populists got epicly BTFO by covid so now they're trying to construct an alternate reality where they were right and it was the libtards that were BTFO.

[Anonymous No.12699124]

>>12699086
>>12699100
I know I’m probably wasting my time with you. But you get the difference between the issues seen in the drug and gay scene, both known for wide spread consume of many health adverse chemicals and the prove of health adverse effects being caused by humane Lentivirus?

[Anonymous No.12699283]

>>12699124
>humane
My autocorrection is quite hilarious.

[Anonymous No.12699495]

>>12699028
Stop whining and present evidence. Post a study, which is accessible, with raw data and methodology, that shows vaccination helps. Crying for totalitarian rule, because you are unable to present solid evidence, is the most anti-scientific thing imaginable.

[Anonymous No.12699835]

Vaccination was always useless
https://archive.org/stream/b2136140x_201805/b2136140x_djvu.txt
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/101229606/PDF/101229606.pdf
The scientists back, when there was such a thing all knew it.

[Anonymous No.12699866]

>>12674169
>cognitive dissonance
>buzz word for normies to use on people who don't agree with them/their media overlords

Not saying OP is wrong, but your pic related sounds like a blog post that can be said about anything that a group that you don't agree with says.
>its just your cognitive dissonance that makes you disagree with the mainstream which HAS to be correct, right?

Its equally possible that people default to believing the mainstream narrative because the dissonance reduction they would have to perform to think outside of their safe
happy go lucky world would be astronomical in comparison to the dissonance reduction they do when say their crush rejects them.

here's another buzz word for you. The person that wrote pic related is a pseudo intellectual.

[Anonymous No.12699898]

>>12674641
>distrust is disproportionate to the level of fuckery that actually happens in science
Have you actually done any research before in your life? I'm not talking about research on your browser where you look up a couple WIRED articles for a homework assignment. I mean graduate level or above.

If you've ever worked in a lab and built your research off of other existing publications, you quickly find just how many of them falsify data and exaggerate their findings.
Research which could be considered controversial is generally buried or archived and never sees a notable journal. On top of this, you will find that many grants come with the stipulation that published work must be a result of the funding.
This usually leads to the recipient taking his 20% cut, dumping the other 80% on shit they don't REALLY need, and mindless PhDs and Postdocs being paid to shit out research work to the general public or to their client.

high impact factor journals with a broad audience will typically accept work that is interesting over work that is genuinely valuable. Peer reviewers, if they are volunteers, do not scrutinize the work of their peers nearly as much as they should. Because people are sensitive.

>TLDR
Distrust is pretty on par with what it should be, but boomers and dimwits typically distrust in favor of their conspiracy theories because those are more interesting, not because they are genuinely aware of things like replication crisis.

[Anonymous No.12699909]

>>12699866
Exactly. The guy even muddies the water between the cause and the effect. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling or state of mind and not the coping mechanism(s) resulting from the believe(s).
If you read the thread, you will see OP was completely disproven. It was shown (I’m humble enough not to take all the credit for it) that it in fact can happen.

[Anonymous No.12700987]

https://www.ibtimes.com/nebraska-man-dies-days-after-receiving-first-dose-covid-vaccine-3144392

[Anonymous No.12701422]

>>12674127
Genes are RNA and DNA not just DNA

[Anonymous No.12701432]

Basically everything alters your genes, when you don't have an allergy one day and then have an allergy the next day it's because your genes have changed.

mRNA vaccines alter your genes, to deny this is to deny the fact that we interact with the Universe at all.

[Anonymous No.12701445]

>>12699086
Is it mostly gays who deny HIV/AIDS?

[Anonymous No.12701539]

>>12701445
No, it’s the few honest virologists and other specialists from similar fields. If you look at the publications you will see it was never directly isolated from humans. It’s always from dying cells in monolayers. And the electron microscopy pictures show nothing that, couldn’t be easily explained. In the pictures of human Lentivirus (also known as Human Immune Deficiency Virus 1and 2) there is no difference to sliced mitochondria. The first commercial aids test claimed approximately 30 percent to US adults to be positive. The simple explanation is the ubiquity of endogenous reverse transcriptase in humans. To solve that issue they simply made it less sensitive. The reason, why they tested so many people, who were terminally ill with certain cancers positive for HIV, is very simple too. The body tries to repair the chromosomes and reverse transcription mechanisms are very involved in this process. So the reverse transcriptase activity isn’t the cause for cancer, but the other way around.

[Anonymous No.12701554]

>>12701539
>it’s the few honest virologists and other specialists from similar fields
Any names?

[Anonymous No.12701581]

>>12701554
Well most aren’t straight up telling you it all. One notable exception is Dr. Stefan Lanka. He was pioneering research on sea algae virology and noticed these supposed viruses don’t make the algae sick. He looked into the human viruses and was shocked to see they never apply basic scientific standards. Most virologists are more subtle and you need to read between the lines. They say virus X,Y or Z has never been properly isolated. But if you look at it the standards were basically the same as in every other virus (E.g. Judy Mikovits PhD), but there are others. Some are even more subtitle and say the virus is there, but it’s not sufficient to cause the illness. E.g. Prof. Peter H. Duesberg. Others discuss stuff about EVs/apoptotic bodies and viruses, which also is a somewhat clear sign. Also some allude to viruses once having escaped pur genome. It’s hard to say, who really thinks, what and I would have look up some people are more clearly doing it than others.

[Anonymous No.12701584]

>>12701581
I was typing with frozen hands. Sorry, for the mistakes. Just ask, if you didn’t get something.

[Anonymous No.12701587]

>>12674127
yeah but no but.....

[Anonymous No.12701600]

>>12701432
not true. the genetic DNA stays the same. Its the policing chemicals around it that turn stuff on and off. And its a vaccine experiment not at routine run.

[Anonymous No.12701671]

>>12701600
I will spare you the details, but essentially most aren’t really talking about naive biology anymore. A gene was supposed to be a sequence, which corresponds to a certain characteristic. As we know today that isn’t really the case. While it’s true sometimes mRNA and the subsequent proteins directly correspond to a sequence somewhere on the DNA, it mostly isn’t the case. The mRNA is processed and completely new sequences can be formed with no corresponding DNA sequence. There are mechanisms that can change sequences in the DNA and even hole elements, which can change their location. Every cell is a genetic universe of its own. And you can’t think of there just being a DNA. The information is also in the transcriptome, proteom and every other element of the cellular machinery.

[Anonymous No.12702862]

>>12677757
Maybe the likelihood of getting a grant is negatively correlated to taking positions, which aren’t in the interest of the industry.

[Anonymous No.12702918]

>>12701600
Genes are not just DNA. Genes are DNA + RNA.

This is called scientific dishonesty.

[Anonymous No.12704178]

>>12679884
What conditions are they?

[Anonymous No.12704430]

>>12674145
Did you fuck a dog something?

[Anonymous No.12704470]

Because they are retards, duh.

[Anonymous No.12705101]

>>12704470
Wow, you are really witty. Very clever. Thanks.
>>12704178
Look at the literature. E.g. hemophilia, multiple pregnancies, tuberculosis, fungal infections, malaria, recent vaccination, hemodialysis, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic toxin exposure and many more.
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjtestfp.htm
Here are some with references.

[Anonymous No.12705398]

>>12674127
https://circleofmamas.com/health-news/28-year-old-mother-has-stroke-5-days-after-covid-vaccine/
Seems like people are already dying left and right.

[Anonymous No.12705824]

Imagine still believing this is about a virus

[Anonymous No.12706028]

>>12674127
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon petition:
https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf

[Anonymous No.12706047]

>>12674127
A lot is still unknown about those vaccines. Here is some info. Read it.
https://www.satrakshita.com/Books/Corona_False_Alarm.pdf
https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/Vaccine-PP.pdf
https://hpv-vaccine-side-effects.com/covid-19-vaccine-side-effects-world-map/
https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/vaxadverseeventsanecdotes:6

[Anonymous No.12706378]

>>12674127
I'm more concerned that people would rather risk the whole mRNA code from the Chinese bioweapon than a subset of the code from a European who is sick of wearing a mask all the fucking time.

[Anonymous No.12706380]

>>12701587
Didn't we find out that
a) you are basically immune post-Pfizer ones (even with just 1 dose)
b) if we aren't demasked by summer then acid attacks against politicians are about to skyrocket

[Anonymous No.12706428]

>>12705101
Almost all of those citations are just talking about the production of antibodies with reactivity to some incidental virus, not necessarily HIV. It's also important to understand that HIV serological testing is done in a two-step algorithm designed to screen out nonspecific binding and cross-reactivity. After an initial positive, a differentiation test is run by a different method, and usually a molecular test for HIV RNA is also used.

Really, do you think scientists aren't fully aware of the limitations of serology and have methods and testing algorithms in place to prevent them? There's a reason only a handful are considered diagnostic (HBVs/cAg, heterophile antibody).

[Anonymous No.12706442]

>>12702918
Genes are by definition chromosomal. So in a human, all genes are DNA.

[Anonymous No.12706494]

>>12674127
>Why don’t conspiritatds understand
let me stop you there
It's not that they're incapable of understanding, it's that conspiracy theorists aren't interested in what's actually true. They've already decided what the truth is, and no amount of evidence will convince them they're wrong. They didn't get to their beliefs because they were convinced by reasonable arguments, they got to their beliefs because it provided them with a fantasy that satisfied some emotional need for them.

[Anonymous No.12706513]

>>12706442
+ RNA

stop lying

[Anonymous No.12706528]

>>12706428
>Almost all of those citations are just talking about the production of antibodies with reactivity to some incidental virus, not necessarily HIV
That’s correct. Because the issue is almost everywhere.
>that HIV serological testing is done in a two-step algorithm designed to screen out nonspecific binding and cross-reactivity.
Yes. And depending on the jurisdiction you are in, there is even more. But the issues aren’t resolved. It just makes the testing battery less likely to turn out a positive end result.
>Really, do you think scientists aren't fully aware of the limitations of serology and have methods and testing algorithms in place to prevent them?
Yes. In fact I know. And you are ill informed, if you truly believe that they are factoring it in. In the case of HIV the blood donation organizations and clinics just told the virologist to screw themselves, after they tried to sell their test, which labeled 30 percent as being positive. The modern day definition of infection depends on detecting an immune response. They almost never tell you about the many possible other reasons for measuring the statistical parameters defining the immune response.
If you violently inject something into the muscle/bloodstream or into the respiratory tract of an animal you can easily provoke an immune response. Unless it’s some along the lines of saline. Which they do as their negative control. But any individual component of the supernatant can easily cause an immune response.

[Anonymous No.12706543]

>>12706528
>Almost all of those citations are just talking
>That’s correct.
Well. I was thinking you agreed to there being no isolation of the other viruses either. But, if you claim these viruses were indeed properly isolated, you can’t claim it.

[Anonymous No.12706556]

>>12706428
>HBVs/cAg, heterophile antibody
I disagree. It’s also unspecific, but if you like we can discuss the literature. Serology isn’t really indicative in most parameters anyway. Most of the components aren’t really native in the blood, but somewhere else and even if something is somewhere they will be in that specific organ(s). And it’s possible you will just see something peek at some point in the blood.

[Anonymous No.12706605]

>>12705101
Here for those interested
>Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13)
>Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19)
>Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)
>Leprosy (2, 25)
>Tuberculosis (25)
>Mycobacterium avium (25)
>Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)
>Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)
>Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)
>Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)
>Flu (36)
>Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)
>Herpes simplex I (27)
>Herpes simplex II (11)
>Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)
>Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)
>Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36)
>Malaria (6, 12)
>High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33)
>Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33)
>False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49)
>Rheumatoid arthritis (36)
>Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43)
>Tetanus vaccination (40)
>Organ transplantation (1, 36)
>Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56)
>Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31)
>Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31)
>Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53)
Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis
>Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13)
>Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40)
>Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53)
>Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53)
>Hepatitis (54)
>"Sticky" blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40)

[Anonymous No.12706614]

>>12706605
>Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3)
>Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41)
>Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53)
>HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53)
>Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48)
>Anti-parietal cell antibody (48)
>Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48)
>Anti-Hbc IgM (48)
>Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10)
>Haemophilia (10, 49)
>Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13)
>Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48)
>Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)
>Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61)
>Heat-treated specimens (51, 57, 24, 49, 48)
>Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)(49)
>Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells)(49)
>Hyperbilirubinemia (10, 13)
>Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups)(10, 13, 48)
>Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions (10)
>Normal human ribonucleoproteins (48,13)
>Other retroviruses (8, 55, 14, 48, 13)
>Anti-mitochondrial antibodies (48, 13)
>Anti-nuclear antibodies (48, 13, 53)
>Anti-microsomal antibodies (34)
>T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies (48, 13)
>Proteins on the filter paper (13)
>Epstein-Barr virus (37)
>Visceral leishmaniasis (45)
>Receptive anal sex (39, 64)

[Anonymous No.12706697]

Is there a way to determine if a person has been infected by the virus vs has received one of the vaccinations? Is there any difference in what the body produces in reaction to SARS-CoV-2 and the vaccines? What about between the different vaccines? Do they all produce the same response or does the body produce different but mostly similar things?

[Anonymous No.12706773]

>>12706697
>Is there a way to determine if a person has been infected by the virus vs has received one of the vaccinations?
Brilliant question. I was just arguing this. It’s all a numbers game. In the end it’s statistical parameters. The Immune globulins aren’t really specific. Even in, what’s called neutralization assays the test is just, how much long can cells be kept alive being bombarded with different stuff. And these Ig do protect cells by closing holes in cells, hence if there is more Ig in the blood the cells will stay alive longer. You can play with Ig titters, in antibody assays, by changing the pH value and by having interface active substances. Even according to the official narrative, I‘ve seen no claims of anybody being able to determine, if something was genetic therapy related or allegedly due to infection. So all the deaths shortly after the vaccine with a positive qRT-PCR test will be labeled COVID-19. In the official theory the natural immunity would likely be characterized by more epitopes being targeted, but some would claim the „vaccine“ makes up for that by stronger biasing the immune response towards a structure of the virus, which can easily be reached.
>What about between the different vaccines?
The different injections chimpanzee/human Adenovirus based DNA genetic therapy and the liquid nano particle based mRNA genetic therapy, will likely make a different immune response. But it’s hard to measure. What they won’t tell you is. The immune response isn’t really the DNA, in chase of the Adenovirus based genetic therapy, but the tissue cultures and ingredients the vector was grown in. And not the synthetic mRNA, in chase of the mRNA based vaccine, but the PEG and the cationic lipid.

[Anonymous No.12706779]

>>12706773
>how much long can
how long

[Anonymous No.12706815]

>>12706773
>The different injections chimpanzee/human Adenovirus based DNA genetic therapy and the liquid nano particle based mRNA genetic therapy, will likely make a different immune response. >But it’s hard to measure.
I hope it’s clear, what I meant by this. Looking at the groups will probably show different clusters. But looking at one individual won’t tell it.

[Anonymous No.12706817]

>>12674127
experts, scientists and msm spent all of last year lying to people, creating massive hysteria, locking people in their homes and destroying the economy over a fucking flu and you wonder why people who have no clue about biology distrust them when it comes to the vaccine?

[Anonymous No.12706846]

>>12706817
Still don't get why simply reversing a mask wouldn't accomplish the same thing but causing each person to end up protecting themselves instead of protecting others from them.

[Anonymous No.12706863]

>>12706846
the flimsy masks don't work against small airborne droplets

[Anonymous No.12707001]

>>12706863
Do people rub them on the insides of their mouths and noses?

[Anonymous No.12707028]

>>12706846
Masks work for both the wearer and everyone else already.

[Anonymous No.12707043]

>>12706773
>Brilliant question
Wat
All you do is test for both anti-spike and anti-envelope antibodies. People who were infected will have both, people who were vaccinated only have anti-spike. This is trivial and is done every day all the time for a number of viruses.

[Anonymous No.12707053]

Think about it. When the human Lentivirus was invented; they really didn’t do a proper job. Their concept is mathematically impossible. The HIV-1 protease (PR) was claimed to be unspecific, but to get a functioning virus it needs to exactly cut at formerly eight/now nine sites in a more than 9,75kb long genome.

[Anonymous No.12707066]

>>12707043
>anti-envelope antibodies
Are you trained in the dark secrets of the art? You need to look up the main stream narrative again. Small hint the E-gene is claimed to be conserved throughout all CoV. So seeing the cross reactivity there isn’t relevant.
>it’s done for a number of viruses
It’s more complicated, but basically these antibodies stick to almost anything. Publications with open raw data and clean methodology (I know really rare) do show it.

[Anonymous No.12707080]

>>12707053
If you want you can give me your favorite publication and we scan through it.

[Anonymous No.12707081]

>>12707066
The envelope protein is not conserved. And I don't need to read publications because I'm not a pleb, I've done the work myself and seen the specificity of these antibodies.

>in b4 I must be a part of the conspiracy simply because I know what I'm talking about

[Anonymous No.12707092]

>>12707081
>The envelope protein is not conserved
So the viruses aren’t related?

[Anonymous No.12707107]

>>12707080
Sorry was for >>12707043

[Anonymous No.12707234]

>>12707080
Let’s see, if you will surface again.
>The envelope protein is not conserved.
Well. Assuming you are legit that’s your personal claim. If that’s your opinion I welcome you at the dissident camp.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3347032/

>And I don't need to read publications because I'm not a pleb, I've done the work myself and seen the specificity of these antibodies.
Still. You know how this game goes. Either there is an argument or there is a source. I don’t even know, what you did. “Isolation” from VERO-E6, CaCo-2, Huh-7, pCMK cells or HEK-293? And subsequent neutralization assays? Or was it just ELISA validated by someone else or worse in silico? You understand the plaque assay won’t tell you anything it’s just some cells dying. CPE isn’t proof of viral replication. You would need to isolated the virion directly from a specimen. And not mix it with other substances. The qRT-PCR equally just amplifies the hole transcriptome, hence alignment of these sequences doesn’t proof anything either.

[Anonymous No.12707403]

>>12707092
Those things are not mutually exclusive.

>>12707234
> there is large variation in the primary sequence of the E proteins
From your link.
HEK293 or Vero cells are commonly used, but we use A549 since it's better suited toward studying transcriptome changes following viral infection. So it's trivial to generalize the procedure for isolation. After CPE is observed, the sample is sequenced. It's a pain in the ass, but it does confirm a) SARS-CoV-2 and b) any variations public health might want to know about. We do this every time we want a new lot of virus for neutralization assays, and it's awful because nobody wants to work in a BSL-3 ISO/cGMP facility. We also used to have the electron microscopy folks actually find intact particles too, but that wound up not being useful.

ELISA is commonly used as a protocol verification, but it (like any LDT) was validated by ourselves. It's also used sometimes to purify isolates. We're primarily a clinical lab, so everything is validated in-house with an audit trail. The benefits of being at a large and renown academic medical center, they don't care how much money we spend as long as we end up in JV, JCM, CID, a CDC publication or - god help us all - CAP Today.

[Anonymous No.12708294]

>>12707403
Next sentence
>Yet, this protein is present in all known CoVs, suggesting it has a conserved role
I have yet to see any evidence of there being a specific antibody. Not seen a single test claiming to be able to measure that properly. I mean since all the sequences are never proven to be of viral origin it’s meaningless anyway.
>A549
Hasn’t the CDC said that shouldn’t be done? Even according to the low standard they don’t really show, what’s referred to as replication. You need to modify them. So at this point we are talking about cancer cells being further destroyed.
>After CPE is observed, the sample is sequenced. It's a pain in the ass, but it does confirm a) SARS-CoV-2
>b) any variations public health might want to know about
You haven’t proven anything at that point. Cells can die due to any number of reasons. You mixed the sample with antibiotics, medium, FBS and the cells. There is no prove SARS-CoV-2 was the causative agent.
You just send the primers into the open transcriptome of the human cancer cells and the cells in the specimen. There is no prove the sequence is part of a virus.
You would have to really purify a unadulterated sample and make sure there is a hole intact genome. I bet the negative control lines never were treated with the antibiotics, samples from healthy/with unrelated lung issues and making them starve.
>We also used to have the electron microscopy folks actually find intact particles too, but that wound up not being useful.
They looked at the sedimented particles. Again that‘s no prove of the particles being the virion. Could be any number of things.

[Anonymous No.12708380]

>>12674127
Ironically, "conspiritatds" are smarter than those who are not.
People who dare defy mainstream beliefs and myths are often ahead of the rest.

[Anonymous No.12708389]

>>12708380
>flat earthers are smart

[Anonymous No.12708404]

>>12708389
Strawmanning is a tactic of a coward and a liar.
You are the same people who would have shouted back in the ancient times that Galileo was wrong.
Stop being a blind follower. Become a man!

[Anonymous No.12709522]

Extending the telomeres of this thread.
Well, even that is a meme. I know.

[Anonymous No.12710200]

Until competent opposition comes along. I will fact check the labs.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheBinderLab/status/1306327197393866753
>The novel #Coronavirus has been isolated countless times from patients, incl. "BavPat1/2020", from one of the first patients in Bavaria, by the team around
@c_drosten
>Several isolates can be ordered from bio material repositories, e.g. https://european-virus-archive.com/evag-portal/virus-name/sars-cov-2…
No, it was just isolated in the mind of the virologist. Since every other kind of scientist has a different notion of isolation. The isolate is just dying cells and extracellular material mixed with toxic chemicals. Which was later centrifuged. After that the fluid phase of the toxic brew from dying cells and antibiotics (supernatant) was extracted. No sign of any virus.
>The genomes of these isolated and laboratory grown viruses were sequenced, as were thousands of samples from patients around the globe: http://nextstrain.org/ncov/global.. By #sequencing it is possible to clearly identify which exact virus is present. By the way...
Nextstrain (same goes for GISAID) is a bunch of Kochs metagenomics cultists. They believe it doesn’t really matter, if the particle really exists, as long as they can pick up some sequences. Little do they understand as long as the real thing wasn’t properly isolated and biochemically and genetically (in one piece) characterized their theoretical genome is just an in silico fantasy, which a computer came up with. The computer fantasy and gab bridging is based on other computer fantasies. Which ultimately came partly from phages and partly from mRNA/DNA sequences found in sick people.
>... it’s still little known that diagnostic laboratories often analyze patient samples (i.e. swab material) also by sequencing in order to not solely rely on PCR - especially if the PCR is ambiguous and/or the patient is in a bad condition!
No, you don’t say.

[Anonymous No.12710250]

>>12710200
Cont.
>and or the patient is in bad condition
Really makes you think. Seems like he is implying the laboratories desperately search for it, even if usual procedures don’t indicate it’s there.
>Back to viruses isolated from patients. If a sample (normal #swab) is taken from a #patient, lung cells can be treated in a petri dish ("#cellculture"). If the sample contained infectious virus, it now infects the cells and multiplies.
>normal swab
You mean nasopharyngeal swab?
>it infects cells
Let’s look at your negative controls, because as far as I know nobody has proven it so far.
>Viruses are extremely small (10-100 times smaller even than E. coli bacteria!)- so how do you know if the virus will multiply?
No they aren’t that small. There are other structures we regularly do research on, which are smaller.
>There are many different ways to find this out, which are also used for mutual confirmation.
Okay. Let’s look.
>And now it gets exciting
Was about time.
>Even without fancy technology, such as PCR or electron microscopy, virus replication is completely unambiguous and can be recognized by everyone: #SARSCoV2 is very aggressive and kills infected cells rapidly during its reproduction! The more virus in the inoculum, the faster.
Super scary. Cells in a petri dish dying? Unheard of. That’s the stuff nightmares are made of.
>electron microscope
Really fancy. But I guess it was done in the mixed garbage from the culture. Hence it’s irrelevant again.
>PCR
Certainly won’t find any mRNA with that.

[Anonymous No.12710426]

>>12710250
Cont.
>The pictures show lung cells (A549-ACE2) infected with SARS-CoV2, such that roughly every 10th cell was infected (first two pictures): after 1.5 days most cells are dead! If you use 10 times more virus, about half a day is already enough!
Worthless without information, what’s in there. Let me bet, you put in the antibiotics etc.
Also, pretty interesting it’s a human lung cell (even weaker since it’s cancer), but you still have to disturb the cell machinery with ACE-2, in order to show the effects. Strange how something so rare in the human respiratory tract can be the target receptor of such an infectious virus.
>This extreme multiplication can also be found with other detection methods. By RT-PCR the amount of virus genomes in the cells can be measured / "counted". In the beginning (2h) the added inoculum is measured, but already 2 hours later the number has increased a hundredfold
Consider our mind blown. The transcriptome changes once the cell is put under worse and worse conditions. That’s really novel. Maybe there is a noble laureate waiting for you. I bet you didn’t even adjust for it. For example by normalizing the scary viral mRNA increase with the change in free mRNA sequences belonging to known enzymes dealing with the stress.
And with overall mRNA levels, which will certainly raise, since the cells are leaking.

[Anonymous No.12710834]

Most will certainly think this is all nuts. But I urge everybody to look into the claims. Think for a moment, why did SARS-CoV-1 allegedly suddenly disappear. Why haven’t we been able to ever isolate and purify virus from body fluids. Why did all the human transmission experiments essentially fail. Why is more than half of our genome allegedly of viral origin. If you have any background in biology, medicine or chemistry, it will be easy to read into the literature once you looked up maybe fifty to a hundred technical terms. And even, if you don’t, once you understand basic biotechnology and genetics it will be easily possible. I promise. It’s not more than maybe 200 hours to realize, what’s truly going on.

[Anonymous No.12710960]

>>12710834
UAGCAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAGCAUAU GACUAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAAA