Nothing will satisfy the "virus doesn't exist" mob. This even includes some who are very well known in exposing medical disinformation (generally on the side of truth). None of these aggressive loud-mouths have any knowledge of virology or molecular biology. Lack of knowledge is understandable and not in itself a "sin". Rudely and hatefully attacking those who do have the knowledge (earned through decades of producing original science data, analysis, and publication) shows severely flawed character. Those screaming the loudest, those hurling insults and worse, have no clue what is a virus, how viruses replicate, how PCR and sequencing function, etc. Nobody knows everything. I don't. When someone reveals information of which I am not knowledgeable, I take it in, evaluate it as best can, but never ruthlessly attack those who have extensive knowledge, making a fool of myself when I don't know what I am talking about.
I could be described as part of the "viruses" don't exist club. I don't attack anyone. Who does this?
I may attack unproven hypotheses that are commonly paraded around as facts. I may attack incorrect conclusions made by authors who take obvious leaps in logic or take assumptions to be facts and perpetuate the circular reasoning that plagues virology and many other fields of bio sci which end up being the demonstrable reason for reneging several "health facts" over the last several decades.
This experiment happens to be the first ever to make an honest attempt at comprehensively testing Koch's postulates as they might be against a "viral pathogen", but with a synthetic genome (which is a very important limitation)
All prior attempts to test Koch's postulates against "viruses" were a) quite flawed due to "isolation" (a subtractive process) being "impossible" and b) failing to demonstrate anything important clinically that wasn't confounded to the moon. And no better postulates exist because KPs are, in essence, the logic underpinning the germ theory of disease. We should have been exploring different hypotheses since long ago, but the bio sci community apparently suffers from severe lack of imagination. Either that or has a huge vested interest continuing the charade of quackery that generates a lot of liability-free revenue.
Regardless of the outcome of the pathogenicity of the synthetic sequence, our learnings will still be quite limited from this study which is essentially a synthetic simulation and almost certainly lacks important biological context and factors we haven't even begun to understand and lack even the means to observe.
Even "pathogenicity" in many cases is a biased term. We do not know how the ecosystem as a whole, with so many symbiotic roles, perceives and adjusts for these hybrid and selectively bred plants. It's possible that the soil food web as a whole finds them as weak links, nutrient imbalancing, or parasitic and makes moves to bring things back to balance using encapsulated genetic packets meant to regulate them and by extension the system as a whole. Fungi are capable of particularly powerful influence over other organisms, for example. Perhaps the existence of "high yield" organisms is an abomination and "mother nature" prefers balance over optimizing for one specific component of the ecosystem. In this case the symbiotic relationships that exist everywhere maybe adjusting for the preservation of the ecosystem as a whole... And pathogenicity is a skewed paradigm to begin with.
In 100 years we, just like we have after every 100 years, will be deriding the then archaic "scientific knowledge" of these times. That is almost certain. To believe otherwise is nothing but delusional.
So the reality is no one knows what they are talking about with regards to submicroscopic, genomic material containing, unalive particles that are theoretically capable of replication and causing disease. Anyone who says contrary wants to sell you something, is funded by someone who does, or doesn't want to be canceled by those who do.
"This experiment happens to be the first ever to make an honest attempt at comprehensively testing Koch's postulates as they might be against a "viral pathogen", but with a synthetic genome (which is a very important limitation)" good point, and very good comment thank you for the well considered response.
I am not going to waste time and energy getting into a debate with the "no virus" mob. I have done this previously with very good intent, with the erroneous conviction that I could help them to understand the reality of viruses. This resulted in one of the mob leaders messaging me back, telling me to eff off. Another made false allegations on the internet and doxxed me. Then I put together a short explanation of only one of several lines of conclusive evidence for the proven existence and pathogenicity of viruses. Koch's Postulates (1884) have exceptions since scientific knowledge has grown so much during the past 140 years. I just checked and Wiki has a good summary of this. For any who may benefit I shall post one of several lines of evidence here. I do not wish to debate as it is akin to debating flat Earth, is frustrating, and pointless. No one has yet refuted this phylogenetic method.
UPDATED 11_15_23
“There is no virus” is a psyop, which seems intended to confuse, to “muddy the waters”, to divide, conquer, and discredit those who challenge the official narrative. The virus is real and infectious, and is not an influenza virus. Please note that the evidence I provide here does not indicate that a severe pandemic occurred. The evidence suggests it may not be more lethal than the flu. These issues are not the subject of this post.
PHYLOGENETIC TREES ARE PROOF POSITIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SARS-COV-2 VIRUS: The evidence presented here indicates only that SARS-CoV-2 does exist and my own personal experience is that the infection in some individuals is quite serious. It damn near killed me, did apparent permanent damage, severely sickened my daughter until I found her a doctor that prescribed ivermectin (she recovered in hours), severely sickened and damaged some friends. This is not “sniffles” as some have said. Easiest way to prove the virus—do an internet search for "phylogenetic tree of SARS-CoV-2". You will find that many independent research groups from many nations around the world have amplified, sequenced, and analyzed full viral nucleotide sequences of variants from tissues of patients and deceased, deposited these sequences in public data bases, and published analyses in peer reviewed journals. These are independent research groups using standard methodology and this cannot be faked (not on this global scale). I am a professional molecular phylogenecist and I have generated and published many such analyses over the years and taught this methodology to graduate students. For the most part, people who promote this "no virus" trick have never done this kind of work, which includes intense educational background, many years at the lab bench including PCR and nucleic acid sequencing, data analysis, and publication. Their misguided followers have never done this either. Those who say proof of virus is not a valid question have zero real world experience or comprehension in molecular phylogenetics, or any related science for that matter, and spread disinformation. Without comprehensive real-world, productive experience they cannot and will not knowledgeably address my point about proof of the virus using phylogenetic analyses. I will be glad to debate those with extensive expertise, but I cannot imagine that there is such a person, as anyone who fully understands what I am saying will agree with me. If you wish to challenge my comment, please begin with a valid refutation of my phylogenetic method of proof so as not to waste time and space advising me to read articles or visit a website, etc.
ISOLATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SARS-COV-2 VIRUS: PCR primers isolate the viral genetic material. Transmission electron microscopy provides images. DNA sequencing identifies the isolated PCR product. Just as PCR and sequencing isolate and identify the viral genetic material, the same methodology is used in crime labs in every state, federal government, and around the world to isolate and identify genetic material from a contaminated crime scene to either exonerate or convict an accused suspect. In forensics, both direct nucleotide sequence and short tandem repeat (STR) analyses are used. STR analysis provides the number of tandem repeats at each locus, from which the nucleotide sequence is inferred. The validity of this methodology is established and accepted by the entire global scientific and legal system. If PCR and sequencing is reliable enough to isolate nucleic acid in order to identify a criminal perpetrator, the same method is also reliable enough to isolate and identify virus genetic material. If a critic does not accept this reality, then by default they do not accept forensic analysis. There are many convicts in prisons around the world that must be released if forensic methodology is flawed. If forensic methodology is not flawed, then virus genetic analysis must be accepted. It is the same methodology. One cannot have it both ways.
I see that now we are talking about SARS-COV-2 specifically and not viruses in general or HLV.
I'll refute the interpretation of your "phylogentic tree" line of reasoning without issue.
The detection of those sequences (importantly, more often found in non-sick individuals than sick individuals, which disproves Koch's Postulates-and NO BETTER POSTULATES EXIST, if so please cite them) in no way established them as the casuative agent of the disease.
Just as the presence of a person's DNA at a crime scene does not prove they committed the crime. They could be an innocent bystander. They could have been attempting to protect the victim. They could be a victim. They could be the first responder to the situation before CSI initiates forensics.
But if you believe that in this instance, correllation equals causation, please explain why you think you are justified in such a belief?
Now...
Re: Science "moved on from Koch's postulates"....
No it didn't. It's tried. But it can't.
There is no substitute for Koch's postulates because they are logical and underpin the germ theory of disease as a whole. Current virus isolation papers still reference KP in trying to establish their found particles and sequences as causative agents of disease, albeit unsatisfactorily. If you don't believe me ask and I will look them back up and provide links to recent published literature.
"Immunity" (more accurately, "specific immunity") was created as a theory that attempts to, based on more circular reasoning that has little real ground to stand on, explain why Koch's postulates don't apply to viruses and the "viruses" are found MORE in healthy hosts than in sick hosts. Even though it's either an oxymoronic or incomplete theory since they later had to create "latent virus" theory to explain why specific immunity fails. All based on circular reasoning since "viral pathogens" have never been established by real data to be the causative agents of any particular disease.
Are there alternative hypotheses that can address the facts regarding genomic sequencing? Yes.
The quite obvious alternative hyptheses are, given there very high rate of detection, that a) they're coincidental and mean nothing related to the disease or even b) since they are more highly correlated with health who is to say they may not be protective?
If you know of evidence that can disprove these hypotheses that better align with clinical fact, please make some kind of reference to them and I will look them up.
Also of note is that a nearly identical evidentiary situation exists regarding bacteria and their (unestablished) causative role in disease. Even the study of bacteria have debunked KP and frankly the germ theory of disease as a whole, whether or not the scientific community wants to come to grips with this yet or not. Differ in opinion? Name a "pathogen" and let's take a look at the literature.
I am happy to be proved wrong. I am only following the data that is actually published. Maybe I missed something and the half dozen other molecular biologists, microbiologists, and virologists that have taken up debate with me can't seem to remember it either.
Re: the disease: I do not deny the existence of the condition that has been named COVID-19. I had a "cold" with weeks of strong and lingering fatigue and lost my sense of smell in early April of 2020. I just call BS that quality scientific evidence is supporting the alleged popular "cause." As for the disease, there are several environmental differences that began or at least intenstified between late 2019 and 2020 and beyond that have not been studied at all in relation to the symptomatology in question. But this is a separate topic for debate.
But the presence of these sequences alone, no matter how many times found around the world, without the additional experimentation necessary to establish causation of a specific symptomatology when these sequences are present and that is also absent in the absence of the sequences (or basically fulfill KP)...
does zero to support the "viral" hypothesis which has never been confirmed in any conclusive way by any published work. Kevin's here would be the first study (albeit informal for now) to start to make inroads into establishing the theory, albeit via an almost entirely synthetic simulation, which would, one day, when we have the technological capabilities maybe, need to be confirmed with a non-synthetic, real, subtractive isolation process in which the true, wild, "virus" could be studied.
Done.
Next line of evidence please.
It's nice to see someone who believes in virus theory and is educated actually stand up with some sort of argument. Although if you want your lines of reasoning to be addressed, it is only kind to reciprocate and address those that individuals with different opinions raise - such as mine in my reply to you above.
I’ve not seen Chris Masons spatial transcriptomics work challenged.
Here they demonstrate only the symptomatic have C19 and since they sequenced all RNA present they can rule out other viruses.
They also use spatial transcriptomics to localize the virus in diseased tissue.
I agree some viruses may be passengers and this has been abused in HIV and once there was a PCR testing market that could benefit from exaggerating correlations into causation.
Where Koch’s falls short are in cases where viruses may be the last straw that breaks the camels back and are not pathogenic in all hosts.
In the case of HpLVd testing, growers get more yield from their grows if they test and remove HpLVd positive plants.
At the end of the day, they don’t care about the mechanism, just the financial outcome that tracking these molecules provides.
Growers don’t face the ethical challenges of socializing herd health.
You can cull plants that pose risk.
You should never do this with humans for obvious ethical reasons but also because it may backfire longer term as you don’t have humans in contained growing environments where you can predict such yield outcomes.
Therefor you can’t ever justify the sacrifice of a few for the herd as who is to decide what constitutes human yield? To suggest it is possible is to anoint a deciding class and this becomes a breach of human liberty and equality.
Has there been anyone who has raised a decent challenge to the specificity of the RNA fragments found in CV19 patients to this "viral" genome?
Also, isn't it amazing how there are no other viruses. The ubiquitous pathogens get together and divide up territory. That's civility. What's the theory for how this works?
Although, intitally, from your comments it sounds like I'm going to hit the wall of Koch's 3rd postulate: The microorganism must cause disease when introduced to a healthy experimental animal.
Obviously, just because a sequence is present doesn't mean it was the cause of the disease. It could have an affinity for the diseased condition or what caused it. This is extremely common with other microorganisms. It could even be a type of symbiotic response to help resolve the (by-other-means-caused) diseased condition. Technology does not yet exist that allows us to rule these out.
I can undersand how many people think that the totality of evidence appears to lean toward inculpating these particles as causative of disease, as oxymoronic as the theory gets when you try to fit the facts to the theory, because we can't see what started things and what's really happening, but honestly this only happens when the evidence is viewed with strong bias and little imagination. (and probably a lot of -misplaced- hope in "smart people")
In plants, although I believe much of the problems we have likely stem from removing plants from natural growing conditions, a naturally developed and maintained soil food web, companion plants, and even resilient genetics... I admit that if I were a grower at this time with those plants and detected genetic sequences that consistently *correlate* with a condition that causes lower yield, I would cull the plants or make whatever data driven decision that is shown to produce a higher yield. Because it's a plant. And the farm and plants I have are what I have and I don't want the business to fail. I can't change the world, but I'd be hoping the scientists were out there figuring out how to do so. Turns out there not. Because there's easier money to be made in optimizing current systems and developing patents on the next iterations within the current system, flawed as it may be.
But with humans, an intervention targeting eradication of a poorly understood component of a larger ecosystem may indeed prove to be disastrous - as it has turned out to be. Similar to how the gov-sponsored eradication of wolves at Yellowstone caused a huge trophic cascade that harmed the ecosystem as a whole. "Fighting" covid may have seemed noble to most people because of our limited viewpoint but it's proved to be one of the stupidest things ever done (except for certain pharma execs and investors). 3 years of 20% persistant excess mortality not attributable to the pathogen. This is what we get for playing god (and shooting blind on top of it). But that's if we assume a righteous motive.
At this point, we all know we would have been better off by improving the health of the "terrain" by means that we already knew to be mostly safe and largely effective.
Terrain theory adherents, or whatever you want to call them, are one of the very few groups of people in the world, that would have made the right call in terms of interventions. Whether they are right about the existence and nature of the germs, the totality of evidence is strongly suggestive that a focus on improving hosts' health and not fighting the germ would effectively yielded vastly improved outcomes in terms of years of life lost and not just in this pandemic.
The only way to ethically intervene with humans is to educate, inform of potential benefits and risks, and vigorously promote proven methods of improving health. Maybe even shield the populace from toxic sources. Our current system is captured by vested interests to do mostly the opposite. And the bio/med sci community are largely subjugated to those interests. And it's showing in the data.
"Here they demonstrate only the symptomatic have C19 and since they sequenced all RNA present they can rule out other viruses."
Are you saying that this research produced negative evidence for the ideas of asymptomatic covid and a host "carrying" covid?
In that case it would be remarkable that the work remains unchallenged as asymptomatic "carriers" are a very important part of the official narrative.
That's fine. But your line of reasoning was just countered. So it's not the "no-viruser" this time that refuses to accept the possiblility that there are other explanations that can account for the facts.
Ignorant idiot or nuts, likely both. QUOTE FROM YOUR POST: ""Immunity" (more accurately, "specific immunity") was created as a theory that attempts to, based on more circular reasoning that has little real ground to stand on..."
As a child I had measles, mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, and scarlet fever. Was around most of those in later years and never was reinfected. Immunization with cow pox almost wiped small pox from the planet. Dammit, you goaded me into a minimal response. I could tear everything you said to shreds, just like flat Earth, but I already said SEVERAL TIMES that I refuse to debate with ignorant idiots who play a game of pseudo-intellectual "debate" and spread harmful disinformation. Do not respond.
Kudos to the "virus doesn't exist" mob. It propelled, perhaps in part, Mckernan and his associates to undertake this amazing endeavor. The "virus doesn't exist" mob, actually everyone of us, owes a big thanks to Mckernan et al here irrespective of what the outcome is. I cannot wait to see part 3!
He's informing us along the way. Nothing wrong with that. He needs to keep his readership interested. We just need to be patient and have proper expectations.
"There is no “its never been isolated” *canard* with synthetic genomes."
Kevin, what is the need for making inflammatory statements towards critics of "virus theory" (who are obviously correct in this instance) in this report on your experiment?
Isolation is a SUBTRACTIVE process, that of removing one thing from others for the purpose, in this case, of observation and experiment. It is not a manufacturing process via cell culture. (It's also not a synthetic manufacturing process, as is being done in your study) Isolation of a *wild* viral pathogen has NEVER been done in a way that allows us to observe, characterize, and study the exact particles that are theorized to have invaded a host organism and hijacked it's cellular machinery. (Even though, according to the virus hypothesis, the host tissue samples would, by necessity be enormous and biologically ideal CELL CULTURES)
Here it is again: Isolate it (remove it) from the original gigantic cell culture it supposedly lives in, the host's tissues.
That's the exact definition that has always been used by those questioning "isolation".
WHY is that impossible? Why can't they be isolated without an *additional* cell culture, when they are already thriving inside of one in the host's tissues?
That's the logical conundrum.
Or maybe answer this: how many particles are on the aerosols that seem to so effectively transmit them? Is it anywhere near the billions, as is typically used in cultured inoculations prepared for challenge models that are always forced deep inside the host instead being misted into the air?
Can you see the sharp departure the model takes from how realistic transmission would have to be occurring, if it was?
It's exactly that that causes skepticism. Well that and the evasive answers and ad hominem coming from the ones that are supposed to be the "experts".
Nothing will satisfy the "virus doesn't exist" mob. This even includes some who are very well known in exposing medical disinformation (generally on the side of truth). None of these aggressive loud-mouths have any knowledge of virology or molecular biology. Lack of knowledge is understandable and not in itself a "sin". Rudely and hatefully attacking those who do have the knowledge (earned through decades of producing original science data, analysis, and publication) shows severely flawed character. Those screaming the loudest, those hurling insults and worse, have no clue what is a virus, how viruses replicate, how PCR and sequencing function, etc. Nobody knows everything. I don't. When someone reveals information of which I am not knowledgeable, I take it in, evaluate it as best can, but never ruthlessly attack those who have extensive knowledge, making a fool of myself when I don't know what I am talking about.
I could be described as part of the "viruses" don't exist club. I don't attack anyone. Who does this?
I may attack unproven hypotheses that are commonly paraded around as facts. I may attack incorrect conclusions made by authors who take obvious leaps in logic or take assumptions to be facts and perpetuate the circular reasoning that plagues virology and many other fields of bio sci which end up being the demonstrable reason for reneging several "health facts" over the last several decades.
This experiment happens to be the first ever to make an honest attempt at comprehensively testing Koch's postulates as they might be against a "viral pathogen", but with a synthetic genome (which is a very important limitation)
All prior attempts to test Koch's postulates against "viruses" were a) quite flawed due to "isolation" (a subtractive process) being "impossible" and b) failing to demonstrate anything important clinically that wasn't confounded to the moon. And no better postulates exist because KPs are, in essence, the logic underpinning the germ theory of disease. We should have been exploring different hypotheses since long ago, but the bio sci community apparently suffers from severe lack of imagination. Either that or has a huge vested interest continuing the charade of quackery that generates a lot of liability-free revenue.
Regardless of the outcome of the pathogenicity of the synthetic sequence, our learnings will still be quite limited from this study which is essentially a synthetic simulation and almost certainly lacks important biological context and factors we haven't even begun to understand and lack even the means to observe.
Even "pathogenicity" in many cases is a biased term. We do not know how the ecosystem as a whole, with so many symbiotic roles, perceives and adjusts for these hybrid and selectively bred plants. It's possible that the soil food web as a whole finds them as weak links, nutrient imbalancing, or parasitic and makes moves to bring things back to balance using encapsulated genetic packets meant to regulate them and by extension the system as a whole. Fungi are capable of particularly powerful influence over other organisms, for example. Perhaps the existence of "high yield" organisms is an abomination and "mother nature" prefers balance over optimizing for one specific component of the ecosystem. In this case the symbiotic relationships that exist everywhere maybe adjusting for the preservation of the ecosystem as a whole... And pathogenicity is a skewed paradigm to begin with.
In 100 years we, just like we have after every 100 years, will be deriding the then archaic "scientific knowledge" of these times. That is almost certain. To believe otherwise is nothing but delusional.
So the reality is no one knows what they are talking about with regards to submicroscopic, genomic material containing, unalive particles that are theoretically capable of replication and causing disease. Anyone who says contrary wants to sell you something, is funded by someone who does, or doesn't want to be canceled by those who do.
"This experiment happens to be the first ever to make an honest attempt at comprehensively testing Koch's postulates as they might be against a "viral pathogen", but with a synthetic genome (which is a very important limitation)" good point, and very good comment thank you for the well considered response.
I am not going to waste time and energy getting into a debate with the "no virus" mob. I have done this previously with very good intent, with the erroneous conviction that I could help them to understand the reality of viruses. This resulted in one of the mob leaders messaging me back, telling me to eff off. Another made false allegations on the internet and doxxed me. Then I put together a short explanation of only one of several lines of conclusive evidence for the proven existence and pathogenicity of viruses. Koch's Postulates (1884) have exceptions since scientific knowledge has grown so much during the past 140 years. I just checked and Wiki has a good summary of this. For any who may benefit I shall post one of several lines of evidence here. I do not wish to debate as it is akin to debating flat Earth, is frustrating, and pointless. No one has yet refuted this phylogenetic method.
UPDATED 11_15_23
“There is no virus” is a psyop, which seems intended to confuse, to “muddy the waters”, to divide, conquer, and discredit those who challenge the official narrative. The virus is real and infectious, and is not an influenza virus. Please note that the evidence I provide here does not indicate that a severe pandemic occurred. The evidence suggests it may not be more lethal than the flu. These issues are not the subject of this post.
PHYLOGENETIC TREES ARE PROOF POSITIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SARS-COV-2 VIRUS: The evidence presented here indicates only that SARS-CoV-2 does exist and my own personal experience is that the infection in some individuals is quite serious. It damn near killed me, did apparent permanent damage, severely sickened my daughter until I found her a doctor that prescribed ivermectin (she recovered in hours), severely sickened and damaged some friends. This is not “sniffles” as some have said. Easiest way to prove the virus—do an internet search for "phylogenetic tree of SARS-CoV-2". You will find that many independent research groups from many nations around the world have amplified, sequenced, and analyzed full viral nucleotide sequences of variants from tissues of patients and deceased, deposited these sequences in public data bases, and published analyses in peer reviewed journals. These are independent research groups using standard methodology and this cannot be faked (not on this global scale). I am a professional molecular phylogenecist and I have generated and published many such analyses over the years and taught this methodology to graduate students. For the most part, people who promote this "no virus" trick have never done this kind of work, which includes intense educational background, many years at the lab bench including PCR and nucleic acid sequencing, data analysis, and publication. Their misguided followers have never done this either. Those who say proof of virus is not a valid question have zero real world experience or comprehension in molecular phylogenetics, or any related science for that matter, and spread disinformation. Without comprehensive real-world, productive experience they cannot and will not knowledgeably address my point about proof of the virus using phylogenetic analyses. I will be glad to debate those with extensive expertise, but I cannot imagine that there is such a person, as anyone who fully understands what I am saying will agree with me. If you wish to challenge my comment, please begin with a valid refutation of my phylogenetic method of proof so as not to waste time and space advising me to read articles or visit a website, etc.
ISOLATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SARS-COV-2 VIRUS: PCR primers isolate the viral genetic material. Transmission electron microscopy provides images. DNA sequencing identifies the isolated PCR product. Just as PCR and sequencing isolate and identify the viral genetic material, the same methodology is used in crime labs in every state, federal government, and around the world to isolate and identify genetic material from a contaminated crime scene to either exonerate or convict an accused suspect. In forensics, both direct nucleotide sequence and short tandem repeat (STR) analyses are used. STR analysis provides the number of tandem repeats at each locus, from which the nucleotide sequence is inferred. The validity of this methodology is established and accepted by the entire global scientific and legal system. If PCR and sequencing is reliable enough to isolate nucleic acid in order to identify a criminal perpetrator, the same method is also reliable enough to isolate and identify virus genetic material. If a critic does not accept this reality, then by default they do not accept forensic analysis. There are many convicts in prisons around the world that must be released if forensic methodology is flawed. If forensic methodology is not flawed, then virus genetic analysis must be accepted. It is the same methodology. One cannot have it both ways.
I see that now we are talking about SARS-COV-2 specifically and not viruses in general or HLV.
I'll refute the interpretation of your "phylogentic tree" line of reasoning without issue.
The detection of those sequences (importantly, more often found in non-sick individuals than sick individuals, which disproves Koch's Postulates-and NO BETTER POSTULATES EXIST, if so please cite them) in no way established them as the casuative agent of the disease.
Just as the presence of a person's DNA at a crime scene does not prove they committed the crime. They could be an innocent bystander. They could have been attempting to protect the victim. They could be a victim. They could be the first responder to the situation before CSI initiates forensics.
But if you believe that in this instance, correllation equals causation, please explain why you think you are justified in such a belief?
Now...
Re: Science "moved on from Koch's postulates"....
No it didn't. It's tried. But it can't.
There is no substitute for Koch's postulates because they are logical and underpin the germ theory of disease as a whole. Current virus isolation papers still reference KP in trying to establish their found particles and sequences as causative agents of disease, albeit unsatisfactorily. If you don't believe me ask and I will look them back up and provide links to recent published literature.
"Immunity" (more accurately, "specific immunity") was created as a theory that attempts to, based on more circular reasoning that has little real ground to stand on, explain why Koch's postulates don't apply to viruses and the "viruses" are found MORE in healthy hosts than in sick hosts. Even though it's either an oxymoronic or incomplete theory since they later had to create "latent virus" theory to explain why specific immunity fails. All based on circular reasoning since "viral pathogens" have never been established by real data to be the causative agents of any particular disease.
Are there alternative hypotheses that can address the facts regarding genomic sequencing? Yes.
The quite obvious alternative hyptheses are, given there very high rate of detection, that a) they're coincidental and mean nothing related to the disease or even b) since they are more highly correlated with health who is to say they may not be protective?
If you know of evidence that can disprove these hypotheses that better align with clinical fact, please make some kind of reference to them and I will look them up.
Also of note is that a nearly identical evidentiary situation exists regarding bacteria and their (unestablished) causative role in disease. Even the study of bacteria have debunked KP and frankly the germ theory of disease as a whole, whether or not the scientific community wants to come to grips with this yet or not. Differ in opinion? Name a "pathogen" and let's take a look at the literature.
I am happy to be proved wrong. I am only following the data that is actually published. Maybe I missed something and the half dozen other molecular biologists, microbiologists, and virologists that have taken up debate with me can't seem to remember it either.
Re: the disease: I do not deny the existence of the condition that has been named COVID-19. I had a "cold" with weeks of strong and lingering fatigue and lost my sense of smell in early April of 2020. I just call BS that quality scientific evidence is supporting the alleged popular "cause." As for the disease, there are several environmental differences that began or at least intenstified between late 2019 and 2020 and beyond that have not been studied at all in relation to the symptomatology in question. But this is a separate topic for debate.
But the presence of these sequences alone, no matter how many times found around the world, without the additional experimentation necessary to establish causation of a specific symptomatology when these sequences are present and that is also absent in the absence of the sequences (or basically fulfill KP)...
does zero to support the "viral" hypothesis which has never been confirmed in any conclusive way by any published work. Kevin's here would be the first study (albeit informal for now) to start to make inroads into establishing the theory, albeit via an almost entirely synthetic simulation, which would, one day, when we have the technological capabilities maybe, need to be confirmed with a non-synthetic, real, subtractive isolation process in which the true, wild, "virus" could be studied.
Done.
Next line of evidence please.
It's nice to see someone who believes in virus theory and is educated actually stand up with some sort of argument. Although if you want your lines of reasoning to be addressed, it is only kind to reciprocate and address those that individuals with different opinions raise - such as mine in my reply to you above.
I’ve not seen Chris Masons spatial transcriptomics work challenged.
Here they demonstrate only the symptomatic have C19 and since they sequenced all RNA present they can rule out other viruses.
They also use spatial transcriptomics to localize the virus in diseased tissue.
I agree some viruses may be passengers and this has been abused in HIV and once there was a PCR testing market that could benefit from exaggerating correlations into causation.
Where Koch’s falls short are in cases where viruses may be the last straw that breaks the camels back and are not pathogenic in all hosts.
In the case of HpLVd testing, growers get more yield from their grows if they test and remove HpLVd positive plants.
At the end of the day, they don’t care about the mechanism, just the financial outcome that tracking these molecules provides.
Growers don’t face the ethical challenges of socializing herd health.
You can cull plants that pose risk.
You should never do this with humans for obvious ethical reasons but also because it may backfire longer term as you don’t have humans in contained growing environments where you can predict such yield outcomes.
Therefor you can’t ever justify the sacrifice of a few for the herd as who is to decide what constitutes human yield? To suggest it is possible is to anoint a deciding class and this becomes a breach of human liberty and equality.
https://x.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1344683958613782528?s=20
Has there been anyone who has raised a decent challenge to the specificity of the RNA fragments found in CV19 patients to this "viral" genome?
Also, isn't it amazing how there are no other viruses. The ubiquitous pathogens get together and divide up territory. That's civility. What's the theory for how this works?
I'll be working though Mason's work now, thanks.
Although, intitally, from your comments it sounds like I'm going to hit the wall of Koch's 3rd postulate: The microorganism must cause disease when introduced to a healthy experimental animal.
Obviously, just because a sequence is present doesn't mean it was the cause of the disease. It could have an affinity for the diseased condition or what caused it. This is extremely common with other microorganisms. It could even be a type of symbiotic response to help resolve the (by-other-means-caused) diseased condition. Technology does not yet exist that allows us to rule these out.
I can undersand how many people think that the totality of evidence appears to lean toward inculpating these particles as causative of disease, as oxymoronic as the theory gets when you try to fit the facts to the theory, because we can't see what started things and what's really happening, but honestly this only happens when the evidence is viewed with strong bias and little imagination. (and probably a lot of -misplaced- hope in "smart people")
In plants, although I believe much of the problems we have likely stem from removing plants from natural growing conditions, a naturally developed and maintained soil food web, companion plants, and even resilient genetics... I admit that if I were a grower at this time with those plants and detected genetic sequences that consistently *correlate* with a condition that causes lower yield, I would cull the plants or make whatever data driven decision that is shown to produce a higher yield. Because it's a plant. And the farm and plants I have are what I have and I don't want the business to fail. I can't change the world, but I'd be hoping the scientists were out there figuring out how to do so. Turns out there not. Because there's easier money to be made in optimizing current systems and developing patents on the next iterations within the current system, flawed as it may be.
But with humans, an intervention targeting eradication of a poorly understood component of a larger ecosystem may indeed prove to be disastrous - as it has turned out to be. Similar to how the gov-sponsored eradication of wolves at Yellowstone caused a huge trophic cascade that harmed the ecosystem as a whole. "Fighting" covid may have seemed noble to most people because of our limited viewpoint but it's proved to be one of the stupidest things ever done (except for certain pharma execs and investors). 3 years of 20% persistant excess mortality not attributable to the pathogen. This is what we get for playing god (and shooting blind on top of it). But that's if we assume a righteous motive.
At this point, we all know we would have been better off by improving the health of the "terrain" by means that we already knew to be mostly safe and largely effective.
Terrain theory adherents, or whatever you want to call them, are one of the very few groups of people in the world, that would have made the right call in terms of interventions. Whether they are right about the existence and nature of the germs, the totality of evidence is strongly suggestive that a focus on improving hosts' health and not fighting the germ would effectively yielded vastly improved outcomes in terms of years of life lost and not just in this pandemic.
The only way to ethically intervene with humans is to educate, inform of potential benefits and risks, and vigorously promote proven methods of improving health. Maybe even shield the populace from toxic sources. Our current system is captured by vested interests to do mostly the opposite. And the bio/med sci community are largely subjugated to those interests. And it's showing in the data.
"Here they demonstrate only the symptomatic have C19 and since they sequenced all RNA present they can rule out other viruses."
Are you saying that this research produced negative evidence for the ideas of asymptomatic covid and a host "carrying" covid?
In that case it would be remarkable that the work remains unchallenged as asymptomatic "carriers" are a very important part of the official narrative.
"we are talking about SARS-COV-2"
"WE" are NOT talking.
That's fine. But your line of reasoning was just countered. So it's not the "no-viruser" this time that refuses to accept the possiblility that there are other explanations that can account for the facts.
Ignorant idiot or nuts, likely both. QUOTE FROM YOUR POST: ""Immunity" (more accurately, "specific immunity") was created as a theory that attempts to, based on more circular reasoning that has little real ground to stand on..."
As a child I had measles, mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, and scarlet fever. Was around most of those in later years and never was reinfected. Immunization with cow pox almost wiped small pox from the planet. Dammit, you goaded me into a minimal response. I could tear everything you said to shreds, just like flat Earth, but I already said SEVERAL TIMES that I refuse to debate with ignorant idiots who play a game of pseudo-intellectual "debate" and spread harmful disinformation. Do not respond.
Kudos to the "virus doesn't exist" mob. It propelled, perhaps in part, Mckernan and his associates to undertake this amazing endeavor. The "virus doesn't exist" mob, actually everyone of us, owes a big thanks to Mckernan et al here irrespective of what the outcome is. I cannot wait to see part 3!
Agreed!
Pretty awesome.
But why not wait for flowering to finish before publishing the results to demonstrate pathegenicity?
He's informing us along the way. Nothing wrong with that. He needs to keep his readership interested. We just need to be patient and have proper expectations.
Yeah true.
"There is no “its never been isolated” *canard* with synthetic genomes."
Kevin, what is the need for making inflammatory statements towards critics of "virus theory" (who are obviously correct in this instance) in this report on your experiment?
Isolation is a SUBTRACTIVE process, that of removing one thing from others for the purpose, in this case, of observation and experiment. It is not a manufacturing process via cell culture. (It's also not a synthetic manufacturing process, as is being done in your study) Isolation of a *wild* viral pathogen has NEVER been done in a way that allows us to observe, characterize, and study the exact particles that are theorized to have invaded a host organism and hijacked it's cellular machinery. (Even though, according to the virus hypothesis, the host tissue samples would, by necessity be enormous and biologically ideal CELL CULTURES)
Or which part of that is wrong and why?
There is no level of isolation that will satisfy your church.
You can’t define when it’s complete so you are ignored
I can define it and just did.
Here it is again: Isolate it (remove it) from the original gigantic cell culture it supposedly lives in, the host's tissues.
That's the exact definition that has always been used by those questioning "isolation".
WHY is that impossible? Why can't they be isolated without an *additional* cell culture, when they are already thriving inside of one in the host's tissues?
That's the logical conundrum.
Or maybe answer this: how many particles are on the aerosols that seem to so effectively transmit them? Is it anywhere near the billions, as is typically used in cultured inoculations prepared for challenge models that are always forced deep inside the host instead being misted into the air?
Can you see the sharp departure the model takes from how realistic transmission would have to be occurring, if it was?
It's exactly that that causes skepticism. Well that and the evasive answers and ad hominem coming from the ones that are supposed to be the "experts".
When the genome is synthesized ground up, it is isolated..
Every other zero virus culltie makes ridiculous demands on isolation. There is no purity level they will define or accept.
You didn’t address this.
What purity level do you accept.
There is no such thing as 100% of any biological. … unless you synthesize it.
Which we did and you still don’t accept.