- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
To begin, it is difficult in knowing where to begin, but my intentions are to inform and educate with regards to viruses, virology, biology and molecular biology to the best of my ability. Of course, I’m one man and far from omniscient. However, I do have some education, experience and the benefit of years of research in these subjects
Secondly, virology and science and general is the work of humanity, and thus there are flaws and shortcomings, but our knowledge of viruses, biology and science in general has progressed a great deal in the past 120 years.
Lately, however, the authoritarian assertions of a group of elitists and others who would call themselves “officials” and “scientists”, and “The Science” in the case of one “Dr.” Fauci, have caused an undermining of confidence in science and the knowledge gained thereby by the painstaking work of thousands of dedicated scientists over decades.
There is now a great deal of skepticism in surrounding the virology and even “germ theory” in general. Skepticism, however, is actually good for science. Blind acceptance is the domain of religion, not science. Thus, I look upon this phenomenon as an opportunity for improvement in both science and relations between scientific professionals and those with whom they wish to communicate their findings.
Now, specifically, perhaps I will begin with the “isolation” problem. Since the beginning of the infamous COVID pandemic, there have been those claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus said to be responsible has never been “isolated”. One Jon Rappaport has been particularly vocal in this. Others simply claim that NO virus has ever been isolated or proven to exist or cause disease.
My first thought was “poppycock”, as there are myriad cases of viral “isolation”, including of SARS-CoV-2, so my efforts to understand what criteria some of the skeptics would consider valid led me finally to one Dr. Mark Bailey, who has written the cheerfully critical diatribe “A Farewell to Virology”. He had an enumerated list he’d accept as proof of viral “isolation” and that viruses cause disease:
#https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SETTLING-THE-VIRUS-DEBATE-Source.pdf
(Due to the one-link-per-post policy of this forum, many of my links will be “commented-out” with octothorpes, so just remove that when copying and pasting the link into your favorite browser.)
Viral Isolation Criteria- Dr. Mark Bailey
1. A unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. The purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. The proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. The purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. Particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.(He then suggests an alternative study, which I’d say has even less chance of being done, unless he’d like to pony up the funds…)
Alright, seems reasonable enough, though all of those requirements aren’t typically fulfilled by one paper/one study or at one time, though there is no “one-paper” requirement given. Also, there is a caveat in the “purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness” requirement, as the natural exposure route might not involved purified viral particles at all, and in fact might not be precisely known, at least for some time following the discovery of a viral illness.
Now, as is evident in Dr. Bailey’s requirements, as well as my experience hearing the concerns of virus skeptics, there seems to be a general distrust of viral culture, i.e. the propagation of viruses in cell-culture as must be done if you’d like more viruses, as they have no way to replicate on their own.
Secondly, there is a distrust of molecular biology, and gene sequencing in particular, as a genetic sequence is thought to just be an “in-silico” ghost of something purely fabricated by a computer program.
So, with this in mind, let us begin to explore the field of virology, and perhaps discover what validity it might possess and what evidence exists.
I’d like to begin here, with an author at Lew Rockwell’s site:
#https://is.gd/VMkJ01
“CDC confessed they have NO studies that scientifically prove – or provide evidence of – the existence of the alleged Dengue virus… or even records of the alleged “virus” being found in and purified from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever.”
…Which is the apparent result of a Freedom of Information Act request from a Christine Massey
Her request (in summary):
“1. All studies/reports in the possession, custody or control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that scientifically prove/evidence the existence of the alleged Dengue virus (showing that the alleged particle exists and causes the disease that it’s alleged to cause);
Or
2. If the CDC has no studies responsive to #1 above, then please indicate such explicitly, and provide all studies and/or reports in the possession, custody or control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describing the purification of particles that are alleged to be said virus(es), directly from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement, with purification confirmed via EM imaging (the images must be available as well).”
If you follow her rabbit-hole, the CDC said this:
“A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. Specifically, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases searched using the above information, but no records were found”.
Say it isn’t so.
How am I not surprised, because, if she’s asking such a thing every time, along with her requirements (includes no “in-silico” gene sequence, no viral-culture, etc.), for the typical government bureaucrat (probably some intern, in this case), that all sounds like too much work.
I’ll try and be of assistance.
This also allows me a segue to introduce virology from the beginning, as the study of dengue and the viruses that cause it go back to the genesis of virology itself.
Virology really begins with the work of Martus Beijerinck concerning tobacco mosaic virus. Before his work in the late 19th Century, the term “virus” could apply to any infectious agent, or even venom, originally.
An excellent article detailing the beginnings of virology can be found here-
#https://www.jstor.org/stable/56736That paper contains a great summary of Beijerinck’s findings:
“1. Crude extracts from diseased plants passing through porcelain filter candles do not show bacterial growth during three months of storage, but remain infective. Subsequent plant inoculation by injection readily leads to infection and reproduction of the characteristic
symptoms.
2. Unlike bacteria, the infectious agent diffuses laterally into agar for at least 2 mm.
3. The agent multiplies in plants, as shown by serial transfers from plant to plant, and cannot be a toxin.
4. The agent multiplies only in actively growing tissues. It is not able to grow by itself but is carried away by the growth of dividing cells where multiplication in the living protoplasm is enormous.
5. Transport is `through the phloem’, upwards and downwards according to laws directing the movement of nutrients; in stems it is primarily vertical with little lateral spread.
6. The agent resembles living cells in that it is killed at 90oC.
7. The agent may be dried in infected leaves (in an herbarium) and in filter paper soaked in infectious sap.
8. The agent may remain in dry soil during winter and infect plants from the soil; it can also be transferred in potting soil.”
9. The agent retains infectivity after alcohol precipitation from sap and subsequent desiccation at 40 oC.Beijerinck didn’t believe his virus to be “corpuscular”, but instead referred to it as “contagium vivum fluidum”, or some kind of living fluid contagion.
A translation of that original paper can be found here:
#https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/apsnetfeatures/Documents/1998/BeijerckSpotDiseaseTobaccoLeaves.PDFAt the same time, Friedrich Loeffler and Paul Frosch were conducting experiments on foot-and-mouth disease with the following findings (this according to secondary sources, as I have yet to find the original papers):
“1. The disease can be artificially transferred in lymph from epidermal vesicles; bacteria that these sometimes contain do not reproduce the disease.
2. Lymph, filtered for isolation of an agent responsible for immunity developing soon after infection, is still infectious.
3. The infectious agent cannot be grown in artificial media.
4. The filtrate does not contain a toxin responsible for the disease but `as yet undetectable disease agents so small that they were able to pass the filter pores retaining the smallest bacteria’ including those of Bacillus fluorescens previously added as a control.
5. The infectious agent must be so small that it would indeed escape visible detection by microscopy (according to calculations by Professor Abbe, Jena, about the limit of resolution of the microscope used).
6. The agent is not soluble but ‘corpuscular’ because it is retained by a one-pored Kitasato filter.”I’d like to get back to foot-and-mouth disease later, but for now it is evident what the implications of these early studies were. These researchers had found minute pathogens, smaller than any bacterium, and they weren’t toxins. They also couldn’t proliferate without the help of living cells. Other than that, they really had no idea what a “virus” actually was.
This would be the case for decades. Enter the era of the “filterable virus”.
An excellent example of a paper typical for this time is given here:
#https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2180297/“A Filterable Virus, The Cause of Infectious Laryngotracheitis of Chickens”
The summary and conclusions are given here:
“1. Experiments have shown that tracheal exudate from two strains of laryngotracheitis of chickens from New Jersey and two from California when suspended in bouillon and passed through Berkefeld V filters will produce the disease. Two of six Berkefeld N filters allowed
the etiological agent to pass, whereas four did not. Attempts to produce the disease with Seitz filtrates were unsuccessful. These results demonstrate that laryngotracheitis is caused by a filtrable virus that because of its size or some other property does not pass readily through the finer filters.
2. It has been shown that the sera from fowls that have recovered from an infection with one of the New Jersey viruses will neutralize the same strain and also the one California strain tested. In order to demonstrate neutralization conclusively it was necessary to titrate samples of dried virus and in the tests to use approximately ten infecting doses.
3. The virus dried over calcium chloride for 10 days and then stored in the refrigerator for 60 days produced disease. Kept over calcium chloride for a month it was still active and when dried by Swift’s method it remained alive for 5 months.”Essentially, they made chickens sick with artificial infection with previously collected virus, took exudate from the tracheae of the sick chickens, and purified that with centrifugation and various filters. They then took those filtrates and attempted to infect other chickens, with some success, depending on the filter. The control bacteria they added to the centrifuged fluid, however, were always filtered. No bacteria could be cultured from the filtrates.
Berkefeld filters, by the way, are simply made from diatomaceous earth, with the “N” variety having smaller pores than the “V” variety. They are still used to remove bacteria and purify water. (*Mycoplasma, which is a very small bacterium, may sometimes pass through these filters.)
Now, studies of this era are historical and usually not as rigorous, comprehensive or definitive as later work. There would be no claimed electron micrographs of a virus until 1941 (the first commercial transmission electron microscope became available in 1938).
Studies such as this, however, demonstrate, at very least, successful attempts to purify viruses (in some capacity) from diseased organisms, show that they cause specific diseases, and that they differ from bacteria and other causes of illness in their properties.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.