Alternatively, I'll show the intentional deception myself, from Christine's own words:
“All records in the possession, custody or control of the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined wi…
Alternatively, I'll show the intentional deception myself, from Christine's own words:
“All records in the possession, custody or control of the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells). Please note that I am using "isolation" in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else. I am not requesting records where "isolation of SARS-COV-2" refers instead to:
• the culturing of something, or
• the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or
• the sequencing of something.
I had thought that this request was strictly negative, but Christine did make a positive request, which I will reword for simplicity, "do you have any records of a virus sample obtained simply by filtering and not potentially altered by culturing or genetic amplification"
And the truth is, the first time that tobacco mosaic virus extract was separated out and used to cause new viral damage to tobacco leaves, in 1892, Dimitri Ivanovsky used the very technique Christine was requesting. But then since 1913, when Steinhardt, Israeli, and Lambert first learned it was possible to grow viruses in a cell culture, this technique has been very commonly used to grow many new copies of the original filtered virus.
And at the risk of sounding repetitious, they grow corn in dirt, they grow viruses in cells.
But what Christine has done here is to say, using only pre-1913 tools, do you have any virus samples? You can't use any of the techniques that all biologists use.
And that's why I say this is cagily written, guaranteed to get a negative response in its content, because it guarantees that no biologist works like she requested , and then it is cagily directed to the National Research Council of Canada , a big bureaucracy employing 4000 full-time and many more contract and affiliate, and no bureaucrat is going to stick his neck out for anything, let alone an obvious trick question.
This is all par for the course for the viruses-don't-exist crowd - they are verbally facile , unvaryingly negative - never presenting any positive research findings on any of their speculations that holds any water (5G anyone?). They posture and pose in white coats, but there's no science to them. Just a bit of science-sounding words.
Two scientists contributed to the discovery of the first virus, Tobacco mosaic virus. Ivanoski reported in 1892 that extracts from infected leaves were still infectious after filtration through a Chamberland filter-candle. Bacteria are retained by such filters, a new world was discovered: filterable pathogens. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11570281/
Did you read the article (in French) linked to the abstract? Neither Iwanowski nor Beijerinck "isolated" any viruses. Instead they damaged plants, and sprayed them with various soup-blends of material. In regards to plants, they claimed that "virus" was present AFTER noting that the leaves of plants were mottled. At present, we would attribute such to issues of water and or sunlight. Regardless, they never showed how said virus would "jump" from an infected to an uninfected plant. And what would be the source of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV)? Would it be exogenous or endogenous? If the latter, how could it be proof of germ theory?
In conclusion, neither Iwanowski nor Beijerinck demonstrated any "natural" transfer of some invisible, pathogenic agent. And no one has since, replicated the "experiments" of either, and demonstrated the existence of TMV.
Maybe you are being sincere, but in the future, please show us the FULL paper, where we can read a methods section.
So you admit you've been mouthing off about me and my FOIs without even knowing what you were talking about :)
And my FOIs are not for the alleged Tobacco mosaic virus, correct Todd?
Further, there was no visual confirmation that purification of alleged "tobacco virus" particles was actually achieved. Simply performing some steps and ASS-UMING that whatever is left over is all the same type of particle does not ensure purification. It's just an ass-umption.
Ditto with the later studies. No "tobacco mosaic virus" has ever been shown to exist. I dare you to cite an actual valid, scientific study and prove me wrong. Are you up for it, Todd?
Back to the imaginary SARS-COV-2, no one has any record of anyone purifying "it" from an allegedly infected person (aka nature's cell culture), as you can see. And contrary to your claim, as noted in my article "Response to gaslighting about the “virus” isolation/purification FOI requests", November 8, 2022:
"I specify purification, “using STANDARD LABORATORY METHODS for the purification of very small things“." I do not ask for anything that is unusual, inappropriate or outdated, and I did not specify any particular methodology (except in a handful of FOIs, most/all of which I later re-did without specifying any methodology).
I'll graciously accept your apology Todd, if you're big enough to offer it.
And lol, again I challenge you to cite an actual valid, scientific study showing that SARS-COV-2 exists. Or are you just posturing, Todd?
itself in the diseased plants. To demonstrate that
the infectious agent was not a microbe, he
conducted diffusion experiments, in which he
allowed the "virus" to penetrate an agar plate.
The agar experiment means he let it diffuse into the agar and then shaved layers off until it quit producing infections in young tobacco plants.
I think it's important for the reader to note, that while Christine is always eager to divert the discussion to science articles, what she has done and continues to do is not science at all. Or Kaufman, the Baileys, Cowan. It may most charitably be described as philosophy of science, where they have asserted that virologists should not be permitted to culture their viruses in cells in the process of detecting their effects. And then the gang leap to the conclusion that viruses don't exist. This has always struck me as very much like the rhetoric of the flat-earthers - telling people to deny what they see as ships disappear below the horizon, mast last. The virus deniers say "don't look at those electron micrographs" , "don't pay attention to your dead friends and relatives and the speed they died" "listen to us" and they peremptorily dismiss the evidence of probably hundreds of papers I've personally linked (counting those researchgate searches.
Serendipitously, my friend Mongol in this chat has demonstrated at the beginning of the pandemic actual contact, support, and exchange of people between the flat earthers and the virus deniers. There was friendly support for the virus deniers from the flat earthers, and the virus deniers wrote their gratitude.
In this exchange of messages a number of you have expressed disbelief in germs, and a number disbelief in space/flat-earth. And that's a good data point.
Similar to dealing with the flat earth people, I think more intuitive arguments, with data you can practically experience, are superior.
For example, I'm sure a number of you have allowed your immune system at times to become weak, and then experienced a shingles rash, caused by a virus that had been dormant in your spinal cord.
And I'm sure all of you are vaccinating your pets against rabies and distemper. And likely you've actually seen a racoon or a skunk that was obviously affected by a virus or something.
One thing you may not have considered is that the existence of your immune system is evidence that there are pathogens that it is required to defend against.
And the fact that your immune system has non-self dna and rna detection capabilities proves that there are pathogens containing foreign dna and rna.
So you don't really need to read a whole bunch of papers if you'll just pay attention to the signs around you in peoples' bodies - the evident cold sores you'll see in the winter, and hope you're not seeing them but the herpes and HPV STD's that are fairly common. If you're female, are you actually willing to risk measles during pregnancy and potentially blind your baby? Or risk passing on your HPV to your child in childbirth?
Happily, in this chat, there was only one female on the side of the deniers. I think that's hopeful and shows probably a sex difference where women are more level headed and men apt to get off into all kinds of abstruse tangents.
I've got one more post of Christine's with a bunch of links in it that I'm going to read. I've posted many, including luckily one where there was no culturing of the viruses, only filtering (Beijerinck). So perhaps the future readers will get some benefit from those.
The textbook entry faithfully reproduces the original work. The original studies. Science builds truth upon truth. Every preceding truth is not repeated in every succeeding article. The author faithfully and honestly summarized the original work, which showed that tobacco mosaic virus could be reproduced at will from a centrifuge-purified and filtered extract of a leaf damaged by tobacco mosaic virus. Without requiring culturing viruses in cells. This satisfies the requirements of your FOIA emails.
Show that the author was false to the original study, or accept it as true and build upon it. "LOL" is not an argument.
If you have an interest in Jessica Rose, you also have access to search engines. Instead of doing your searching for you, I went through your FOIA request and showed that it was framed disingenuously by adding conditions contra to what everybody knows has been standard practice in virology since 1913 - i.e. culturing viruses in a matrix in which they may be multiplied, living cells. This is similar to agriculture, where new corn seeds are produced via a matrix in which they may be grown and multiplied - dirt and water, and nobody raises objection that the dirt has anything to do with the new seeds. Not only were your FOIA emails framed disingenuously, which is another word for dishonestly, they were addressed to organizations that were calculated to respond in the negative and which had no bearing whatsoever on the conclusions you now claim - which is that the Canadian NRC saying they have nothing in their library that meets your disingenuous conditions proves that viruses don't exist.
To say I haven't posted any science when I've posted multiple articles is pure and simple gaslighting, and I'm also outing you as an abuser. It's possible you virus deniers may not like these ridiculously easy to cite studies that use cell cultures in the process of producing new virus to test, but to say you haven't been given studies is pure and simple gaslighting. And that is a type of abuse.
You deniers say the original Wuhan study with the first published genome (which Drosten used for the first PCR test) did not prove isolation or have a proper control group for the isolation. But that is just silly, because they simply used filtering and culturing as a technique to get enough virus to sequence, and their intent was not to repeat 100+ years of publications. And the uninfected cell cultures themselves were sufficient control.
You deniers fancy yourselves clever because you can craft emails to ensnare the gullible, but you never take positive steps to actually prove anything.
The more anyone listens to you, the less they know.
If you wanted to actually prove that viruses don't exist and that viruses are the the cause of disease that the tobacco mosaic virus study established, then instead of simply rasing barely plausible objections, repeat the study and find the real cause of those reproducible lesions on tobacco leaves. Start with allegedly isolated measles virus, add it to cell culture, and find the "real" cause of the reproducible plaques that form in the cell culture after inoculation with the virus isolate. And you can run a separate control to see if plaques form without the inoculation. https://openstax.org/books/microbiology/pages/6-3-isolation-culture-and-identification-of-viruses.
Finally, most of you virus deniers also don't believe in germs, and a bunch of you don't believe in outer space.
But the fact that you all have immune systems means that God is protecting you from viruses anyway, despite your disbelief, and has been since you acquired your first viral immunity from your mother, and then as your own nascent immune system recognized the foreign rna and dna in the attackers that assailed you, and developed your own immunological defenses against this teeming world of microscopic enemies that we all move in. And the existence of the layers of your immune system prove the existence of those enemies, just as the existence of a big cat-like track proves the existence of a lion, though you may never ever see it.
Post an original study and we'll see how scientific it is.
I already searched and found no trace of Jessica Rose calling me out.
Your repeatedly gaslighting about my FOIs is getting really old, Todd. The standard fraud is not what I was lookin for, I was looking for valid, scientific studies.
Further, I specify purification, “using standard laboratory methods for the purification of very small things“. I do not ask for anything that is unusual/unreasonable/impossible for tiny particles that actually exist.
Alternatively, I'll show the intentional deception myself, from Christine's own words:
“All records in the possession, custody or control of the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells). Please note that I am using "isolation" in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else. I am not requesting records where "isolation of SARS-COV-2" refers instead to:
• the culturing of something, or
• the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or
• the sequencing of something.
I had thought that this request was strictly negative, but Christine did make a positive request, which I will reword for simplicity, "do you have any records of a virus sample obtained simply by filtering and not potentially altered by culturing or genetic amplification"
And the truth is, the first time that tobacco mosaic virus extract was separated out and used to cause new viral damage to tobacco leaves, in 1892, Dimitri Ivanovsky used the very technique Christine was requesting. But then since 1913, when Steinhardt, Israeli, and Lambert first learned it was possible to grow viruses in a cell culture, this technique has been very commonly used to grow many new copies of the original filtered virus.
And at the risk of sounding repetitious, they grow corn in dirt, they grow viruses in cells.
But what Christine has done here is to say, using only pre-1913 tools, do you have any virus samples? You can't use any of the techniques that all biologists use.
And that's why I say this is cagily written, guaranteed to get a negative response in its content, because it guarantees that no biologist works like she requested , and then it is cagily directed to the National Research Council of Canada , a big bureaucracy employing 4000 full-time and many more contract and affiliate, and no bureaucrat is going to stick his neck out for anything, let alone an obvious trick question.
This is all par for the course for the viruses-don't-exist crowd - they are verbally facile , unvaryingly negative - never presenting any positive research findings on any of their speculations that holds any water (5G anyone?). They posture and pose in white coats, but there's no science to them. Just a bit of science-sounding words.
Dear Todd Harvey,
Did you read the paper by Iwanowski? Please show us where he filtered any virus.
Thanks
Two scientists contributed to the discovery of the first virus, Tobacco mosaic virus. Ivanoski reported in 1892 that extracts from infected leaves were still infectious after filtration through a Chamberland filter-candle. Bacteria are retained by such filters, a new world was discovered: filterable pathogens. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11570281/
Dear Todd Harvey,
Did you read the article (in French) linked to the abstract? Neither Iwanowski nor Beijerinck "isolated" any viruses. Instead they damaged plants, and sprayed them with various soup-blends of material. In regards to plants, they claimed that "virus" was present AFTER noting that the leaves of plants were mottled. At present, we would attribute such to issues of water and or sunlight. Regardless, they never showed how said virus would "jump" from an infected to an uninfected plant. And what would be the source of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV)? Would it be exogenous or endogenous? If the latter, how could it be proof of germ theory?
In conclusion, neither Iwanowski nor Beijerinck demonstrated any "natural" transfer of some invisible, pathogenic agent. And no one has since, replicated the "experiments" of either, and demonstrated the existence of TMV.
Maybe you are being sincere, but in the future, please show us the FULL paper, where we can read a methods section.
Thanks
So you admit you've been mouthing off about me and my FOIs without even knowing what you were talking about :)
And my FOIs are not for the alleged Tobacco mosaic virus, correct Todd?
Further, there was no visual confirmation that purification of alleged "tobacco virus" particles was actually achieved. Simply performing some steps and ASS-UMING that whatever is left over is all the same type of particle does not ensure purification. It's just an ass-umption.
Further, there were other problematic aspects of his approach. Sam Baily has covered this in one of her wonderful videos: "Tobacco Mosaic “Virus” - The beginning & end of virology": https://odysee.com/@hipsterious:3/Dr.-Sam-Bailey---Tobacco-Mosaic-Virus:7
Ditto with the later studies. No "tobacco mosaic virus" has ever been shown to exist. I dare you to cite an actual valid, scientific study and prove me wrong. Are you up for it, Todd?
Back to the imaginary SARS-COV-2, no one has any record of anyone purifying "it" from an allegedly infected person (aka nature's cell culture), as you can see. And contrary to your claim, as noted in my article "Response to gaslighting about the “virus” isolation/purification FOI requests", November 8, 2022:
"I specify purification, “using STANDARD LABORATORY METHODS for the purification of very small things“." I do not ask for anything that is unusual, inappropriate or outdated, and I did not specify any particular methodology (except in a handful of FOIs, most/all of which I later re-did without specifying any methodology).
I'll graciously accept your apology Todd, if you're big enough to offer it.
And lol, again I challenge you to cite an actual valid, scientific study showing that SARS-COV-2 exists. Or are you just posturing, Todd?
Bjerlink, no culturing, only filtering, could produce new cases of mosaic virus disease to any number of test plants. Covered in this short textbook chapter: https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/apsnetfeatures/Documents/1998/ZaitlinDiscoveryCausalAgentTobaccoMosaicVirus.pdf
concluded that what passed
through porcelain filters remained infectious and
was sterile of microorganisms. He concluded that
it was a "contagium vivum fluidum", a contagious
living fluid. He found that from the sap of a
diseased plant, "..an infinite number of healthy
plants may be inoculated and infected.." and
concluded that the infectious agent reproduces
itself in the diseased plants. To demonstrate that
the infectious agent was not a microbe, he
conducted diffusion experiments, in which he
allowed the "virus" to penetrate an agar plate.
The agar experiment means he let it diffuse into the agar and then shaved layers off until it quit producing infections in young tobacco plants.
I think it's important for the reader to note, that while Christine is always eager to divert the discussion to science articles, what she has done and continues to do is not science at all. Or Kaufman, the Baileys, Cowan. It may most charitably be described as philosophy of science, where they have asserted that virologists should not be permitted to culture their viruses in cells in the process of detecting their effects. And then the gang leap to the conclusion that viruses don't exist. This has always struck me as very much like the rhetoric of the flat-earthers - telling people to deny what they see as ships disappear below the horizon, mast last. The virus deniers say "don't look at those electron micrographs" , "don't pay attention to your dead friends and relatives and the speed they died" "listen to us" and they peremptorily dismiss the evidence of probably hundreds of papers I've personally linked (counting those researchgate searches.
Serendipitously, my friend Mongol in this chat has demonstrated at the beginning of the pandemic actual contact, support, and exchange of people between the flat earthers and the virus deniers. There was friendly support for the virus deniers from the flat earthers, and the virus deniers wrote their gratitude.
In this exchange of messages a number of you have expressed disbelief in germs, and a number disbelief in space/flat-earth. And that's a good data point.
I think it's basically foolish to give a virus denier the impression that his opinions about the techniques of virology count for anything, although I did indulge that folly here: https://sophiasnippets.wordpress.com/2021/02/07/yes-dolores-the-sars-cov-2-virus-has-certainly-been-isolated/ .
Similar to dealing with the flat earth people, I think more intuitive arguments, with data you can practically experience, are superior.
For example, I'm sure a number of you have allowed your immune system at times to become weak, and then experienced a shingles rash, caused by a virus that had been dormant in your spinal cord.
And I'm sure all of you are vaccinating your pets against rabies and distemper. And likely you've actually seen a racoon or a skunk that was obviously affected by a virus or something.
One thing you may not have considered is that the existence of your immune system is evidence that there are pathogens that it is required to defend against.
And the fact that your immune system has non-self dna and rna detection capabilities proves that there are pathogens containing foreign dna and rna.
So you don't really need to read a whole bunch of papers if you'll just pay attention to the signs around you in peoples' bodies - the evident cold sores you'll see in the winter, and hope you're not seeing them but the herpes and HPV STD's that are fairly common. If you're female, are you actually willing to risk measles during pregnancy and potentially blind your baby? Or risk passing on your HPV to your child in childbirth?
Happily, in this chat, there was only one female on the side of the deniers. I think that's hopeful and shows probably a sex difference where women are more level headed and men apt to get off into all kinds of abstruse tangents.
I've got one more post of Christine's with a bunch of links in it that I'm going to read. I've posted many, including luckily one where there was no culturing of the viruses, only filtering (Beijerinck). So perhaps the future readers will get some benefit from those.
That's not even a study that you posted, lol, just a biased, inaccurate historical essay.
You haven't posted any science because there isn't any.
I'm not at all interested in anything else here Todd. Back up your claims with scientific studies or that's the end of it.
Also please show us where Jessica Rose called me out, as per your claim.
The textbook entry faithfully reproduces the original work. The original studies. Science builds truth upon truth. Every preceding truth is not repeated in every succeeding article. The author faithfully and honestly summarized the original work, which showed that tobacco mosaic virus could be reproduced at will from a centrifuge-purified and filtered extract of a leaf damaged by tobacco mosaic virus. Without requiring culturing viruses in cells. This satisfies the requirements of your FOIA emails.
Show that the author was false to the original study, or accept it as true and build upon it. "LOL" is not an argument.
If you have an interest in Jessica Rose, you also have access to search engines. Instead of doing your searching for you, I went through your FOIA request and showed that it was framed disingenuously by adding conditions contra to what everybody knows has been standard practice in virology since 1913 - i.e. culturing viruses in a matrix in which they may be multiplied, living cells. This is similar to agriculture, where new corn seeds are produced via a matrix in which they may be grown and multiplied - dirt and water, and nobody raises objection that the dirt has anything to do with the new seeds. Not only were your FOIA emails framed disingenuously, which is another word for dishonestly, they were addressed to organizations that were calculated to respond in the negative and which had no bearing whatsoever on the conclusions you now claim - which is that the Canadian NRC saying they have nothing in their library that meets your disingenuous conditions proves that viruses don't exist.
To say I haven't posted any science when I've posted multiple articles is pure and simple gaslighting, and I'm also outing you as an abuser. It's possible you virus deniers may not like these ridiculously easy to cite studies that use cell cultures in the process of producing new virus to test, but to say you haven't been given studies is pure and simple gaslighting. And that is a type of abuse.
You deniers say the original Wuhan study with the first published genome (which Drosten used for the first PCR test) did not prove isolation or have a proper control group for the isolation. But that is just silly, because they simply used filtering and culturing as a technique to get enough virus to sequence, and their intent was not to repeat 100+ years of publications. And the uninfected cell cultures themselves were sufficient control.
You deniers fancy yourselves clever because you can craft emails to ensnare the gullible, but you never take positive steps to actually prove anything.
The more anyone listens to you, the less they know.
If you wanted to actually prove that viruses don't exist and that viruses are the the cause of disease that the tobacco mosaic virus study established, then instead of simply rasing barely plausible objections, repeat the study and find the real cause of those reproducible lesions on tobacco leaves. Start with allegedly isolated measles virus, add it to cell culture, and find the "real" cause of the reproducible plaques that form in the cell culture after inoculation with the virus isolate. And you can run a separate control to see if plaques form without the inoculation. https://openstax.org/books/microbiology/pages/6-3-isolation-culture-and-identification-of-viruses.
Finally, most of you virus deniers also don't believe in germs, and a bunch of you don't believe in outer space.
But the fact that you all have immune systems means that God is protecting you from viruses anyway, despite your disbelief, and has been since you acquired your first viral immunity from your mother, and then as your own nascent immune system recognized the foreign rna and dna in the attackers that assailed you, and developed your own immunological defenses against this teeming world of microscopic enemies that we all move in. And the existence of the layers of your immune system prove the existence of those enemies, just as the existence of a big cat-like track proves the existence of a lion, though you may never ever see it.
Post an original study and we'll see how scientific it is.
I already searched and found no trace of Jessica Rose calling me out.
Your repeatedly gaslighting about my FOIs is getting really old, Todd. The standard fraud is not what I was lookin for, I was looking for valid, scientific studies.
Further, I specify purification, “using standard laboratory methods for the purification of very small things“. I do not ask for anything that is unusual/unreasonable/impossible for tiny particles that actually exist.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-gaslighting-about-my-foi-requests/
Lol, there is no onus on anyone to repeat studies. The authors made clear already that they didn't apply scientific method.
I'm done here, have a nice lilfe.