Too bad you can not submit this paper to any scientific website or organization and ever get it published. Try getting it into an American school of medicine as part of their curriculum. Good luck! Must be very frustrating. Best wishes on breaking thru the Germ Theory wall of resistance.
Who is "They"? And get real. This perspective has been shut down for over 100 years. My above comment states the WAY IT IS. Not the way we HOPE for. Some day all things will come to pass, but not yet. Even RFKJr is a vaccine, germ believer guy. And Trump is an egomaniac who will never admit his Warp Speed Killer did more harm than good.
What you say about the status quo is true. But don't underestimate the speed at which information is currently spreading, at a pace never before seen in human history. What used to take decades is now spreading meme-like in hours and days. Switching off the internet would not be an option, because the reaction would be for people to talk to each other directly again. The only thing that can be done about this is to deploy the military and crush gatherings. And we have seen what martial law leads to. Then all the dams will break at some point.
Not an expert, but most protagonists in this controversy over the biochemical nature of CPE overlook that the vrilogists are more interested in THE AMOUNT of CPE and THE RATE at which the CPE is generated and by VARYING AMOUNTS of the added sample to be tested for 'viruses' (e.g. titrations).
Clearly, the vrilogists are aware that CPE always occurs if they wait long enuf, so they altering the conditions of their experiments (e.g. starvation) to speed up the CPE. They also claim to be generating more viruses than which they put into the culture, such that a sample from the culture supernatants will give more and/or faster CPE in the next culture in the series. Also, there are additional macroscopic and microscopic parameters involved in judging the CPE, as different viruses are associated with different morphologies of CPE.
Also, the vrologists claim that they can make to the culture tiny additions of specific molecules which alter the course of the CPE and show the projected effects in vivo as well. An example would be a molecule that inhibits a polymerase which also inhibits one or more dynamics of the cell culture and then is shown in vivo to reduce a specific RNA species while restoring a specific fraction of cells (I'm not sure they do the experiments in that order LOL).
So whatever is going on, the over-simplified analysis - which focuses on only one element of a wide breadth of circumstantial evidence - is a good start, but worn-out ideas don't go away until replaced by better ideas. Lanka is disingenuous and his story could be wrong.
Or you are just trying cause distraction for readers by coming up something made up to give it an impressions as to no virus are missing something, not telling the whole truth, or hiding things and cherry picking information.
So are you in or out? Why not provide citations for the processes that you are saying they show in vivo mechanism as well!? So we reach the full truth. If you say mathew is telling the half truth behind your choice of words "over simplification". Just provide the sources for this information that you came up with rather than talking in air. Let them go through the sources and no virus will end here onwards. Go ahead.
I'm blown away by this. Thanks for the summary of findings by Andrews and others. The downstream effects of this work will, I hope slow the spread of fear-induced mind viruses.
You hit the baseball out of the ball park with this study, Matthew. Wow.
I spent an hour reading a number of study summaries you have provided. So far, the most amusing is the 2020 Caly et al study wherein they could not find "coronavirus" under microscope, so they added trypsin to get the corona effect, which pleased the "scientists" with "success".
I'll read and comprehend all of your study, it takes time and word-phrase searching for definitions. Really great work.
Too bad you can not submit this paper to any scientific website or organization and ever get it published. Try getting it into an American school of medicine as part of their curriculum. Good luck! Must be very frustrating. Best wishes on breaking thru the Germ Theory wall of resistance.
Who says they can’t ?
Who is "They"? And get real. This perspective has been shut down for over 100 years. My above comment states the WAY IT IS. Not the way we HOPE for. Some day all things will come to pass, but not yet. Even RFKJr is a vaccine, germ believer guy. And Trump is an egomaniac who will never admit his Warp Speed Killer did more harm than good.
What you say about the status quo is true. But don't underestimate the speed at which information is currently spreading, at a pace never before seen in human history. What used to take decades is now spreading meme-like in hours and days. Switching off the internet would not be an option, because the reaction would be for people to talk to each other directly again. The only thing that can be done about this is to deploy the military and crush gatherings. And we have seen what martial law leads to. Then all the dams will break at some point.
At some point. Agreed.
Good job!
Not an expert, but most protagonists in this controversy over the biochemical nature of CPE overlook that the vrilogists are more interested in THE AMOUNT of CPE and THE RATE at which the CPE is generated and by VARYING AMOUNTS of the added sample to be tested for 'viruses' (e.g. titrations).
Clearly, the vrilogists are aware that CPE always occurs if they wait long enuf, so they altering the conditions of their experiments (e.g. starvation) to speed up the CPE. They also claim to be generating more viruses than which they put into the culture, such that a sample from the culture supernatants will give more and/or faster CPE in the next culture in the series. Also, there are additional macroscopic and microscopic parameters involved in judging the CPE, as different viruses are associated with different morphologies of CPE.
Also, the vrologists claim that they can make to the culture tiny additions of specific molecules which alter the course of the CPE and show the projected effects in vivo as well. An example would be a molecule that inhibits a polymerase which also inhibits one or more dynamics of the cell culture and then is shown in vivo to reduce a specific RNA species while restoring a specific fraction of cells (I'm not sure they do the experiments in that order LOL).
So whatever is going on, the over-simplified analysis - which focuses on only one element of a wide breadth of circumstantial evidence - is a good start, but worn-out ideas don't go away until replaced by better ideas. Lanka is disingenuous and his story could be wrong.
Or you are just trying cause distraction for readers by coming up something made up to give it an impressions as to no virus are missing something, not telling the whole truth, or hiding things and cherry picking information.
So are you in or out? Why not provide citations for the processes that you are saying they show in vivo mechanism as well!? So we reach the full truth. If you say mathew is telling the half truth behind your choice of words "over simplification". Just provide the sources for this information that you came up with rather than talking in air. Let them go through the sources and no virus will end here onwards. Go ahead.
I'm blown away by this. Thanks for the summary of findings by Andrews and others. The downstream effects of this work will, I hope slow the spread of fear-induced mind viruses.
You hit the baseball out of the ball park with this study, Matthew. Wow.
I spent an hour reading a number of study summaries you have provided. So far, the most amusing is the 2020 Caly et al study wherein they could not find "coronavirus" under microscope, so they added trypsin to get the corona effect, which pleased the "scientists" with "success".
I'll read and comprehend all of your study, it takes time and word-phrase searching for definitions. Really great work.
Awesome!
It feels like we're very close to the tipping point?
Thank you for putting in the time and effort to review and summarize those 19 references.
It's inspiring and keeps me motivated.