These discussions have gone on with Hammond for years. I know people who gave up in 2020. Hammond is like a video game. Just write to him at 3 am and say something like "the sky is blue" and he will argue with you. The email will come back five minutes later, any time, day or night, even on Christmas. Has anyone met him in person? He seems to be some kind of in in silico script that spews out cliches.
There is a good case to be made that Hammond is a ringer (public relations shill), though he has a low level of expertise (ringers should know something, but he does not). Like Poornima Wagh, he has migrated to virology from some branch of finance or economics (virology and finance are both doing a great job of saving the world).
His entire role seems to be churning out a vast number of kilobytes of content that all claim that viruses exist, on and on and on.
There is no getting anywhere with him, and I do not understand his appeal to readers. The real problem is them, not him. He will only ever be convincing to an ignorant audience whom he has persuaded he's something really special. The only special thing about him is that he shows up with all the energy of a border collie and about 1/50th the intelligence. I am sure that an your average sheep could beat him at checkers.
The only reason he looks meekly smart in a debate is because his opponent knows something. If you played only his side of the argument, it would be evident that he has the IQ of a compost heap.
So we might wonder why Joe Mercola called him as a witness when he wanted to "prove the existence of viruses," and all we get is this smug gasbag consuming oxygen from other far more sophisticated biota, and saying "Bad faith! Bad faith! You make no sense! You make no sense!"
Mike, you entered the twilight zone! Thanks for your sacrifice. Hammonds level of argumentation is truly unique. An actual moderated debate would be devastating to his flimsy position.
The cell cultures used to grow viruses do contain substances that produce cytopathogenic effects. If they are left on their own, remaining non-incoulated with the virus-containing 99% Hammond-proof purified inoculant, they should show similar CPE as the sister cultures that have been inoculated, regardless of 99% purification or 100% purification of the inoculant.
Or is it that the controls remain good and only the inoculated die out?
My question is: are the controls valid as controls?
The second question is: have the virologists and the defenders of virologists considered the previous question at any point in their lives?
Mike, it seems to be an error of semantics to allow cetrifugation to be equated with purification. Ditto filtration. I presume the argument is that all the contents of a single band of centrifuged source material is homogenous. If so, I gather the next step is to demonstrate/confirm the apparent homogeneity (no contaminants or admixtures) and to then propose the hypothesis that the uniform sample amounts to a purified or isolated sample of virus. Is this not then the stage at which the investigator can move to the innoculation stage to look for cytopathic effect?
These discussions have gone on with Hammond for years. I know people who gave up in 2020. Hammond is like a video game. Just write to him at 3 am and say something like "the sky is blue" and he will argue with you. The email will come back five minutes later, any time, day or night, even on Christmas. Has anyone met him in person? He seems to be some kind of in in silico script that spews out cliches.
There is a good case to be made that Hammond is a ringer (public relations shill), though he has a low level of expertise (ringers should know something, but he does not). Like Poornima Wagh, he has migrated to virology from some branch of finance or economics (virology and finance are both doing a great job of saving the world).
His entire role seems to be churning out a vast number of kilobytes of content that all claim that viruses exist, on and on and on.
There is no getting anywhere with him, and I do not understand his appeal to readers. The real problem is them, not him. He will only ever be convincing to an ignorant audience whom he has persuaded he's something really special. The only special thing about him is that he shows up with all the energy of a border collie and about 1/50th the intelligence. I am sure that an your average sheep could beat him at checkers.
The only reason he looks meekly smart in a debate is because his opponent knows something. If you played only his side of the argument, it would be evident that he has the IQ of a compost heap.
So we might wonder why Joe Mercola called him as a witness when he wanted to "prove the existence of viruses," and all we get is this smug gasbag consuming oxygen from other far more sophisticated biota, and saying "Bad faith! Bad faith! You make no sense! You make no sense!"
Mike, you entered the twilight zone! Thanks for your sacrifice. Hammonds level of argumentation is truly unique. An actual moderated debate would be devastating to his flimsy position.
I have always felt that Hammond argues like a "fact-checker" with equivocation and accusation. I see bad lawyers doing this all the time.
Epic.
I have questions.
The cell cultures used to grow viruses do contain substances that produce cytopathogenic effects. If they are left on their own, remaining non-incoulated with the virus-containing 99% Hammond-proof purified inoculant, they should show similar CPE as the sister cultures that have been inoculated, regardless of 99% purification or 100% purification of the inoculant.
Or is it that the controls remain good and only the inoculated die out?
My question is: are the controls valid as controls?
The second question is: have the virologists and the defenders of virologists considered the previous question at any point in their lives?
Mike, it seems to be an error of semantics to allow cetrifugation to be equated with purification. Ditto filtration. I presume the argument is that all the contents of a single band of centrifuged source material is homogenous. If so, I gather the next step is to demonstrate/confirm the apparent homogeneity (no contaminants or admixtures) and to then propose the hypothesis that the uniform sample amounts to a purified or isolated sample of virus. Is this not then the stage at which the investigator can move to the innoculation stage to look for cytopathic effect?