What would you say if we were told that there are Extra Terrestrials living among us, once even one settles in a town there will soon be too many of them to count, and then they'll move on to the next town......But we cannot pick a bunch of people from any town, look through them, and find these creatures? That we have to take such a group of people, put them in a large hall with no windows or doors, place all sorts of things and living entities in the room, provide the people with minimal nutrition, spray the room with chemicals.... and then we'll see these invaders from outer space.
Well-written and concise, as always! Great job pointing out the lack of quantitative as well as qualitative evidence for what is causing "infection". Without properly purified and isolated particles, there is nothing to carefully study and characterize to name as the cause of dis-ease. Thank you for the link to my work as well, it is always appreciated.
This was started with an innocent question by Mr. Grant Smith, "infantryman and therapist."
The gist of it: McKernan is obviously angry at JJ because SARS-CoV-2 is real. Crawford supports JJ. I don't see anything of scientific interest, except for that McKernan is publishing these days his "deeply sequenced" genomes of whatever there is inside the vials of the toxic bombs:
Great article Mike. I was reading through the Twitter thread and am always so impressed by the amount of people who don't have the cognitive ability to form a logical argument, so they just use the 'Flat Earth' analogy logical fallacy. Regardless of my opinion of the shape of the earth, it is a weak character that uses this type of comment style. Come up with an original thought, for the love!
"Experts sometimes estimate"..... (3 words that say a lot about their certainty of "the science") "Experts"= appeal to authority Sometimes=vague, indefinite "Estimate"=To form an approximate opinion" Hmm, who wouldn't bet their life on experts?
I just somehow deleted myself. Anyway, Thank you Mike for another excellent job of piecing together and exposing the absurdities (and desperate anti-social/ anti-scientific behavior) of the sinking-ship "MV Pseudoscience".
You are welcome Mike! I love the ague language in their papers like "suggests," "appears to," "probably," etc. Their conclusions are so definitive, aren't they? 😉
“It is claimed that there are just not enough of these “viral” particles within the fluids…”
Just how much virus density in a sample is necessary for EM imaging? I found some scientific papers that looked to be useful in finding the answer. According to Golding et al., in their 2016 paper The scanning electron microscope in microbiology and diagnosis of infectious disease,
“The detection of agents such as poxviruses or polyoma viruses in patient specimens usually requires a minimum concentration of between 10^5 to 10^6 particles/ml for TEM.”
OK, so I had a solid starting point. Let’s see if I could find other studies to back up this assertion. From Michael Laue et al., in Visualization of SARS‑CoV‑2 particles in naso/oropharyngeal swabs by thin section electron microscopy,
“With a suspension of 10^7 particles/ml, virus particles could be found in the first section through each of the pellets (3 of 3 samples), while with a suspension of 10^6 particles/ml only part of the pellets showed virus in the first Section (6 of 8 samples).”
This paper was concerned with determining the most efficient way to utilize EM, and their conclusion was that 10^7 particles per mL was more efficient that 10^6 particles per mL, as 100% of the former yielded found particles in the first section while the latter yielded first section detection 75% of the time. The sample sizes are admittedly small, but it shows that while the higher density sample is preferred, 10^6 virus particles per mL is certainly sufficient for detecting and imaging viruses even though it may take a little more searching before they are found.
In a 2020 paper Concentration of viruses and electron microscopy, I.D. Petrova et al, state that the main limitation of the EM detection/imaging method is the necessary density of 10^7 particles/mL, which requires viral material to be concentrated through procedures such as precipitation, centrifugation, filtration, and chromatography.
Interestingly, this 10^7 number was cited from a 2003 paper by G. G. Reid et al, Comparison of electron microscopic techniques for enumeration of endogenous retrovirus in mouse and Chinese hamster cell lines used for production of biologics. But a reading of this paper reveals that a latex bead method indeed requires 10^7 particles per mL, but then the paper immediately goes on to say that “...virus can be concentrated by passing supernatant through a discontinuous sucrose density gradient whereby the detection limit is reduced to approximately 10^5 virus particles per ml.”
So at this point it was looking like 10^6 particles per mL was a pretty safe bet and even 10^5 particles per mL might be the lowest required density.
That’s all well and good but the thing is, I had also stumbled upon an interesting quantity from Wang et al., in their 2020 paper Modeling the load of SARS-CoV-2 virus in human expelled particles during coughing and speaking:
“From a single cough, a person with a high viral load in respiratory fluid (2.35 × 10^9 copies per ml) may generate as many as 1.23 × 10^5 copies of viruses that can remain airborne after 10 seconds…”
The interesting quantity here is the reported 2.35 × 10^9 copies per ml of viral particles possible in the respiratory fluid of a person with high viral load.
So virologists claim they can’t image samples directly from human samples because the viral density is insufficient. Apparently a density of 10^5 or 10^6 viral particles per ml are needed for EM imaging and the only way to achieve such density of particles is to utilize cell culture procedures. And yet it is claimed that respiratory fluid can contain up to 2.35 × 10^9 copies per ml of viral particles which is either 2,000 or 20,000 times the minimum threshold.
Unlike every other detailed No Virus essay or statement I've read, this one is actually cogent and understandable and doesn't lapse into either word salad or question-begging. (I did get lost in the technical section on the Mainstream claims of quantifying infectivity, but I hope that wasn't crucial to the overall argument.)
What would you say if we were told that there are Extra Terrestrials living among us, once even one settles in a town there will soon be too many of them to count, and then they'll move on to the next town......But we cannot pick a bunch of people from any town, look through them, and find these creatures? That we have to take such a group of people, put them in a large hall with no windows or doors, place all sorts of things and living entities in the room, provide the people with minimal nutrition, spray the room with chemicals.... and then we'll see these invaders from outer space.
Don't give them ideas.
Well-written and concise, as always! Great job pointing out the lack of quantitative as well as qualitative evidence for what is causing "infection". Without properly purified and isolated particles, there is nothing to carefully study and characterize to name as the cause of dis-ease. Thank you for the link to my work as well, it is always appreciated.
Thank you Kristen! 😁
The Western medical education system encourages midwit, egotistical stupidity.
Politicians like to delegate authority to the vain and proud because those are easier to beat down in a dispute.
Thank you Mike, very easy to read and understand. How much BS can one bear? It's an abomination isn't it. How embarrassing.
You are very welcome Roxanne! 🙂
Kevin McKernan and Mathew Crawford are having a fight on Twitter because of JJ Couey Infectious Clones theory.
https://twitter.com/LibertySuperman/status/1644416689679867911
This was started with an innocent question by Mr. Grant Smith, "infantryman and therapist."
The gist of it: McKernan is obviously angry at JJ because SARS-CoV-2 is real. Crawford supports JJ. I don't see anything of scientific interest, except for that McKernan is publishing these days his "deeply sequenced" genomes of whatever there is inside the vials of the toxic bombs:
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/sequencing-the-pfizer-monovalent
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/sequencing-of-bivalent-moderna-and
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/sequence-of-the-janssenj-and-j-ad26cov2s
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/dna-contamination-in-8-vials-of-pfizer
I think this "fight" is about trying to make noise to gain some attention.
Also, many people want to be close to Candidate Kennedy.
It's fun to see them fighting over viruses, knowing the huge confusion about viruses.
Great article Mike. I was reading through the Twitter thread and am always so impressed by the amount of people who don't have the cognitive ability to form a logical argument, so they just use the 'Flat Earth' analogy logical fallacy. Regardless of my opinion of the shape of the earth, it is a weak character that uses this type of comment style. Come up with an original thought, for the love!
Thank you Rocky! 😁
Your zen moment of this day: a hindered cognitive ability is the proof that the education system works as intended.
"Experts sometimes estimate"..... (3 words that say a lot about their certainty of "the science") "Experts"= appeal to authority Sometimes=vague, indefinite "Estimate"=To form an approximate opinion" Hmm, who wouldn't bet their life on experts?
I just somehow deleted myself. Anyway, Thank you Mike for another excellent job of piecing together and exposing the absurdities (and desperate anti-social/ anti-scientific behavior) of the sinking-ship "MV Pseudoscience".
You are welcome Mike! I love the ague language in their papers like "suggests," "appears to," "probably," etc. Their conclusions are so definitive, aren't they? 😉
CYA language one expects from legal documents or abstruse sophistry.
Thanks for being a shining light during these times of darkness!
Thank you Marius for the very kind words! I truly appreciate it. 🙂
“It is claimed that there are just not enough of these “viral” particles within the fluids…”
Just how much virus density in a sample is necessary for EM imaging? I found some scientific papers that looked to be useful in finding the answer. According to Golding et al., in their 2016 paper The scanning electron microscope in microbiology and diagnosis of infectious disease,
“The detection of agents such as poxviruses or polyoma viruses in patient specimens usually requires a minimum concentration of between 10^5 to 10^6 particles/ml for TEM.”
OK, so I had a solid starting point. Let’s see if I could find other studies to back up this assertion. From Michael Laue et al., in Visualization of SARS‑CoV‑2 particles in naso/oropharyngeal swabs by thin section electron microscopy,
“With a suspension of 10^7 particles/ml, virus particles could be found in the first section through each of the pellets (3 of 3 samples), while with a suspension of 10^6 particles/ml only part of the pellets showed virus in the first Section (6 of 8 samples).”
This paper was concerned with determining the most efficient way to utilize EM, and their conclusion was that 10^7 particles per mL was more efficient that 10^6 particles per mL, as 100% of the former yielded found particles in the first section while the latter yielded first section detection 75% of the time. The sample sizes are admittedly small, but it shows that while the higher density sample is preferred, 10^6 virus particles per mL is certainly sufficient for detecting and imaging viruses even though it may take a little more searching before they are found.
In a 2020 paper Concentration of viruses and electron microscopy, I.D. Petrova et al, state that the main limitation of the EM detection/imaging method is the necessary density of 10^7 particles/mL, which requires viral material to be concentrated through procedures such as precipitation, centrifugation, filtration, and chromatography.
Interestingly, this 10^7 number was cited from a 2003 paper by G. G. Reid et al, Comparison of electron microscopic techniques for enumeration of endogenous retrovirus in mouse and Chinese hamster cell lines used for production of biologics. But a reading of this paper reveals that a latex bead method indeed requires 10^7 particles per mL, but then the paper immediately goes on to say that “...virus can be concentrated by passing supernatant through a discontinuous sucrose density gradient whereby the detection limit is reduced to approximately 10^5 virus particles per ml.”
So at this point it was looking like 10^6 particles per mL was a pretty safe bet and even 10^5 particles per mL might be the lowest required density.
That’s all well and good but the thing is, I had also stumbled upon an interesting quantity from Wang et al., in their 2020 paper Modeling the load of SARS-CoV-2 virus in human expelled particles during coughing and speaking:
“From a single cough, a person with a high viral load in respiratory fluid (2.35 × 10^9 copies per ml) may generate as many as 1.23 × 10^5 copies of viruses that can remain airborne after 10 seconds…”
The interesting quantity here is the reported 2.35 × 10^9 copies per ml of viral particles possible in the respiratory fluid of a person with high viral load.
So virologists claim they can’t image samples directly from human samples because the viral density is insufficient. Apparently a density of 10^5 or 10^6 viral particles per ml are needed for EM imaging and the only way to achieve such density of particles is to utilize cell culture procedures. And yet it is claimed that respiratory fluid can contain up to 2.35 × 10^9 copies per ml of viral particles which is either 2,000 or 20,000 times the minimum threshold.
Hmmm...I'm sure they have a good explanation.
Unlike every other detailed No Virus essay or statement I've read, this one is actually cogent and understandable and doesn't lapse into either word salad or question-begging. (I did get lost in the technical section on the Mainstream claims of quantifying infectivity, but I hope that wasn't crucial to the overall argument.)