I watched half of it. What I like most is the part about the pleasant cooperation between eminent scientists. Obviously, the cooperation was full of understanding and respect. As you say, you broke the ice (Antarctic :D). Because it is a territory that few ordinary people have touched because it is protected by all countries in the form of scientific consensus. However, your boldness, desire and dedication have created something magnificent. Using AI for objective detection of nanoparticles of different characteristics is in line with the most modern innovative solutions. I'm listening further...Jamie and Albert, congratulations for this magnificent project! Thank you! ✅✅✅
Fantastic progress. It appears that what Albert is saying about cells and the questions this has clearly thrown up for him is aligned with Stefan Lanka's own research. Lanka has already rejected the current paradigm of cell biology and talks about tissue and not cells. This new experimental work will no doubt provide a whole treasure trove of imagery and analysis to help challenge the current increasingly outdated view of how life is put together and clarify how biological processes actually operate in the real world. The present models clearly don't do justice to what we can all see and experience when we start to open our eyes and take a more holistic view of what is going on. https://open.substack.com/pub/howard366646/p/after-a-period-of-absence-dr-stefan
Hello Albert, thank you for your enthusiasm. About your initial objectives. You wanted to confirm that cells exposed to starvation and antibiotics would disintegrate as seen on light micro, with stated viral sample or not? Or you wanted to see particles that looked like viruses claimed to be found by virologists as seen on electon micro with stated viral sample or not, or both?
The former LM study can’t find an infective particle with the structure and function said to be a virus whether there was one in the sample or not, and the latter, as you rightly said is a dead 2-dimensional shadow on a detector plate, giving no real information about said image.
So please forgive me but I would opine that neither CPE on LM nor object morphology on EM has anything to do with the possibility of isolation and characterization of a particle, and we would know this just by reading any virology paper doing CPE or morphology studies, we don’t actually need to redo the studies because no matter what they show it can not be determined to be a virus to begin with.
Even ATCC, a biotech co that produces products with “purified” viruses are easily proven to NOT HAVE ANY PURIFIED VIRUS IN THEM. The basis of these products just requires a few steps to dig into the original papers the products refer to which are computer generated genomes (aka fakery). Here I did this with cold-virus, no cost to me,
Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to find infective particles with the structure said to fit the definition of a virus from sick person via density gradient on ultracentrifuge and basic purity on EM confirmation? You could do this on a dozen sick persons said to have a viral infection with multitudes of tests. You'd never find a virus and officialdom would just say you didn’t look hard enough. It could still be another nail in the coffin of virology, while CPE or morphology are both silly logic to begin with if you think about it.
Just trying to get a handle on what procedures have what meaning related to virology more then just reading a bunch of virology papers claiming to find a virus that are inevitably pseudoscience and cost zero to read. Thank you for your efforts.
Yes I understand, there can be controls but neither type of study can rule-in or rule-out a virus no matter what set of findings one gets. This fact may not be clear to all the readers.
To rule out or in a virus you would need to actually be looking for the particle itself. CPE doesn't look for a particle only for a surrogate marker of CPE. Since no virus has ever been found as a particle, CPE as an effect of a virus is only a concept. The virologists seem to think there can be dormant or asymptomatic viruses. When CPE first came on the scene those were not concepts. So a negative CPE could still have a virus in the sample in some fairy-tale sense-we can't know because there has never been a virus to study. In addition, you can have CPE in the patient sample not in control due to some non-virus substance in the patient sample.
For morphology, EM of a cell culture can't tell you anything about particle finding and characterization. I think I am quite clear about these basics.
You are lacking in the basics as you are misinterpreting what CPE is. CPE is literally just cell death, apoptosis. We show categorically the same morphology of apoptosis is present in culture AND TEM.
Yes I know that very well. This finding invalidates the procedure for CPE as a surrogate marker of a virus, that is all it does. It has nothing to do with a virus there or not.
I watched half of it. What I like most is the part about the pleasant cooperation between eminent scientists. Obviously, the cooperation was full of understanding and respect. As you say, you broke the ice (Antarctic :D). Because it is a territory that few ordinary people have touched because it is protected by all countries in the form of scientific consensus. However, your boldness, desire and dedication have created something magnificent. Using AI for objective detection of nanoparticles of different characteristics is in line with the most modern innovative solutions. I'm listening further...Jamie and Albert, congratulations for this magnificent project! Thank you! ✅✅✅
Fantastic progress. It appears that what Albert is saying about cells and the questions this has clearly thrown up for him is aligned with Stefan Lanka's own research. Lanka has already rejected the current paradigm of cell biology and talks about tissue and not cells. This new experimental work will no doubt provide a whole treasure trove of imagery and analysis to help challenge the current increasingly outdated view of how life is put together and clarify how biological processes actually operate in the real world. The present models clearly don't do justice to what we can all see and experience when we start to open our eyes and take a more holistic view of what is going on. https://open.substack.com/pub/howard366646/p/after-a-period-of-absence-dr-stefan
I do look forward! Thank You for Your work!
Smutzch at the edges 🤣🤣🤣
Oh really are these tbe images in the books ??Smutz?? 🤣
Hello Albert, thank you for your enthusiasm. About your initial objectives. You wanted to confirm that cells exposed to starvation and antibiotics would disintegrate as seen on light micro, with stated viral sample or not? Or you wanted to see particles that looked like viruses claimed to be found by virologists as seen on electon micro with stated viral sample or not, or both?
The former LM study can’t find an infective particle with the structure and function said to be a virus whether there was one in the sample or not, and the latter, as you rightly said is a dead 2-dimensional shadow on a detector plate, giving no real information about said image.
So please forgive me but I would opine that neither CPE on LM nor object morphology on EM has anything to do with the possibility of isolation and characterization of a particle, and we would know this just by reading any virology paper doing CPE or morphology studies, we don’t actually need to redo the studies because no matter what they show it can not be determined to be a virus to begin with.
Even ATCC, a biotech co that produces products with “purified” viruses are easily proven to NOT HAVE ANY PURIFIED VIRUS IN THEM. The basis of these products just requires a few steps to dig into the original papers the products refer to which are computer generated genomes (aka fakery). Here I did this with cold-virus, no cost to me,
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/cold-virus-on-ice
Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to find infective particles with the structure said to fit the definition of a virus from sick person via density gradient on ultracentrifuge and basic purity on EM confirmation? You could do this on a dozen sick persons said to have a viral infection with multitudes of tests. You'd never find a virus and officialdom would just say you didn’t look hard enough. It could still be another nail in the coffin of virology, while CPE or morphology are both silly logic to begin with if you think about it.
Just trying to get a handle on what procedures have what meaning related to virology more then just reading a bunch of virology papers claiming to find a virus that are inevitably pseudoscience and cost zero to read. Thank you for your efforts.
The experiments are the exact same as those conducted by the Virology Control Studies Project.
Yes I understand, there can be controls but neither type of study can rule-in or rule-out a virus no matter what set of findings one gets. This fact may not be clear to all the readers.
Oh it can rule out a virus, that is the exact reason why we are doing it. Not sure why you are having difficulty with the basics all of a sudden?
https://open.substack.com/pub/controlstudies/p/we-have-proved-viruses-dont-exist?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=27c5yh
To rule out or in a virus you would need to actually be looking for the particle itself. CPE doesn't look for a particle only for a surrogate marker of CPE. Since no virus has ever been found as a particle, CPE as an effect of a virus is only a concept. The virologists seem to think there can be dormant or asymptomatic viruses. When CPE first came on the scene those were not concepts. So a negative CPE could still have a virus in the sample in some fairy-tale sense-we can't know because there has never been a virus to study. In addition, you can have CPE in the patient sample not in control due to some non-virus substance in the patient sample.
For morphology, EM of a cell culture can't tell you anything about particle finding and characterization. I think I am quite clear about these basics.
You are lacking in the basics as you are misinterpreting what CPE is. CPE is literally just cell death, apoptosis. We show categorically the same morphology of apoptosis is present in culture AND TEM.
Yes I know that very well. This finding invalidates the procedure for CPE as a surrogate marker of a virus, that is all it does. It has nothing to do with a virus there or not.