Started By
Message

re: COVID-19 not found in isolation

Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:41 am to
Posted by monstranceclock76
Texas
Member since Jul 2019
932 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:41 am to
quote:

What does this have to do with your claim that it hasn't been isolated? Why not build automobiles like they did in the 1970s and before? Why use advances in technology?


Because the old way works and is much more safe. This HAS NOT been properly studied in humans, the old way has.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135445 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:42 am to
quote:

no one could prove it in isolation.
You guys.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
125255 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:43 am to
quote:

the rate of people dying didn't change.


In a “normal” year, deaths increase year over year by 30k-50k. If the preliminary numbers are anywhere near correct, we are looking at an increase of 400k+.

That feels like a rate change.
Posted by zatetic
Member since Nov 2015
5677 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:45 am to
No the covid people are bs, Alberta would not be free now if it was actually found in isolation. The only thing remotely close is people using a machine that no one knows how it works. This post does explain the very dirty business of COVID and it being a big scam. Of course this image was wrote by someone who doesn't like the type of people doing the scam...

https://postimg.cc/c6Yt1wyK
Posted by zatetic
Member since Nov 2015
5677 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:48 am to
Well they couldn't isolate it not in a lab setting. Why is this and what does it mean? It is why Alberta is free now.
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
78026 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:52 am to
quote:


Because the old way works and is much more safe. This HAS NOT been properly studied in humans, the old way has
Again, what does this have to do with the claim that it hasn't been isolated?
Posted by shell01
Marianna, FL
Member since Jul 2014
806 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:54 am to
quote:

Well they couldn't isolate it not in a lab setting.


Who is they? Some halfwit docs? Do you realize that viral isolation and culture is not really in the realm of family practice and is done in a...gasp... laboratory?

Posted by zatetic
Member since Nov 2015
5677 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:54 am to
quote:

Again, what does this have to do with the claim that it hasn't been isolated?


Because that is why Alberta is free, it is in the very first picture of this thread. Sure they can find COVID in their lab under the settings they want while they can't find it in the wild.
Posted by zatetic
Member since Nov 2015
5677 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:56 am to
quote:

Who is they? Some halfwit docs? Do you realize that viral isolation and culture is not really in the realm of family practice and is done in a...gasp... laboratory?


It means they can't find it in people.
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
78026 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 8:58 am to
quote:

Well they couldn't isolate it not in a lab setting


quote:

SARS-CoV-2 caused a major outbreak of severe pneumonia (COVID-19) in humans. Viral RNA was detected in multiple organs in COVID-19 patients. However, infectious SARS-CoV-2 was only isolated from respiratory specimens. Here, infectious SARS-CoV-2 was successfully isolated from urine of a COVID-19 patient. The virus isolated could infect new susceptible cells and was recognized by its' own patient sera
Where do you think the above isolation is happening, a bar room?
Posted by David_DJS
Member since Aug 2005
21776 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:04 am to
quote:

jonnyanony

In case you’re interested, read the paper I link below. It’s not the best but it’s not bad, and is the quickest find for me on my phone this morning.

LINK

If you really want to educate yourself on this topic, go read through the Twitter feed of the Ethical Skeptic . You self-identify as a stats guy, you’ll really enjoy/learn a lot from him.

Ethical Skeptoc Twitter Feed

I’m not one that argues Covid isn’t a real thing. I believe how it’s been handled/used for political purposes is a f’n scam, but the virus is nasty for the unwell/frail.
Posted by jonnyanony
Member since Nov 2020
14834 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:05 am to
quote:

Are you arguing that “last year” is not considered in the modeling?


Apologies if you're not a native speaker, but ...

When I said "they don't just go off of last year" it indicates that last year is included but not in isolation.
Posted by Vastmind
B Ara
Member since Sep 2013
5322 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:05 am to
quote:

NC_Tigah


Still, laboratory standards of COV 2 are not available or they don’t exist. That’s more convincing proof than random pictures.
Posted by jonnyanony
Member since Nov 2020
14834 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:07 am to
quote:

Still, laboratory standards of COV 2 are not available or they don’t exist.


Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135445 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:08 am to
quote:

So, why the synthetic vaccines then? Why not make a vaccine using part of the virus like usual?
They ARE being developed. Several reasons for the synthetics though:

• Most importantly, mRNA can be quickly designed and scaled up. So they are going to get to market before traditional types.

• mRNA manufacturing is sequence-independent, which makes it highly adaptable to different pathogens, meaning it can be altered much more quickly.

• Although cost was secondary to speed of mRNA development, cost is also lower than other platforms.

• Unlike live-attenuated or viral-vectored vaccines, mRNA is non-infectious and poses no concern for DNA integration—mainly because it cannot enter the nucleus which contains DNA.

• Traditional inactivated vaccines require chemicals and cell cultures to produce, creating allergenic issues not seen with mRNA types.

• There are numerous traditional or semi-traditional development efforts underway. As stated, they just take longer to come to fruition. China's Sinovac is an example currently in distribution, though it is an incredibly poor performer. Novavax should exit trials shortly. The challenge with traditionals is finding funding and/or test volunteers when other known effective options already reached market.
This post was edited on 8/5/21 at 9:10 am
Posted by HeadSlash
TEAM LIVE BADASS - St. GEORGE
Member since Aug 2006
54832 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:09 am to
Hmmmm
Posted by Vastmind
B Ara
Member since Sep 2013
5322 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:14 am to
quote:

quote:
Still, laboratory standards of COV 2 are not available or they don’t exist.



quote:

jonnyanony


Show me where to buy the standard.

The fraudulent PCR test tests against a digital copy that can’t distinguish between COV 19 and the flu. That’s why they are discontinuing it.
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
78026 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:15 am to
quote:

 mRNA is non-infectious and poses no concern for DNA integration—mainly because it cannot enter the nucleus which contains DNA
But, But, but...
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135445 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:16 am to
quote:

what does it mean?
It means you don't understand WTF you are talking about.

It means the dummies concocting various assertions you reference cite Koch's Postulates.

Koch's Postulates have nothing whatsoever to do with virology. They deal with bacteria.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135445 posts
Posted on 8/5/21 at 9:20 am to
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram