|
Post by mr potatohead on Oct 3, 2023 12:17:45 GMT
If you have any understanding of science at all, you know what experiment controls are.As I posted above;No peer review needed.Just do the control part of the original experiment.Same experiment in all processes, methods, conditions and ingredients, EXCEPT no tissue to supply "virus" or "ribosome".If they get the same result (find "virus" or "ribosome"), they know the original experiment was a FAILURE to prove.
If they're too chicken to do the control experiment, they should just go home and eat cake.Maybe they love their paycheck more than their integrity? Maybe they're stupid numpties? Maybe they're evil? I don't know what the problem is, but they didn't do science before proclaiming "ribosomes" or "virus" and, as it now appears, a lot of other things.
But, let's keep going. I don't care about your labels, ad hominems, narrative spin, mocking and assignment of motive judgements. Nearly 4 years in ....... show proof. You know what that means and so do I. Dr Hillman wrote extensively on the structure of living cells and the limitations of microscopy techniques. He’s NEVER conducted any personal experiments that conclusively prove that ribosomes are not involved in protein synthesis. All he did was QUESTION the belief that "ribosomal" activity is protein synthesis in ribosomes by publishing a book entitled, "The Living Cell: A Re-examination of Its Fine Structure," which he co-authored with Peter Sartory, Hillman simply discussed the IDEA that ribosomes may not be not be involved in protein synthesis & he kept teaching those observations until he was forced into retirement in 1989 because he STILL didn’t have any conclusive proof to back up his opinion after 15y time. He wasn’t bestowed with any honors or elevated to higher academic positions because of his trailblazing findings. He was an associate professor for 25 years. Dr Hillman’s field of expertise was neurobiology in execution & he staked his whole career on artifacts he saw under a microscope that proved in his mind about the function of ribosomes. This epiphany happened when he published his book in 1974. In all that time NOT ONE person in microbiology has come forward to champion his THEORY save his co-author nor has anyone proven anything about the changed role of ribosomal protein synthesis function. That’s a fact. The pivotal controversy with this guy as far as I can tell was morphology. Structures seen under a microscope. He took inferences from artifacts he saw by stating it changed the function. No one else has confirmed it albeit it’s only ONE theory. It hasn’t changed mRNA technology because ribosomes are still essential for protein synthesis, as they are responsible for translating the genetic code transcribed in mRNA into an amino acid sequence. According to Dr Hillman that can’t happen but mRNA technology aka gene therapy is still chugging along just fine without his theories. Dr Stefan Lanka is a hack AND a quack. His observational theory about measles hasn’t changed virology nor how they are still classified or handled. Nada. Scientists identify viruses by isolating them from infected individuals, sequencing their genetic material, visualizing them through electron microscopy, and indirectly visualizing their effects on cells. This is extremely important aspect for gene therapies which use adenoviruses as vectors & gain of function research. Wuhan virus anyone?? The existence of viruses 1st came from experiments with filters that had pores small enough to retain bacteria back in 1892. The study of viruses actually started in botany (tobacco farming), and it took decades for scientific consensus to agree that they exist at all. That should pique yr interest to jump all over that statement. “AHA! See? PROOF!” Dr Langa & Hillman are so outside of mainstream science that no one bothers to take them seriously at all. They haven’t contributed anything of sustance that has radical changed lab procedures or changed any knowledge related to biotechnology. None. Believe me if something of true substance could elicit a change of direction or progress to the field of experimental biology they’d be all over that shit to see if they could squeeze or save more money from it but it hasn’t happened yet. All that’s transpired here thus far is an aimless unscientific proselytizing debate by Mr Spuds to show he’s right & I’m wrong. U are a contrarian simply for it’s own sake. At the very least, u could have used better examples other than discredited people like Dr Lanka & Hillman. Both gentlemen are a storm in a teacup. I strongly urge anyone to do a profile search on these 2 & see what they espoused & epistemological methods they used to draw their own conclusions. It wasn’t by personal experiments & publishing their results. I can tell u that with utmost confidence. Mr Spuds will still be the lone voice in the wilderness 4 years later. The rest of us will be toasting marshmallows & retiring to our log cabins! Thanks for your lofty judgements, marginalizations and spun up narrative. However, that does not answer the question I'm asking.
Back to the subject of the existence of "ribosomes" and pathogenic "virus";
Show any experiment, detailing the isolation and identification methods used in the recorded process, along with the, most important, control part of the original experiment which was avoided/omitted in the original experiments, that might prove the hypothesis of "ribosomes" and/or "virus".
Fooling around with materials and chemistry sets was fun when I was a kid, but it isn't a science experiment at all without the controls used in an effort to disprove the experiment results. Otherwise, without controls, the result can easily be determined by the process which is not science whatsoever.
The control part of the experiment is exactly the same in all processes, methods, conditions and materials (obviously, it must be), EXCEPT no tissue to supply either "virus" or "ribosome". If they get the same result (find "virus" or "ribosome" with NO tissue source present to supply them), they know the original experiment was a FAILURE to prove.
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,314
|
Post by moxohol on Oct 3, 2023 14:04:47 GMT
Dr Hillman wrote extensively on the structure of living cells and the limitations of microscopy techniques. He’s NEVER conducted any personal experiments that conclusively prove that ribosomes are not involved in protein synthesis. All he did was QUESTION the belief that "ribosomal" activity is protein synthesis in ribosomes by publishing a book entitled, "The Living Cell: A Re-examination of Its Fine Structure," which he co-authored with Peter Sartory, Hillman simply discussed the IDEA that ribosomes may not be not be involved in protein synthesis & he kept teaching those observations until he was forced into retirement in 1989 because he STILL didn’t have any conclusive proof to back up his opinion after 15y time. He wasn’t bestowed with any honors or elevated to higher academic positions because of his trailblazing findings. He was an associate professor for 25 years. Dr Hillman’s field of expertise was neurobiology in execution & he staked his whole career on artifacts he saw under a microscope that proved in his mind about the function of ribosomes. This epiphany happened when he published his book in 1974. In all that time NOT ONE person in microbiology has come forward to champion his THEORY save his co-author nor has anyone proven anything about the changed role of ribosomal protein synthesis function. That’s a fact. The pivotal controversy with this guy as far as I can tell was morphology. Structures seen under a microscope. He took inferences from artifacts he saw by stating it changed the function. No one else has confirmed it albeit it’s only ONE theory. It hasn’t changed mRNA technology because ribosomes are still essential for protein synthesis, as they are responsible for translating the genetic code transcribed in mRNA into an amino acid sequence. According to Dr Hillman that can’t happen but mRNA technology aka gene therapy is still chugging along just fine without his theories. Dr Stefan Lanka is a hack AND a quack. His observational theory about measles hasn’t changed virology nor how they are still classified or handled. Nada. Scientists identify viruses by isolating them from infected individuals, sequencing their genetic material, visualizing them through electron microscopy, and indirectly visualizing their effects on cells. This is extremely important aspect for gene therapies which use adenoviruses as vectors & gain of function research. Wuhan virus anyone?? The existence of viruses 1st came from experiments with filters that had pores small enough to retain bacteria back in 1892. The study of viruses actually started in botany (tobacco farming), and it took decades for scientific consensus to agree that they exist at all. That should pique yr interest to jump all over that statement. “AHA! See? PROOF!” Dr Langa & Hillman are so outside of mainstream science that no one bothers to take them seriously at all. They haven’t contributed anything of sustance that has radical changed lab procedures or changed any knowledge related to biotechnology. None. Believe me if something of true substance could elicit a change of direction or progress to the field of experimental biology they’d be all over that shit to see if they could squeeze or save more money from it but it hasn’t happened yet. All that’s transpired here thus far is an aimless unscientific proselytizing debate by Mr Spuds to show he’s right & I’m wrong. U are a contrarian simply for it’s own sake. At the very least, u could have used better examples other than discredited people like Dr Lanka & Hillman. Both gentlemen are a storm in a teacup. I strongly urge anyone to do a profile search on these 2 & see what they espoused & epistemological methods they used to draw their own conclusions. It wasn’t by personal experiments & publishing their results. I can tell u that with utmost confidence. Mr Spuds will still be the lone voice in the wilderness 4 years later. The rest of us will be toasting marshmallows & retiring to our log cabins! Thanks for your lofty judgements, marginalizations and spun up narrative. However, that does not answer the question I'm asking.
Back to the subject of the existence of "ribosomes" and pathogenic "virus";
Show any experiment, detailing the isolation and identification methods used in the recorded process, along with the, most important, control part of the original experiment which was avoided/omitted in the original experiments, that might prove the hypothesis of "ribosomes" and/or "virus".
Fooling around with materials and chemistry sets was fun when I was a kid, but it isn't a science experiment at all without the controls used in an effort to disprove the experiment results. Otherwise, without controls, the result can easily be determined by the process which is not science whatsoever.
The control part of the experiment is exactly the same in all processes, methods, conditions and materials (obviously, it must be), EXCEPT no tissue to supply either "virus" or "ribosome". If they get the same result (find "virus" or "ribosome" with NO tissue source present to supply them), they know the original experiment was a FAILURE to prove.
They are not all lofty judgments or even lofty. They are based on actual work experience. I’m far removed from a genius & I am sure u will agree? U are not asking questions. U are making strident declarations & issuing challenges to items of contention that have no basis in fact. “The earth is flat. Show me proof it isn’t....” I cannot prove a NEGATIVE. Sorry. Likewise, I cannot prove a false hypothesis of the existence, or lack thereof, of protein manufacturing "ribosomes" and/or "virus" non-pathogenicity when they are already established as facts with assigned characteristics that have been universally accepted(still). I have a baccalaureate & I never got to a level of a supervisory billet. EG: experimental biology or virology research. I mostly did alot of biocuration & pipetting of lab specimens. I also did the virion exams in bee specimens viewed under a microscope which was the extent of flexing my technical expertise in a lab setting.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Oct 3, 2023 15:23:30 GMT
U are not asking questions. U are making strident declarations & issuing challenges to items of contention that have no basis in fact. “The earth is flat. Show me proof it isn’t....” I cannot prove a NEGATIVE. Sorry. Likewise, I cannot prove a false hypothesis of the existence, or lack thereof, of protein manufacturing "ribosomes" and/or "virus" non-pathogenicity when they are already established as facts with assigned characteristics that have been universally accepted(still). I only worked my way up to a baccalaureate & I never got to that level of research work in a lab. EG: experimental biology or virology research. I mostly did biocuration & pipetting of lab specimens such as blood work & histology. I did the occasional adenovirus exam in tissue samples viewed under a microscope with “submerged microsphere optical nanoscopy” which was the extent of flexing my technical expertise in a lab setting. I was actually pretty good at too? I think you are quite intelligent, m8, and I've greatly appreciated many things you have shared.
Bio: I make stuff with my hands and i market products. I graduated from a two year vocational college with straight A's.
My comment, ".... the question I'm asking." should have been "..... my request." I had considered edditting it, but just let it go because I was tired of edittttiing.
I'm not asking for proof of a negative. I'm asking to see the proof of the positive - that a pathogenic "virus" or a "ribosome" exist as advertised in the "scientific" peer reviewed, expert consensus agreed, documented dogma declarations.
|
|
|
Post by ? on Oct 3, 2023 22:08:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Oct 4, 2023 8:32:47 GMT
I decided to tweak this copy/paste request a bit. I removed "...... which was avoided/omitted in the original experiments ....." because it is unnecessary for the request. Doing control experiments to disprove the results of testing their hypotheses is really just SOP for scientists with integrity who are doing real scientific (materialistic) experiments. [EDIT: I just had a thought; What if using materialistic experimentation is an INappropriate way to determine ANYTHING ... or perhaps limited number of things ... within the field of living organisms/biology?]
I also added the words ".....; the existence of human" before the word "ribosomes".
A review for those who weren't on the forum 4 years ago.
Regarding my, from early 2020 and on, research into the existence of pathogenic "virus"; Near the end of 2020, when I first heard Dr Andrew Kaufman (I think it was him) mention that there may not be any proof that any pathogenic "virus" has ever been properly isolated and identified, I had to research it because I realized that, if true, that's game over.
I've heard that, out of tens of thousands of documents that "claim" to "prove" the existence of "PV"s, there are only about 5 papers that actually disclose the process, the methods and the materials used (as per my above request).
I searched, found and read 3 of those papers (ATT I didn't know there could be a couple more) and discovered that it was exactly as the "No Virus" doctors (as they refer to themselves) had said .... There is no possibility of proving the existence of anything the way they did it. Plus, not a control experiment anywhere in any of those recorded experiments.
BTW, those 3 papers were not easy to find. It wouldn't surprise me if all 5 have been scrubbed from the net by now, but not to worry. Someone(s) will have them archived, I have no doubt. Experience with censorship taught researchers early in 2020 to save a copy of everything important.
|
|
|
Post by Farty Lesbo on Oct 4, 2023 13:11:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Capt America on Oct 4, 2023 15:59:13 GMT
I just read that, sickening how they cheer it as "an important moment"...yeah, for the Fascist decline of the West. Lefties have zero sense of humor, all their joy is derived either from the misery of others, or the extinguishing of individual Liberty.
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Oct 5, 2023 4:47:40 GMT
You can't call a lesbian a lesbian, m8s!
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Oct 5, 2023 4:49:12 GMT
Magnus, enlighten us, please...or should we call the thought police upon him? Magnus is the thought police on this forum, m8
|
|
|
Post by Magnus on Oct 5, 2023 8:51:39 GMT
Magnus, enlighten us, please...or should we call the thought police upon him? Magnus is the thought police on this forum, m8 Hmmmmm, was that really President Nixon being eavesdropped on, or did they somehow get an old recording of my mother sitting around the front porch, chain smoking Tarreyton 100’s and gossiping with someone or another ? 🤔
|
|
jonrock
Caneguru
Rock-a-hula
Posts: 969
|
Post by jonrock on Oct 5, 2023 10:48:11 GMT
Bruv and Magnus, all of it and more Beware of the gossip! The offended are everywhere...
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Oct 5, 2023 12:59:09 GMT
Magnus, enlighten us, please...or should we call the thought police upon him? It is interesting to see that all those guys in government are spying on each other and, one day, we'll be able to collectively eavesdrop.
|
|
jonrock
Caneguru
Rock-a-hula
Posts: 969
|
Post by jonrock on Oct 5, 2023 15:55:54 GMT
Magnus, enlighten us, please...or should we call the thought police upon him? It is interesting to see that all those guys in government are spying on each other and, one day, we'll be able to collectively eavesdrop. Deception and betrayal is the more usual course of action for human beings, but not the better.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Oct 5, 2023 19:22:34 GMT
It is interesting to see that all those guys in government are spying on each other and, one day, we'll be able to collectively eavesdrop. Deception and betrayal is the more usual course of action for human beings, but not the better. Please, don't dash my hopes, m8!
|
|