Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:03:58 UTC No. 16560115

>>16560104
>Steady state cosmology
This is possible with alternative theories of gravity. Variable speed of light theories, for instance, can replicate all the observations of gravity and cosmology.
>Aether
Unlikely, but as stated before, alternatives to GR are possible.
>expansion tectonics
Possible with modified gravitational constant, but unlikely
>Metallic hydrogen sun
Probably true
>Plasma cosmology
Doubt it
>Lamarckism as opposed to Darwinism
Teleological evolution is a possibility, but I wouldn't call that Lamarkism.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:18:27 UTC No. 16560124

>>16560115
the Casimir effect is the aether, they have the same exact definition: lower pressure vacuum between two objects. that's the same as aether was formulated back in the 1900s
it's not necessary to postulate modified gravity for planets to expand. one hypothesis i've heard is that the dense planetary core could stop cosmic rays and accumulate them, same as neutrons are swapped in a breeder reactor to make heavier elements
plasma cosmology is very consistent with : the jets of active galactic jets, m82 the exploding galaxy, the funnels of T-Tauri stars, the hourglass funnels of planetary nebulae. they look like they follow magnetic field lines.
wouldn't epigenetics be the same as Teleological evolution?
apply stimuli to animal= animal changes within a lifetime or a generation. surely that can't be random mutation, that looks to be a causal link

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 05:01:39 UTC No. 16560897

>>16560104
academia isn't meritocratic so the theories that academia produces are bound to be lacking in merit

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:42:00 UTC No. 16561063

>>16560104
all of these so-called theories are not accepted because they fail to explain experimental results convincingly

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 11:59:05 UTC No. 16561220

>>16561063
how does continental drift explain subduction ?
how does big-bang explain singularities producing the infinite universe when singularities are also supposed to be inescapable? we are told simultaneously that nothing escapes a singularity because of infinite time dilation and spacial distortion AND everything came out of a singularity. is that self-consistent ?
>experimental results
what are the experiments for dark energy, inflation, singularities?
how does relativity explain a non-corporeal space-time that has elastic properties and goes back to original geometry? what makes a non-entity have solid-like material properties ? like Tesla said "it's like saying that mass bends nothingness "
how does darwinism explain epigenetics? mutations are not random, they seem to be reactions to external causes, not mistakes.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 14:45:16 UTC No. 16561341

>>16561220
did you start your undergrad yet?

>how does continental drift explain subduction ?
Presumably by asserting that the density of the earth's liquid core is not the same at every point, meaning some continents can sink a little and end up underneath others. This is a near trivial assertion to make, because it is known that non-ideal fluids do not behave in ideal ways.

>how does big-bang explain singularities producing the infinite universe when singularities are also supposed to be inescapable? we are told simultaneously that nothing escapes a singularity because of infinite time dilation and spacial distortion AND everything came out of a singularity. is that self-consistent ?
I think your understanding of the term "singularity" is a little lacking, otherwise you wouldn't make a mistake like this.

>how does darwinism explain epigenetics?
It doesn't and why should it? It's concerned with predicting the outcome, not the mechanism itself and within its defined boundaries it holds remarkably well for something this old. It even accounts for epigenetics.

>mutations are not random, they seem to be reactions to external causes, not mistakes
Darwinist thought asserts that this is essentially a tendency towards an optimum. It's a shifting of the average across time.

If I randomly pick numbers and discard all numbers a certain distance below the average, the average will trend up. This is essentially the assertion Darwin makes.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:40:19 UTC No. 16561377

>>16561063
imagine believing that, that surely takes some faith
Meanwhile, check this out:
Physicist Robert B. Laughlin wrote:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [...] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. ... Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [...] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is not accepted (taboo).
(lol, somebody edited it.. in the book it goes like "But we do not call it this because it is a taboo")

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 16:27:02 UTC No. 16561436

>>16561377
instead of some nonsensical drivel, how about you try defending your favorite nonsense theory instead

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:17:59 UTC No. 16561498

>>16561436
we call this the redditherring

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:44:40 UTC No. 16561590

>>16561436
ok for example

in stead of the redshift being caused by inflating space-time continuum (it's not clear how dark energy would inflate and exert pressure on a non-object with no substance) the redshift is intrinsic to the objects

for example the jets coming out of galactic nuclei are more redshifted than the galaxy (both of them so it's not a perspective effect)

the cores of galaxies are more redshifted than the disk

galactic jets happen to align with quasars, as indicated by Halton Arp. this means quasars are not distant and very bright background objects but they coexist in the same place with the galaxies (markarian 205 for example)

there are quasars even inside galactic jets, this would be a monumentally improbable coincidence if these quasars just happen to align with galactic jets but be causally not connected

then there is the problem of low mass white dwarfs. according to Herserprung-russel diagram of stellar evolution, low mass white dwarfs should not exist because it takes trillions of years to form one and the universe is only 13B in BBcosmology
So either stellar evolution theory is not true or BBCosmology is not true

Then we have the luminosities of galaxies being consistent with a non expanding universe
In expanding universe model the galaxies should get progressively dimmer with distance because of relativistic dimming. this relativistic dimming is not observed, rather galaxy luminosity strongly correlates with regular inverse square dimming due to distance.

then we have giant quasar clusters like the great Sloane Wall which is so massive it would need Trillions of years to accrete even assuming more dark matter
for example in the Milky way the big blue stars are on average more redshifted than the regular stars. it's called the K-trumpler effect. so it is either a coincidence that the O stars are moving away from us more than the other ones (you would expect orbits around the galactic center to be 50/50 towards/away from us

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:57:59 UTC No. 16561613

>>16561436
then we have the problem of the impossibly early galaxies that formed rapidly after the BB. fully fledged galaxies a few million years after the supposed BB

then we have the problem of Type-1a supernovas which are used for distance measuring. these are purely hypothetical. it's impossible to verify if these things are white dwarfs exploding because the entire theory of WD explosion is based on mathematical models and no experiment or observation. A WD is said to explode at 1.4 solar masses, but no one can ever verify this claim since WD are supposed to be made of "Fermi gas" or "degenerate matter" which no one has observed or reproduced experimentally, so the entire Type1a theory has no substance and is completely unfalsifiable.
And the supernova model only works for non-rotating WD at 1.4 solar masses, a rotating wd would not collapse at that point because of centrifugal force which adds uncertainty. so there is no way of knowing that Type1as have all exactly the same intrinsic luminosity and therefore there is no way of measuring distances

then there are the colliding galaxies with different redshifts.

then we have the problem of the "neutron stars that break physics" because of their extraordinary intense intrinsic brightness. which can be more plausibly interpreted as a miscalculation of brightness per surface area. if the pulsars are normal size stars, they are not Physic breaking bright rather the luminosity is distributed over more surface area and is of low intensity.

there is also the problem of speeding up and slowing down of pulsars which can be more plausibly explained not by rotation of a neutron star but by ions trapped in a magnetosphere of a regular star colliding with it's surfaece

there is also the problem that pulsars are pulsating so fast that now astronomers had to postulate "quark matter" and "strange matter" as even denser alternatives to neutron matter because even neutron matter would not survive the

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:05:00 UTC No. 16561620

>>16561436
the centrifugal force if it rotated thousands of times per second. so the neutron star started out as an unfalsifiable hypothesis, since no one can experimentally or observationally defend the existence of neutron matter. then even neutron matter was not sufficiently dense to create an object rigid enough to withstand thousands of rotations per second.
this problem spawned an even more esoteric and unfalsifiable hypothesis of quark matter which is equally unobservable and unfalsifiable.

then we have the problem of stars with heavy elements in their atmosphere (heavier than iron) which refute the theory of stellar evolution that states that when a star produces iron though nucleosynthesis it explodes .
having non-exploded heavy element stars refutes the Core collapse theory of supernovas and it means we can't use star metallicity to measure the age of the universe as BBCosmology stated.
I'm OP by the way

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:06:58 UTC No. 16561623

>>16561220
You are not an expert at any of these fields. You dont know anything abiut geology or cosmology

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:16:00 UTC No. 16561644

>>16561623
classic Vaush appeal to authority
I know more than you

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 20:08:06 UTC No. 16561698

>>16561623
these are rhetorical questions
there are answers

how do we explain subduction ?
it doesn't happen. a thin layer or oceanic crust would not make the thicker continental crust buckle, the thinner, less rigid crust would buckle.
if the fault line where the new oceanic crust is created were pushing the crust laterally, we should observe a buckling of the crust right next to the rift, not a buckling of the more rigid continental shelf.
if oceanic crust were jammed against a continental shelf it would go in the path of least resistance (up) and overlap with the continents.

how does bbcosmology explain singularities ?
it doesn't. singularities are oxymorons. according to relativity no object can ever fall in a black hole and reach the singularity and be destroyed because of time dilation and spacial compression reaching infinity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVbtdRMVgI

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:04:51 UTC No. 16561790

>>16561644
>Vaush appeal to authority
what the fuck does that mean

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:13:26 UTC No. 16561798

>>16561698
then how do you explain all the things explained by subduction?
Your alternate explanations needs to be at least as good. It's not enough to say, "this might not be true"?

>how does bbcosmology explain singularities ?
How does it explain things we don't understand? I dunno. We don't know what singularities are. We can describe what they do, but that's really enough is it. Maybe there's a wizard inside?

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:22:45 UTC No. 16561806

>>16561590
>the redshift is intrinsic to the objects
okay sure.
But then if you have two of the same object, they should be redshifted by the same amount. And if they're similar, the redshifts should also be similar. That's easy to verify, is it not?
If this isn't the case then your idea is wrong.

And your idea is wrong, because the whole issue is that the redshifts among objects we believe to be similar are different.
And I know that this is true, because this was an issue in cosmology historically.
Science is very procedural and learning it in an ahistoric way just leads to you getting confused. Consider all the people struggling with quantum mechanics, because they never heard about statistical thermodynamics.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:00:57 UTC No. 16562520

>>16561806
>But then if you have two of the same object, they should be redshifted by the same amount

but that's exactly what Arp and Burbidge discovered. similar objects are not of the same redshift. For example quasars which appear visually close to a galaxy happen to align with the axis of rotation of the galaxy's disk and they are redshifted by different amaounts.
The closer a quasar appears to the galaxy the more redshifted it is and less shifted further away.
Arp thought that quasars are basically the same thing as galactic jets and they are ejected by the big galaxy's core.
Not only that but the quasar redshift is in steps. they are not on a continuous random spectrum but grouped more or less in pairs on either side of the galaxy. getting less and less redshifted away from the big galaxy. He called it "redshift quantization"
the reddit astronomers have tried to refute quasar redshift quantization by averaging over many clusters of galaxies together instead of comparing just the quasars in close vicinity to a bright galaxy
it seems that quasars are the same thing as jet material, it is known that galactic jets have clumps of high density material sometimes known as jet diamonds.
Eric Lerner theorized that these clumps form because of a zeta-pinch or tangled magnetic field lines in field of the galactic core

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:16:09 UTC No. 16562537

>>16561806
there is also the fact that the quasar sits inside a gas cloud ejected by the bright galaxy which has the same redshift as the galaxy (which you would expect) the quasar inside had much higher shift. and it cannot be a coincidence that these objects are visually in the same place
according to reddit cosmology, the quasars are allegedly hundreds of times further away, billions of light years away and they are massive black holes. if these just happen to align with foreground objects strains credulity

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:27:01 UTC No. 16562666

Maybe this is the wrong thread but I don't care.
I have a few family members who just LOVE linen fabrics and they say wearing only linen has all these amazing health benefits.
I did a little bit of searching online but I can't find anything that backs up this claim aside from articles written by hippies and they all say the same things:
>It has a high molecular resonance frequency
>Therefore it's good for your body
>Unless you also wear wool too
>Wool's frequency is also 5000 mHz but they cancel out if you wear them together and then you get NO BENEFIT
>Polyester's frequency is like 10 mHz... low number bad.
Do any of you nerds know where this idea comes from? Is there any evidence that surrounding yourself with molecules that vibrate at a certain range of rates is good (or bad) for you?

I do believe there are good health-related reasons to wear linen. I do think there are good health-related reasons to avoid synthetic fabrics. I just don't think it's because of the frequency that the molecules are vibrating.

Anyway, bye.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:44:23 UTC No. 16562781

>>16562666
synthetic = microplastics and endocrine disruptors

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:55:15 UTC No. 16562840

>>16562520
>the reddit astronomers have tried to refute quasar redshift quantization by averaging over many clusters of galaxies together instead of comparing just the quasars in close vicinity to a bright galaxy
That's some false history. Arp didn't come up with quantized redshift, it is much older. And people claimed to detect it using quasars just in the redshift distribution of quasars, nothing to do with bright galaxies. Arp's model was supposed to explain quantitation, but it went away when much larger surveys had better statistics.

>>16562537
> it cannot be a coincidence that these objects are visually in the same place according to reddit cosmology, the quasars are allegedly hundreds of times further away, billions of light years away and they are massive black holes. if these just happen to align with foreground objects strains credulity
By the same logic one can conclude from this image that Saturn is attached to the Moon. Or maybe I choose this one photo which makes it look like that, cherry picking your data is dangerous, you can pick your data which suits your bias. Arp did the same thing. There are tens of thousands of galaxies like these and yet he only focuses on a handful, most galaxies do not show this. If you take human bias out of the equation there is no correlation between low redshift galaxies and high redshift quasars.

>quasar sits inside a gas cloud
Bear in mind that is a very old image and the low resolution of ROSAT will blur close objects together. Also you can tell Arp must have done additional smoothing because x-ray data should be very noisy due to the small number of photons.

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:33:35 UTC No. 16562868

>>16562520
>>16562537
you are very confused.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:09:21 UTC No. 16563632

Every exchange with a science believer ever:

>The man who invented M-RNA says it's very dangerou..
- he is a science denier !
> scientists sued Al Gore for fraud in global warm...
- THEY were not real scientists !
> the former director of Phiser said the jab is dangerous because of graphene oxi..
- I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT FUCKING SCIENCE DENIER INFILTRATED OUR DEMOCRACY !!
> Roger Penrose said inflation is mythology
- It's time that stale pale males make room to science women !
> Astronomers can predict climate change by solar activity
- Astronomers are not climatology experts so it doesn't count
> Freeman Dyson said global warming is not catastrophic
- didn't he die already ?
> the guy who invented the DNA model said there are strong correlations between iq and race
- RAYSIS WHITE SUPREMIST SCUM !!

no exceptions

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:23:30 UTC No. 16563642

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:34:13 UTC No. 16563652

>germ theory
>evolution
>relativity
prime examples of pseudoscientific theories that the majority of people, scientists included, believe to be scientific AND proved by the scientific method

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:14:54 UTC No. 16563698

>>16563652
can i get a quick rundown on germs ?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:18:27 UTC No. 16563703

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:58:55 UTC No. 16563742

>>16563698
Early germ theory based on Koch's postulates is an honest scientific theory. It just happens to be false. It was falsified by Koch himself when he
-found M. tuberculosis and other presupposed germs to be present in healthy organisms
-didn't always find it ito be present in organisms with symptoms
-didn't succeed in infecting healthy organisms with a pathogen at all
Instead of being intelectually honest and acknowledging that this makes germ theory false, several unfalsifiable concepts have been incorporated into the theory which makes it pseudoscientific. The concepts are:
-asymptomatic illnesses
-antibodies and immune system
-viruses
Germ theory can't be falsified now. Whatever the outcome of an experiment is, it supports the theory. You can always appeal to a strong immune system whenever symptoms aren't developed, or you can make up a virus when a bacteria cannot be found. Unfalsifiability is an inherent property of pseudoscience.
There is no illness for which Koch's postulates can be satisfied and scientists actually acknowledge this. But they fail to realize that it makes their theory unscientific (and false).

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:59:57 UTC No. 16563745

>>16560104
Can science define a woman?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:20:11 UTC No. 16563780

>>16563745
non-male bipedal foid

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:23:42 UTC No. 16563784

>>16563742
ok so what is the gangrene and pus ? and what passes from one victim to another? why do we die ?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:27:10 UTC No. 16563788

>when you need to use plenty of science so you can tell everyone around the globe you dont believe in it

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:31:57 UTC No. 16563797

>>16563742
story time...
>Ate McChicken sandwich
>got green bloody diarrhea
>retarded doctor tries to give me immodium
>trash it and chug gatorade instead, knowing what comes next...
>stool sample positive for campylobacter jejuni
>finally get goddamned z-pak after the gatorade almost flushed it
>followup stool sample negative

explain this shit, lol.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:09:14 UTC No. 16564161

>>16563632
>The man who invented M-RNA says it's very dangerou..
potentially, if you make bad proteins
seems kind of obvious to me

>scientists sued Al Gore for fraud in global warm...
you can sue anyone for any reason you like

>the former director of Phiser said the jab is dangerous because of graphene oxi..
I don't know this company or what jab it developed, more details please.

>Roger Penrose said inflation is mythology
ok sure, what do I care? he's wrong.

>Freeman Dyson said global warming is not catastrophic
I don't know who that is. But the worst case scenario does look pretty bad.

>the guy who invented the DNA model said there are strong correlations between iq and race
what does inventing the DNA model have to do with race and iq? I don't think you quite understand the correlation here.

I don't really know why you take people saying things so seriously. Lots of people say lots of things all the time.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:15:12 UTC No. 16564173

>>16563742
>asymptomatic illnesses
>antibodies and immune system
>viruses
How are these unfalsifiable exactly?
Asymptomatic illness is defined as the presence of germs and the absence of symptoms. What about this do you feel is unscientific? It's just a name for something that happens sometimes.
We know antibodies exist and they do what we think we do, because they are used extensively in biological testing. We know that there are compounds that can target specific proteins in both vitro and vivo.
Viruses do exist and we can observe them using SEM/AFM or various sequencing strategies or antibodies, what'a the issue there?
We also know that they work the way we think they do, because they are used every day everywhere in the world to produce desired strains of bacteria for medical, but also non-medical uses.

Also, what is your alternate theory of disease? Miasma?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:23:28 UTC No. 16564184

>>16564161
wow my meme really was correct, that IS how you are. Thanks for confirming my worldview

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:39:37 UTC No. 16564213

>>16564173
Can you describe an experiment that could falsify germ theory?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 23:07:47 UTC No. 16564238

>>16564173
>Asymptomatic illness is defined as the presence of germs and the absence of symptoms. What about this do you feel is unscientific?
Presence of germs and absence of symptoms is falsification of the claim that the germ is the causative agent of said symptoms. That's all.
Every pathogen can be found in organisms without symptoms.
And conversely every symptom can occur without the presence of the pathogen.
So what makes you say the pathogen is the causative agent?
>We know antibodies exist and they do what we think we do
I disagree. Post scientific proof that antibodies exist.
>Viruses do exist
I disagree. Post scientific proof that viruses exist (and picture of dead cell tissue is not a proof).

There's only one disease, that is best described as "disbalance". Being sick is your body finding equilibrium by getting rid of dead and toxic tissue. The disbalance can have many causes, the main being acute poisoning, prolonged exposure to toxic environment (mainly air pollution), lack of nutritients, sunlight or sleep, and also changes in temperature and humidity (that's what seasonal flu is). And stress/fear of course. Mainstream science agrees with all of that, they just formulate it within the framework of germ theory, i.e. they will say stuff like "a certain virus best breeds in some harmful environment" while it's obvious that it's the environment itself that poisons the organism.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 01:41:11 UTC No. 16564390

>>16564238
>Presence of germs and absence of symptoms is falsification of the claim that the germ is the causative agent of said symptoms.
Only at that specific point in time. It doesn't prove anything.

>Post scientific proof that antibodies exist.
>Post scientific proof that viruses exist
How do antibody-based tests if they do not?
How do we introduce foreign genomes into bacteria if they don't?
Here's a beautiful thing about science for you.
It doesn't matter if these things are real, if we can utilize something as these things are theorized, then that something has the properties of the thing in question and so we might as well call it the thing itself.

>Being sick is your body finding equilibrium by getting rid of dead and toxic tissue
Can we observe this tissue?


>>16564213
>Can you describe an experiment that could falsify germ theory?
If we have three cloned rats and feed one of them sterilized food, the second one sterilized food that has been laced with a specific bacterium that causes illness in rats and the third one the laced food and a bacterium-killing agent, then if germ theory is false, they should all end up the same way.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 01:48:32 UTC No. 16564400

>>16564390
>thing i don't believe in is definitely wrong because i invented fallacious logic to explain why other people believe in thing i don't believe in
if you have to resort to fallacious logic to justify your beliefs then your beliefs are wrong

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 01:53:18 UTC No. 16564405

>>16564400
Let's try a different route. If someone hands you a vial of tuberculosis bacteria and offers you a hundred bucks to snort its contents, would you do it?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 02:42:18 UTC No. 16564452

This is actually an interesting thread.

Something I’ve been wondering about is why can’t light just lose energy over vast distances? Wouldn’t that explain redshifting without the need for expansion? I’m assuming there are experiments that have shown otherwise but I haven’t seen anything about it yet.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 02:50:58 UTC No. 16564457

>>16564452
"Tired light" isn't a new idea.
But for that to work, shouldn't we be able to detect very small amounts of it's fatigue experimentally?
Also, how do you square that with conservation of momentum?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 02:56:47 UTC No. 16564461

>>16564457
Well this isn’t exactly “tired light” my understanding of that theory is that it’s scattering or re-emitting after being absorbed. Anyway I don’t know how conservation of momentum factors into it, I’m not proposing light slows down, just that over intergalactic distances it just loses energy.

So my thought is a photon of light traveling in a vacuum over long distances that doesn’t hit any other object would naturally move from high energy to a lower energy.

How you test this I don’t know. Empirically it would just match the observation of what we see with redshifting.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 02:57:44 UTC No. 16564463

>>16564461
So, it doesn't get tired, it just gets tired?

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 02:58:53 UTC No. 16564464

>>16564463
Correct, not in the same way as zwicky proposed.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 09:51:50 UTC No. 16564692

>>16564452
>>16564461
For testing it obsessionally it can be tested in some of the same way as Zwicky's hypothesis. Tired light was ruled out in multiple ways, and your hypothesis does too.
Firstly that high redshift objects are time dilated, as measured with supernovae and quasars. Tired light has no time dilation, but it's exactly what the expanding universe predicted.
Secondly tired light would distort the spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Tired light would only change the energy of photons, but to keep the CMB a blackbody the number density of photons has to change as well.

https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

>Anyway I don’t know how conservation of momentum factors into it
The momentum of a photon is proportional to the frequency, if the light decreases in frequency then the momentum is not conserved. Nor is the energy.

The other thing it fails to describe is why light loses the same fraction of energy, regardless of the starting energy. This is needed to make redshift independent of wavelength, but there is no reason it has to be true from what you said.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 13:33:11 UTC No. 16564823

>>16564692
Observationally*

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:42:15 UTC No. 16565546

>>16564390
>Only at that specific point in time. It doesn't prove anything.
Correct. That's because germ theory is unfalsifiable. It cannot be disproved in principle, that's what makes it unscientific.

>If we have three cloned rats and feed one of them sterilized food, the second one sterilized food that has been laced with a specific bacterium that causes illness in rats and the third one the laced food and a bacterium-killing agent, then if germ theory is false, they should all end up the same way.
The absence of symptoms can be attributed to a strong immune system. Or you can say that the mouse did in fact get sick, just asymptomatic.

There were series of human experiments with the spanish flu performed by Milton Rosenau which attempted to transmit the disease by direct contant and inoculation. None of the volunteers got sick.
https://www.ggarchives.com/Influenza/TheRosenauExperiment-1918-1919.html
https://coldwelliantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/GripeEspanolaExperimentosContagio.pdf

So there are two possibilities
1. Your proposed experiment does not in fact falsify germ theory.
2. You must agree that germ hypothesis is false for the spanish flu based on your own criteria.

>Can we observe this tissue?
I mean the body excretes dead cells all the time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 23:02:56 UTC No. 16565582

>>16564405
M. tuberculosis is carried by 25% of world population and the vast majority is "asymptomatic". So sure, if you snort dirt to prove that dirt also doesn't cause tuberculosis.

Robert Koch drank pure cultures of his bacteria in desperate attempts to infect himself:
>In order to fulfill the criteria laid down in the remaining two of his postulates, Koch tried to infect animals with pure cultures of the organism with little success. He rightly concluded that the animals were not susceptible to cholera and took recourse to the extreme step of infecting himself by drinking pure cultures. However, he came down with only a mild episode of diarrhoea, an outcome which was later on exploited by his opponents to ridicule him.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3089047/

And here's a mention of two doctors who did the same
>Drs. Pettenkofer of Munich and Emmerich of Berlin, physicians of high distinction and experts in this disease, drank each a cubic centimeter of “culture broth” which contained these bacilli, without experiencing a single symptom characteristic of cholera, although the draught in each instance was followed by liquid stools swarming with these germs.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453342

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 01:17:38 UTC No. 16565724

>>16560115
>doubt it
>doubt it
>doubt it
>doubt it
>probably. doubt it tho
your post

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 01:30:28 UTC No. 16565730

>>16560104
I believe pi can be calculated accurately and does not "go on forever."
It can be calculated to the space needed to bond atoms together. If you take any element, form it into a long rod and make a perfect circle, it will eventually end when the tips are perfectly covalent bonded together at an atomic level. If the number Pi is too large, then that means the ends are pushing inside of themselves. i.e. if you take 3.16, you would have overlapping ends, or 101% of a circle. So for every single practical physical purpose of Pi humanity will use, it can be calculated to the width of space between atoms before they bond with each other, thus creating a perfect circle with no gaps. I think scientists are trying to "overcalculate it" and are approaching neutrino-sized gaps between atoms.

Scientists are retarded when it comes to general relativity and the doubleslit experiment. They're not good tests, and any number of factors could be messing with them, and other more precise experiments have poked holes in the theories. They have this notion that "nature" is "playing tricks on us" and "preventing us from delving into subatomic matters" when really we're just misinterpreting the data we've found. Everything in the universe, from space to what we're made of to what we observe, is made of carbon atoms, photons, and electrons. There is no dark matter ghost god particle messing with our observations. It can all be explained when you REALLY break down what's going on to "how does this affect the electron-mesh that encompasses everything that all waves pass and reverberate through"
That's all everything is. Atoms slamming together and photons vibrating through electron fields. We have never been able to freeze or stop a photon particle. It's not possible, so why do we still call light a 'particle'? it makes no sense if it doesn't behave like every other particle in the universe.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 01:38:03 UTC No. 16565736

>>16560104
You aren't intelligent enough to reject science. That won't stop you though. You're retarded.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:14:55 UTC No. 16565769

>>16565546
>The absence of symptoms can be attributed to a strong immune system. Or you can say that the mouse did in fact get sick, just asymptomatic.
It is interesting how your response to a thought experiment is nitpicking circumstances, rather than the experimental setup itself. You are arguing in bad faith. Here is the scenario ammended to account for your little nitpicks:
The mice are clones, raised the same way, they are identical in terms of immune response. The pathogen is very strong and it will certainly kill the mouse it infects.

>I mean the body excretes dead cells all the time
I am asking about tissue, not cells. There's a difference between those two words.

>There were series of human experiments with the spanish flu performed by Milton Rosenau which attempted to transmit the disease by direct contant and inoculation. None of the volunteers got sick.
gee, I wonder why that experiment didn't work so good in 1919. A hundred navy sailors? That's a bit of very bad sampling bias right there. So I will instead go with the third possibility and say that the experiment itself was bad, due to many uncontrollable factors.

>>16565582
Would YOU drink it? I don't care about historic. I am asking about you. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
I don't think you are.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 12:03:30 UTC No. 16566252

>>16565769
>The pathogen is very strong and it will certainly kill the mouse it infects.
Such as? Do you have an example of a pathogen which kills a mouse with 100% certainty? If such pathogen doesn't exist but you need it to exist for your hypothetical experiment that would falsify germ theory, then it only supports my claim that germ theory is unfalsifiable.

If the mouse dies, you'll say the conclusion supports germ theory. If the mouse doesn't die, you'll say that the pathogen was not strong enough and that the conclusion still supports germ theory. Unfalsifiable. It's not nitpicking, anon, it's the core of the issue.

Wanna know why the experiments went wrong? Because the spanish flu is not contagious. Disagree? Post scientific evidence proving the contagion. Don't forget that the burden of proof ultimately lies on you as you're the proponent of a theory.

>I am asking about tissue, not cells.
Tissue is made of cells. No idea what your point is.

>>16565769
>Would YOU drink it?
Your idea that I must demonstrate a willingness to risk my life (from your point of view) in order to maintain my honor while you get to sit back when it's YOUR positive claim that requires experiments and evidence, is ridiculous. It's a defensive tactic employed by defenders of germ theory once they realize they have no scientific evidence on their side.
Yes, I'm willing to drink pure culture of M. tuberculosis if you're willing to drink the same amount of pure culture of a Lactobacillus bacteria which is deemed harmless by science. I'm 100% certain we'de be risking a diarrhea, nothing else.

All alleged symptoms of tuberculosis can have many causes, and most carriers of M. tuberculosis don't develop any symptoms. So there isn't even a clear correlation between the symptoms and presence of the bacteria. So why exactly should I be worried that placing M. tuberculosis into my organism is going to cause a deadly cough? Can you back it up with scientific evidence?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:59:08 UTC No. 16566466

>>16565582
the white blood cells...uh find a way ?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:06:28 UTC No. 16566470

>>16565730
why yes, an actual object shaped like a circle would be divided evenly in the number of atoms it's made of. what they mean is the abstract circle that doesn't exist in objective reality is hard to calculate. the platonic ideal circle that you hear Aarvoll talk about. they say that it exists outside the universe in the platonic realm of forms

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:34:02 UTC No. 16566833

>>16566470
If we figure out better calculus, a better way to calculate curves, can we calculate a perfect circle better? Our "approximate the curve with rectangles" system will never be 100% accurate

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:39:39 UTC No. 16566959

>>16566252
>Tissue is made of cells. No idea what your point is.
If you don't understand or are being obtuse on purpose, you are not qualified to talk about this.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:22:37 UTC No. 16567240

>>16566959
>asked to provide scientific evidence
>deflects
erry time

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:26:08 UTC No. 16567241

>>16567240
If you don't know what words mean, then it is going to be difficult to communicate with you. If you just blur the lines between terms enough that they become meaningless any piece of evidence can support any claim.
What's the point?

Now you either tell me what the difference between "tissue" and "cells" is or we're done.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:35:22 UTC No. 16567247

>>16567241
you were asked for evidence, and you clearly can't provide
I'm perfectly fine with ending the discussion here

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:40:29 UTC No. 16567251

>>16567247
You are unable to understand any evidence provided, because you will pick and choose the meanings of any words I use as you like.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:48:46 UTC No. 16567258

>>16567251
What makes you think so?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 09:24:20 UTC No. 16567265

>>16567258
Because you don't understand that there is a difference between "tissue" and "cells". While it is true that tissue is made of cells, there is a reason the word exists, because it means something else. These are very basic things. If you don't know these things, I have to wonder what other holes there are in your knowledge.
You keep confusing ideas and terms and you never defend anything you say. Because you don't know how, you only ever attack.

That's not how an argument works.
Now, let's do some defending for once and tell me is all of modern biotechnology (a trillion dollar industry) a scam or do viruses and antibodies not only exist, but function the way the commonly accepted theory proposes that they do? Because if they don't none of bootechnology works and I have to wonder shat all these highly valued businesses and highly paid people are doing all day.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:19:32 UTC No. 16567315

>>16567265
Most of biotechnology is based on completely unsubstantiated assumptioms, yes. The idea that it would all have to "break down" somehow if that was the case, is silly. You could have a trillion dollar industry studying unicorns using pseudoscientific methods, that doesn't make unicorns real.
Virologist mixes samples with cell culture, artifically induces a cytopathic effect, and then blames it on a "virus". It is never confirmed that a virus is truly present though. The virus is never isolated and its existence is never proved. That is a scientific fraud.
He might then use an assembler to piece together a genome from fragments of genetic information found in cellular debris created this way, but it's never confirmed that there does in fact exist a biological entity posessing this genome. That is a scientific fraud.
One can then manufacture PCR or antibody tests, gene therapy, vaccines, or synthethize proteins based on this genome. None of this confirms that a particle with said genome is real, it's an unverified assumption.
Epidemiologist will then study fraudulent data based on unvalidated diagnostic tests and make up stories about the virus spreading and what not. But they are again just stories based on unverified assumptions.
Simply put, everyone is doing their job in a good faith. Nobody will say "This test is clearly wrong, it marks 50% of healthy people as sick". They'll say "The test has discovered that 50% infected are asymptomatic", because they honestly believe the test has been properly verified and works as intended. Well, recent law suit in my country revealed that literally all tests used for screening covid during 2020-2022 were never verified by anybody even though there's a law which mandates every lab to do so.

Can you post scientific evidence that M. tuberculosis causes a cough?
Can you post scientific evidence that Spanish flu is contagious?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:33:06 UTC No. 16567320

>>16567315
You have unhealthy fixation on human medicine, which is an admittedly fuzzy and somewhat unscienfic field.
Biotechnology uses all the same tools, but on much simpler organisms. It's a trillion dollar industry built on the assertion that germ theory is correct and it provably does on simple model organisms. It works the way we believe on bacteria, it works on chinese hamster overies, it works on human cells. Exactly the way we believe it does. After all, if it didn't it would not be a trillion dollar industry.
A lot of biotechnology is not even inherently medical, it's about producing chemical compounds. We can manufacture proteins in organisms that usually would not make these proteins. How? According to you: magic. According to the established theory: viruses.
And we can easily verify what proteins an organism can produce natively and we can easily verify what the effect of our modification is. Viruses exist and they do what we think they do or biotech is magic.
Which one is it?

>Can you post scientific evidence that M. tuberculosis causes a cough?
>Can you post scientific evidence that Spanish flu is contagious?
The burden of proof is on you, because you are disputing established fact. So first disprove these two assertions and then we can talk about them.

Also, what's the difference between "tissue" and "cells"?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:51:55 UTC No. 16567334

>>16567320
>The burden of proof is on you, because you are disputing established fact
Lmao, nice try. Burden of proof lies on the proponent of a theory, always. You're advocating for germ theory, ergo you're the one who should be presenting evidence. On the other hand, I am pointing out the lack of scientific evidence, so your repeated refusal to post any actually supports my cause.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:15:05 UTC No. 16567345

>>16567334
>Burden of proof lies on the proponent of a theory, always.
If you challenge established literature, the burden of proof is on you.
But please tell me more about how biotech is literally magic.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 14:44:57 UTC No. 16567461

16567345
1. That's nonsense. Burden of proof always lies on the one who's making a positive claim. M. tuberculosis being the cause of tuberculosis is a positive claim and as such requires a proof.
2. It's actually trivial to falsify this claim. It's an estabilished fact that the presence of M. tuberculosis is very rarely associated with the symptoms of the disease (90-95% cases). Finding a microbe in healthy hosts falsifies it as being a pathogen as it is found not causing a disease.
3. In order to claim that this in fact does not falsify M. tuberculosis as the causative agent, you have to introduce the illogical concept of asymptomatic illness (i.e. "heatlhy sick"), which brings unfalsifiability into the hypothesis. There is no way to disprove a microbe as a pathogen if it is found both causing a disease and not causing disease.
4. The etiology of tuberculosis was studied by Koch after he's failed to demonstrate infectivity of the Cholera Bacillus. He's the one recognized as having proved M. tuberculosis as the causative agent. But he has never done that. All he's done was to inject diseased tissue of dying animals into healthy animals and observe some of them get sick, without proper controls. That doesn't prove that the bacteria present causes TB in humans and spreads the disease via air as is claimed. (https://edoc.rki.de/bitstream/handle/176904/5163/428-445.pdf)
5. In the 1910's dr. John Fraser utilized millions of the highly “virulent” germs including M. tuberculosis and fed them to volunteers in various ways. In all instances in over 150 experiments conducted over a 5-year period, no disease ever occurred in any of the volunteers. (https://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/02/0201hyglibcat/020183.Shelton.Vol.VI.pdf). Similar experiments were conducted on multiple occasions by dr. Thomas Powell on himself in order to ridicule germ theory. He has never developed any symptom (https://archive.org/details/fundamentalsrequ00powe/page/25/mode/1up?q=Germ).

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 14:45:58 UTC No. 16567462

>>16567345
Can you present scientific evidence of M. tuberculosis being a causative agent of tuberculosis now?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:06:04 UTC No. 16567478

>>16567461
1. The literature that exists on the subject is proof enough. If you are challenging it, I assume that you familiar with all the accpeted literature. Therefore the burden of proof is on you. You have to show that the literature is wrong. You have not done so.
2. This is not correct. Please provide a literature reference from either a high impact journal or a book published by a reputable publisher to support the claim you are making.
3. please provide a reputable reference for your claim that asymptomatic illness is not possible. Same standards as outlined in 2.
4. Koch died in 1910, do you have anything more recent?
5. Same as 4, do you have anything more recent?

If you want to demand high standards of prppf, then I will do so as well.

>>16567462
All of the literature that has been published in the past 50 years of the subject. You can find it on your own. Here is one:
Gordon, Parish, Microbiology, 2018,164, 4, 437.

Your turn.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:00:29 UTC No. 16567497

>>16567478
>Bigfoot is real.
>Do you have any proof of that?
>There are tons of books and documentaries about it!
>But what's the actual proof?
>YOU need to prove it DOESN'T exist!
Not how anything works. You can't prove a negative claim, you can only disprove a positive claim by pointing out flaws in the evidence for it.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:24:21 UTC No. 16567517

>>16567497
I am God.
According to yourself can challenge this claim or disprove it in any way.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:27:11 UTC No. 16567519

>>16567517
Correct, I cannot prove you aren't God. But I can refuse to accept your claim of being God based on a lack of evidence. You must convince me that you are God, otherwise I have no reason to believe you, and you have not provided evidence for that claim at all.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:29:54 UTC No. 16567522

>>16567519
>based on a lack of evidence
So, to return to original point:
You reject all the literature thas has been published in a number of entire fields of study.
I'd like to know why.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 17:47:10 UTC No. 16567657

>>16567478
There's also a lot of literature on the subject of flat Earth. Does that mean flat Earthers don't need to prove their positive claims, and that it's your job to work through their literature while they get to sit back and keep saying "but that doesn't disprove us"? That's not how it works, anon.

Tubercolosis being mostly asymptomatic is repeated by health authorities such as CDC and WHO
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tuberculosis
https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/clinical-overview/latent-tuberculosis-infection.html
but without reference (they never source any of their claims). Reference can be found here:
Skolnik R (2017). Global health 101 (3nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 331
Mainous III AR, Pomeroy C (2009). Management of antimicrobials in infectious diseases: impact of antibiotic resistance (2nd rev. ed.). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. p. 74

We don't need any source to say that "asymptomatic illness" is nonsense. Lmao. It is contradictory in its very essence. The whole concept is just a cope for the fact that Koch wasn't able to satisfy his first postulate. If he was an honest researcher, he would have recognized that it in fact falsifies his theory. But since he wasn't an honest researcher, he introduced this unfalsifiable concept into the question and made germ theory into pseudoscience.

What does it matter how old these experiments are? I don't understand.

I appreciate your effort at finding evidence, but you've done a truly shitty job. You've probably just took the first paper you've found without actually looking at it, otherwise you would have never presented it as "scientific evidence". In the whole paper there's only a single sentence which deals with etiology of TB
>M. tuberculosis was first described as the causative agent of tuberculosis by Robert Koch in 1882 – on 24th March (now World TB Day) [4]
and the reference is, what a surprise, to Koch's 1882 paper that I've already mentioned. LOL

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 17:52:05 UTC No. 16567659

>>16567522
>I'd like to know why.
Because once you actually start looking into the evidence instead of parroting what you've heard at school, you'll quickly find out that the "evidence" these fields of study are based upon is absolutely unsatisfactory of missing completely. I also used to believe in invisible monsters causing illnesses, anon. That was before I've started looking for evidence of this extraordinary claim.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:21:12 UTC No. 16567843

>>16567657
>There's also a lot of literature on the subject of flat Earth.
Not a lot published in journals in fields where the shape of the earth is significant. I'll tell you why. Because the model doesn't work. Globe Earth is a better model in a wide range fields than flat earth. I'm glad you brought it because just flat earthers, you don't realize how wide of a claim you are making and how many fields are affects by your claims. How many things you need to explain, using your claims. Here's one:
How do I genetically modify a bacterium?

>We don't need any source to say that "asymptomatic illness" is nonsense.
But we do. We know of plenty of bacteria which tend to enter an inactive, non-reproducing state, such as anthrax. M. tuberculosis is one of these bacteria. If you want to say that it is nonsense for a healthy person to test positive for tbc, then you need explain why such a mechanism is not valid, when it is exhibited by a wide range of bacteria, pathogens or otherwise. If you say there is no need for evidence, then I think we are in dire need of some evidence.

>What does it matter how old these experiments are?
Because newer literature replaces older literature. If the references on a concept suddenly end, then either, we know literally everythere is to know about the subject or this line of inquiry stopped producing results. Since it's definitely not the former, it is the latter.

>and the reference is, what a surprise, to Koch's 1882 paper that I've already mentioned
When you talk about something having been discovered, you cite the actual discovery. How would you cite the discovery of tbc?

>>16567659
But these fields, using these ideas work. The produce undeniable results. If the model is good enough predict something so well that you can build a trillion dollar industry off it, it doesn't matter anymore whether it is true or not. It works.
And that's what science is about. Making models that work well enough.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:52:59 UTC No. 16567988

If you sent science then why come to the math and science board? You could just shitpost on /b/, /pol/, or /x/

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:24:46 UTC No. 16568030

>>16567988
Denying accepted scientific theories and models is not inherently anti-scientific. The idea that presenting alternative models is anti-science is peak Scientism (science as religion), and THAT is actually anti-science. This whole, "stop questioning the consensus and just shut up and Trust The Science," mentality is exactly everything wrong with science in the modern age.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:26:36 UTC No. 16568033

>>16568030
Meds. Your half baked idea doesn't rise to the idea of an alternative theory.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:45:00 UTC No. 16568058

>>16567988
>If you sent science
incoherent schizo ramblings
imagine being so emotional and butthurt with rage that you can't even communicate properly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCUXY-oX7V8

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:49:06 UTC No. 16568119

>>16568058
>Oh no! Autocorrect!
Kthxbai

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:31:20 UTC No. 16568612

>>16568033
Tranny

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:19:36 UTC No. 16568672

>>16568030
>Denying accepted scientific theories and models is not inherently anti-scientific
It's very unscientific if you reject models and theories without robust evidence or experiment. Questioning something is not the same as claiming to know it is wrong.
>The idea that presenting alternative models is anti-science is peak Scientism (science as religion), and THAT is actually anti-science.
Presenting speculative ideas as actual replacements for existing theory is also unscientific. Most of the ideas you rattled off are so lacking in substance and detail that they are currently untestable. Others have been completely ruled out (e.g. steady state).
Take for example the aether replacing General Relativity, where is the mathematics of this theory which can predict satellite orbits and match all the experimental tests of GR? It doesn't exist. Surely if a model is going to replace current theory then it should do at least as well experimentally? But no, you are rejecting theory backed by experimental evidence because you like these ideas. This is not scientific logic, this is just your own prejudice and bias.
Similarly for the Sun being metallic hydrogen, has this person calculated how such a structure would emit the approximate blackbody spectrum, or explain limb darkening, or try to match helioseismology data, or explain the neutrino counts and spectra? No. So it's just another insubstantial idea than the author would have to do a great deal more work on before it could even be tested scientifically. You
When the ideas you promote have not been demonstrated to work on any level then you either being ignorant or dishonest.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 14:10:39 UTC No. 16568712

>>16567843
But I'm not making any claims, I'm putting claims of the others under scrutiny. I don't need to explain shit, refutation doesn't require an alternative. If anything, it's you who should explain how does germ theory being unscientific bullshit contradict whatever you're doing with the bacteria.

I'm not saying that it's nonsensical for a bacterium to be found in a healthy organism, nor that it's nonsensical to test for its presence. Only that it's dishonest to call such a person sick or infected, as it makes the claim "M. tub. causes TB" impossible to disprove.

We're not talking about the discovery of TB though. I've asked for evidence that M. tub. is the causative agent of TB, and you've presented a paper which contains no such evidence.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 15:15:56 UTC No. 16568770

>>16568712
>But I'm not making any claims, I'm putting claims of the others under scrutiny. I don't need to explain shit, refutation doesn't require an alternative.
Then you're wasting everyone's time. You need to propose an alternative that fits all the observed data better than the previous theory. Nobody cares that physics doesn't line up perfectly with reality because there's not a better suggestion.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 15:24:42 UTC No. 16568779

>>16568712
>But I'm not making any claims, I'm putting claims of the others under scrutiny.
But you are making a claim, you are claiming that the earth is not a globe, because you are too cowardly to say what the shape of the earth is.
Negative claims are also claims that require evidence. So where is it? Flat Earthers at least have the dignity of saying "look at the horizon, it's a straight line, therefore the earth cannot be a globe". At least they offer some amount of evidence, some form of argument. It's more than literally nothing.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:06:59 UTC No. 16568807

>>16568672
>>16568770
A big part of the reason competing theories aren't fully fleshed out is that no one can get significant funding for research into it because it aims to contradict the current consensus. Papers also will get rejected from peer review just for questioning the consensus. So yeah, obviously these competing alternatives being researched by a couple handfuls of people using their own money in their own spare time without any hope of being published anywhere reputable don't have the same breadth of research as mainstream science that operates billion dollar research industries and pumps out so many papers that we're experiencing replication crises in every field.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:30:29 UTC No. 16568832

>>16568807
Offer a competing theory that explains everything that can be explained with the mainstream theory, then.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:40:38 UTC No. 16568835

>>16568807
Why would we need a competing theory, when the current theory works and is extremely successful?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:46:19 UTC No. 16568843

Lil bro, how retarded do you have to be to lose to a schizo by not understanding such a simple concept as the burden of proof? While seething, making 100 replies for no reason... embarrassing... You could have just called him a nigger or even better ignore him and move on with your day...

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:03:31 UTC No. 16568861

>>16568843
sad post, I accept your concession.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:12:29 UTC No. 16568985

>>16568807
If something isn't fleshed out then you shouldn't be promoting it as an alternative. And the fact it doesn't work as well as standard theory makes it non-viable as an alternative today.
You've left out many things from your description of how models develop. You're also forgetting that most hypotheses die in the crib, as soon as someone applies some skepticism most can be ruled out. You don't need grants to figure out some of these things are wrong.
Also you're assuming all these things you posted are proto-science, early hypotheses which are being seriously developed according to scientific logic. But really many of them are pseudoscience, they are not developed and tested according to the scientific method. You will find most of the people in those videos are fully convinced they are correct, despite the fact they have never made any novel experimental test of their hypothesis. These people are not researchers, they are crackpots. You said it was important to question hypotheses, how can you do that if you start from the baseless assumption that you are correct? Most of these ideas are intentionally vague, so that anyone trying to test them from the outside cannot. These people don't write papers at all, even for self publishing, and they prefer YouTube where they can baffle with bullshit. Math is also something to be avoided, but you cannot seriously do cosmology or physics without it.
Some of the models you posted have literally been dead for decades (e.g. plasma cosmology, steady state). Steady state in particular was ruled out by observations in the 60s. But here you are pretending like that never happened. You regurgitated all that Arp nonsense, without doing any independent research of the claims in the video. You say it's very important to question and be skeptical, but you repeat all of this stuff like a parrot?
Perhaps before evangelizing another crackpot idea you should apply some scientific rationality yourself.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:31:59 UTC No. 16570155

>>16568770
Wouldn't you agree that if I'm right and germ theory is invalid, then all the doctors, researchers and other professionals (especially those paid from taxpayers' money) should be working towards finding an alternative? Or would you prefer them staying in the realms of a flawed theory?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:03:24 UTC No. 16570164

>>16570155
>Wouldn't you agree that if I'm right and germ theory is invalid, then all the doctors, researchers and other professionals (especially those paid from taxpayers' money) should be working towards finding an alternative?
But the existing theory works really well, what's the problem with it?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:22:00 UTC No. 16570175

>>16570164
A theory that illnesses are caused by aliens or leprechauns works equally well. Every observation fits into an unfalsifiable theory, it cannot not work in principle.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:30:48 UTC No. 16570182

>>16570175
what evidence would satisfy you?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:38:45 UTC No. 16570187

>>16570164
It doesn't work well at all, actually. Have you ever looked at studies where natural disease transmission is tested? Like when you try to infect a healthy subject with mere proximity to a sick one? It never actually works. The only times contagious diseases spread in laboratory settings is when a bunch of foreign materials are injected into places they're not supposed to be. The best example is Louis Pasteur's experiments that "proved" rabies is infectious by injecting brain matter from sick animals directly into the brains of healthy animals. Wouldn't you know it, the animals that had foreign brain matter injected into their brains got super sick and behaved extremely abnormally and then died, so that proves rabies can be spread by an animal biting any part of any other animal's body!

Here's an example of failed attempts to infect volunteers with the flu via proximity, coughing, sneezing, and even drinking and snorting phlegm from sick people: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4574984
And here's a book that reviews hundreds of similar studies where disease transmission through the actual proposed methods of natural exposure all completely fail: https://annas-archive.org/md5/77277298c44624e8e6282422916900c4

How does the theory "work really well" when laboratory attempts to replicate what they claim happens in daily life always fail and the only apparent way to spread illness in a laboratory is with injections of biological and chemical cocktails directly into body parts?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:44:47 UTC No. 16570194

>>16570187
Propose an alternative theory that works better.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:49:07 UTC No. 16570198

>>16570182
Literally the most simple and reasonable experiment performed in accordance with the scientific method
>isolate pathogen from sick host
>introduce pathogen into healthy host
>observe healthy host become sick host
but that has NEVER BEEN DONE. NOT ONCE. You can't present a single case of succesful transmission while germ theory deniers have a plethora of examples of unsuccesful ones. The science is on our side.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:52:19 UTC No. 16570201

>>16570198
>isolate pathogen from sick host
>introduce pathogen into healthy host
>observe healthy host become sick host
But this exact thing is done hundreds of times every single day.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 14:15:17 UTC No. 16570223

>>16560104
>I think it is a justifiable belief that theories accepted by academics and scientists are not true.
facts and truth don't care about your beliefs.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 14:25:46 UTC No. 16570235

>>16570201
Isolation has never happened with viruses. We've cultured and isolated bacteria, but not viruses. The virus "isolation" process goes like this:

>extract fluids from sick subject that are expected to contain viruses
>mix fluids into a culture of monkey kidney cells
>mix antibacterial and antifungal chemicals into the culture to make sure no bacteria or fungi show up to spoil the experiment
>leave the culture in a petri dish without any nutrition
>watch cytopathic effects take place as the cells break down and die
>filter out the big particles
>do DNA sequencing on the mixture
>claim it's an "isolated virus sample"

I hope you can see the problems just from that description, but if not, you should know that in addition to the lack of nutrition inevitably starving and killing the cells in the culture, those antibacterial/antifungal chemicals they use are also nephrotoxins (poisonous to kidney cells, which are the cells in the culture, in case you forgot). If you run a proper control on this process by doing everything except for adding the infected fluids, you STILL get cytopathic effects from the cells breaking down and dying. You STILL get those little black specks virologists love to point little arrows to. But guess what? No viral isolation studies do those controls because they conveniently deem it unnecessary as germ theory is simply held to be self-evident and infallible at this point.

>>16570194
Terrain theory. Illness comes from poor diet, poor fitness, improper living (staying inside, living under constant stress, etc), and a toxic environment. What we call the symptoms of illness are the symptoms of healing and detoxification. For example, you don't have a runny nose because you caught a runny nose virus, you have a runny nose because your body is trying to eject something through the snot in your nose.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 14:35:13 UTC No. 16570249

>>16570194
>>16570235
I should have also listed hygiene in that list. Hygiene is very important and the introduction of hygienic practices did a ton of work in reducing illness in people. Not because of stopping viruses from spreading, but because living in filth is bad for your health.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:02:01 UTC No. 16570281

>>16570235
This a scam???
https://www.atcc.org/microbe-products/virology/purified-viruses

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:10:24 UTC No. 16570288

>>16570281
Yes. These "purified viruses" and "virus isolations" are not purified and isolated in the way that a bacterial culture is. It's not a vial of viral particles. It's a vial of material created through the process I outlined. They're using words incorrectly.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:13:30 UTC No. 16570290

>>16570288
but it does everything we say a virus does
I can buy this and the cell culture the virus can infect and and I can make more virus if I want
I can make as much virus as I want, with a tiny sample and I better be able to, given the pricetag on these things.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:32:17 UTC No. 16570298

>>16570201
>But this exact thing is done hundreds of times every single day.
I trust you in that you honestly believe this. But it's just your personal assumption that you have never actually verified. If you have, you would find out that it's simply not true.
Can you support your claim by presenting ONE instance where it's done? You say there are thousands, so can you show JUST ONE?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:33:41 UTC No. 16570301

>>16570175
This is exactly why you should be posting on /x/ instead of /sci/

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:38:44 UTC No. 16570304

>>16570290
>but it does everything we say a virus does
It's never verified that it can replicate. It's never verified it can transmit from person to person. It's never verified its presence in an organism causes it to develop a cough.
>I can buy this and the cell culture the virus can infect and and I can make more virus if I want
What you call "virus isolate" is nothing more than the original sample mixed with cell culture with other stuff such as antibiotics added. You can make as much "virus" as you want this way. Just collect a sample, add it to cell culture and let it starve. There you go, you've discovered a new virus.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:41:38 UTC No. 16570307

>>16570304
>It's never verified that it can replicate
but I can make more of it, I take a little bit of the virus containing culture, put it on some other culture, wait a couple hours and then I have another virus-containing culture and I can keep doing that basically forever after buying just one virus sample.

>It's never verified it can transmit from person to person.
>It's never verified its presence in an organism causes it to develop a cough.
Viruses are a concept completely independent of human medicine. Just like bacteria or fungi.

>There you go, you've discovered a new virus.
if it's so easy, why are you not making money off discovering loads of viruses?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:42:39 UTC No. 16570308

>>16570298
Well, maybe it's not true, as you claim. But it acts in accordance with what we think a virus is and does.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:54:32 UTC No. 16570316

>>16570307
>>It's never verified that it can replicate
but I can make more of it, I take a little bit of the virus containing culture, put it on some other culture, wait a couple hours and then I have another virus-containing culture and I can keep doing that basically forever after buying just one virus sample.
How do you know the culture contains a virus in the first place? How do you know that you're not just repeatedly starving the cell culture until it turns into cell debris that you then label a "virus"?

>if it's so easy, why are you not making money off discovering loads of viruses?
That's literally what virologists are doing. Good job finally figuring that out.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:57:55 UTC No. 16570318

>>16570316
What is "cell debris"?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:02:26 UTC No. 16570323

>>16570318
It's what the cell culture turns into during the virus isolation process. The culture is poisoned and starved until it dissociates into particles of various sizes and shapes. This is what virologists call "virus isolate".

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:02:51 UTC No. 16570324

>>16570323
how do you know it is "cell debris"?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:08:59 UTC No. 16570331

>>16570324
What are you even asking? Cell debris isn't some scientific term, it's literally what it is. A decayed cell culture. Remains of dead cells everywhere. The claim is that there is a virus present in there somewhere, but that's never verified.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:11:34 UTC No. 16570332

>>16570331
>Cell debris isn't some scientific term
Yeah it is. Sure it's a scientific term, you are using it like one, so I'd like to know what it is.
How do I make it?
If I treat a cell with the virus sample and without the virus sample, will I find the same "cell debris"? Can you provide an example where they show that they get the same result in both cases?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:17:07 UTC No. 16570335

>>16570324
Because if you follow the "virus isolation" process and DON'T ADD INFECTED FLUIDS, you STILL get the exact same cytopathic effects and debris. The isolation process itself is damaging and deadly to the cells in the culture, you don't need a virus to get the results that virologists claim are caused by viruses.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:21:47 UTC No. 16570342

>>16570335
>you STILL get the exact same cytopathic effects and debris.
do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:23:22 UTC No. 16570343

>>16570332
>If I treat a cell with the virus sample and without the virus sample, will I find the same "cell debris"?
YES
>Can you provide an example where they show that they get the same result in both cases?
Stefan Lanka has done such controlled experiments, here's a PDF that summarizes his work: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/horing-om-koronasertifikat-endringer-i-smittevernloven/id2847796/Download/?vedleggId=03c4fc8f-c8f1-49c7-b176-07edebd0db06
Of course, every major peer reviewed journal rejects it out of hand and any time virologists perform these isolation studies they never have a control.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:29:41 UTC No. 16570345

>>16570343
Do you think a private citizen has the money to spend on the analytics required for this sort of thing?
It would seem to me that picking through your so-called "cell debris" requires some pretty powerful and expensive tools. Do you think any molecular biology institute would be willing to let this guy play around their lab?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:32:29 UTC No. 16570347

>>16570345
The analytics required for poisoning and starving a cell culture and observing it break down and die under a microscope with or without a virus? You don't have to know exactly what the debris is to determine it's present without viral sample and therefore not caused by viruses.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:36:39 UTC No. 16570351

>>16570347
But then how do I know the debris that forms when I have a virus and I don't have a virus is the same? Just because it's the same shape, doesn't mean the composition is the same, does it?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:39:40 UTC No. 16570354

>>16570332
>If I treat a cell with the virus sample and without the virus sample, will I find the same "cell debris"? Can you provide an example where they show that they get the same result in both cases?
You're again shifting the burden of proof. When virologists observe CPE, they claim that it's because of virus activity and take it as a definitive proof that there is a virus present. But that conclusion is unsubstantiated because there's no proper control group, i.e. one which differs only in the presence of the presupposed virus. The experiment is controlled by a culture that is either inoculated with a saline solution or isn't inoculated at all. CPE is always observed on both cultures, although it happens to be more significant on the experimental group (the one with the added sample). All you can claim at this point is that adding a sample from the sick host further harms the culture. It is a total non-sequitur that there was a single causative agent present in the sample that is responsible both for the symptoms of the host and for the stronger CPE observed. The control never consists of a sample collected from a healthy person, or from a person with the same symptoms but of different cause.
Stefan Lanka has already proved this procedure to be inconclusive. He has repeated the exact process with the only difference that instead of a sample with presuppossed virus he has used sample with harmless RNA from yeast. He has observed stronger CPE on the experimental group, just as virologists do. The conclusion is that the stronger CPE is not necessarily due to a "virus", but due to any foreign genetic material added to the mix (which every sample collected from a sick host always contains tons of).

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:43:16 UTC No. 16570361

>>16560104
>steady state model
hahahahah holy shit i thought you athiest steady staters all died out in the 1800s due to old age. nobody can accept that basket of counterfactual positions, not even the modern ledditor ackthiest.
>LUMINEFEROUS AETHER
HAHAHAHAHA what are you a dark energy belever now?
>METALLIC SUN
Oh, you're just trolling. Carry on, this bait is stellar.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:46:35 UTC No. 16570365

>>16570351
>But then how do I know the debris that forms when I have a virus and I don't have a virus is the same?
Because we can prove that what causes it to form is the preparation and starvation of the cell culture. What Stefan Lanka did was test identical cell cultures with and without the antibacterial/antifungal chemicals, with and without starving the culture, etc. What his experiments show is that the combination of starving and poisoning the culture is what causes the cell debris in the first place and the presence or absence of a supposed virus doesn't change that.

>Just because it's the same shape, doesn't mean the composition is the same, does it?
You may be shocked to learn that virologists do identify those supposed viral particles based on shape and size alone (especially for electron microscope images where the particles are too small to interact with or test in any other way), so there is no difference in the process in that regard.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:02:04 UTC No. 16570384

>>16570351
>But then how do I know the debris that forms when I have a virus and I don't have a virus is the same?
In principle you don't. But that's the claim of the virologists that if the sample collected from sick host hasn't contained a virus, the observed CPE would be weaker (or that the dead culture put under microscope would look differently).
You need to understand that claims like this cannot be verified IN PRINCIPLE, because there is no isolated virus. There's no independent variable that can be manipulated in order to make conclusions about it.
Instead of
>isolating the independent variable (the virus) and then using controlled experiments to make conclusions about its effect on dependent variable (death of the cell culture)
they
>artificially induce the desired result of the dependent variable (they starve the cell culture) and use this result to retroactively infer state of the independent variable (it was due to a virus)
I. e. they turn the reasoning upside down. It's no different than claiming a fire was caused by a dragon, because we have observed the fire. It's a completely fallacious reasoning.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:02:51 UTC No. 16570385

>>16570354
>You're again shifting the burden of proof.
yes, because you are making a positive claim. I am asking you to provide evidence for your positive claim.
Is the so-called "cell debris" you find in both samples identical or can you observe something in one but not the other. If viruses do not exist, you would expect the former, rather than the latter.
So provide evidence that this is the case.

Nobody is talking about sick hosts. Don't pull that strawman fallacy on me. We talking about buying a sample of what we believe to be virus on the internet and doing the exact experiment you want. We take the commercial sample, inocculate a cell culture with it and then we also do everything in the same, except we inocculate our second cell culture with a cell culture that is identical to the virus contain one, but contains no virus.

If you want to provide convicing evidence that virus theory does not work, please predict the outcome of this experiment I suggested and provide conclusive evidence in sufficient quality. But you cannot do this, because the evidence does not exist and all your so-called source are unable to meet this standard of analytical rigor.

>>16570365
>What his experiments show is that the combination of starving and poisoning the culture is what causes the cell debris in the first place and the presence or absence of a supposed virus doesn't change that.
This so-called "cell debris" only poves that the cells die in some fashion. If only detecting it is the level of evidence you demand, it is no wonder that you have such warped beliefs. Surely you can study this "cell debris" and find that depending on what made the cell die, it looks somewhat different. For example you surely would different ratios in large and small constituents and such. The presence alone is not sufficient evidence to formulate a mechanism.

I ask you to provide evidence with the required rigor. Show me Stefan Laka's SEM imaging, show me some gel electrophoresis. Something.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:04:23 UTC No. 16570388

>>16570385
>If only detecting it is the level of evidence you demand, it is no wonder that you have such warped beliefs.
That's literally what virologists use as proof of the presence of a virus. Do you think they have warped beliefs?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:17:10 UTC No. 16570406

>>16570385
>you are making a positive claim
I am not.
Virologists make the positive claim that when they inoculate a culture with a sample (irregardless if it's collected from a sick host, or "virus isolate" bought on the internet) and control the experiment with a culture that is either inoculated with a saline solution, or not inoculated at all (i.e. the groups don't differ only by a "virus", they differ by everything that is present in the sample), and then observe stronger CPE on the control group, then that means the stronger CPE occured due to presence of a single causative agent in the sample.
But that is a non sequitur.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:25:21 UTC No. 16570416

>mfw this thread
jesus christ, an iq thead died for this

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:30:32 UTC No. 16570425

>>16566252
>Your idea that I must demonstrate a willingness to risk my life (from your point of view) in order to maintain my honor while you get to sit back when it's YOUR positive claim that requires experiments and evidence, is ridiculous
It really isn't. Either you believe in germ theory, or you don't. I don't believe in a Jew on a stick, so I have zero issue with shitting in a church, with zero fear of repercussions. If you honestly think germ theory is gobbledygook, you'd snort the tubercolosii in an instant, because it'd just be dust to you. But you won't, because this bullshit is performative for you. When the cards come down you run back to daddy science to save you, all the while tweeting about how it's a scam, lmao

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:31:55 UTC No. 16570427

>>16570406
You are making the positive claim the outcome for both cases is the same. This requires evidence.

>>16570388
>That's literally what virologists use as proof of the presence of a virus.
They use SEM to actually detect the virus.
Provide some evidence that the outcome is the same when you add the virus as it is when you don't. Virologists claim that the outcome is different, that's the whole point. You claim it is the same, because your favorite eceleb can't afford analytical instruments.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:38:51 UTC No. 16570437

>>16570427
>You are making the positive claim the outcome for both cases is the same.
But I am not.

Why don't you focus on the positive claim made by virologists I've just described? Would you say that the stronger CPE is a proof of a virus, or do you agree that it's a non sequitur?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:42:51 UTC No. 16570440

>>16570437
>Why don't you focus on the positive claim made by virologists I've just described?
Because you are ignoring what I am saying and just rambling. Why bother quoting my post at all if nothing you say relates to it.

Now please provide some evidence that the outcome is the same when you add the virus as it is when you don't.
Surely this should be very easy to show.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:53:19 UTC No. 16570451

>>16570440
What? I'm taking into account everything you've written. Can you cite what you feel has been ignored by me?

>Now please provide some evidence that the outcome is the same when you add the virus as it is when you don't.
I am not making this claim, anon. Making such a claim wouldn't even make sense for me as I reject that there even is a thing called "virus".

Would you say that the stronger CPE is a proof of a virus, or do you agree that it's a non sequitur? I think this is a very relevant question. It's actually one of the main points of the whole critique.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:55:43 UTC No. 16570457

>>16570451
>Making such a claim wouldn't even make sense for me as I reject that there even is a thing called "virus".
Your rejection is equivalent to this claim.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:14:04 UTC No. 16570472

>>16570427
>They use SEM to actually detect the virus.
No, they use it to capture images of smaller debris and slap some arrows on them based on nothing more than a visual inspection. I already talked about this. We could also talk about how the preparation process for samples viewed in electron microscopes even further compromises the integrity of the already dubious sample that we know can be reproduced with no viruses whatsoever.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:15:14 UTC No. 16570473

>>16570472
Okay, but you expect a sample that contains a supposed virus to look the same as a sample that doesn't, right?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:17:03 UTC No. 16570475

i don't think that's true

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:26:40 UTC No. 16570482

>>16570473
Yes, I would. And don't get me wrong, I think it would be great to get some of those images and show that, but the problem is getting access to that equipment, like you already mentioned. But if the claims of virologists don't hold up on any level above electron microscopy, why would electron microscopy be the one and only deciding factor in proving viruses not only exist, but also do everything virologists claim?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:27:34 UTC No. 16570483

>>16570482
>Yes, I would.
So, then I ask you, can you prove it?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:31:51 UTC No. 16570485

>>16570457
Not at all.
If viruses don't exist, it doesn't make sense to speak about experiments which differ in adding the virus. You're misunderstanding the issue completely.
>a fire is caused by dragons
>>but we don't even know whether dragons exist. you need to show that a dragon exists in a first place and then we can study whether it causes a fire or not
>really? show me an experiment where you let dragon attack a house, controlled by an experiment without a dragon, and whose result is both houses not on fire
>your rejection of dragons is equivalent to this claim
this is your logic

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:34:13 UTC No. 16570490

>>16570485
>this is your logic
strawman fallacy

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:39:19 UTC No. 16570492

>>16570483
See the rest of my post. I understood why you asked that question, we both know the answer, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that some black specks seen in heavily compromised cell samples treated with dyes, poisonous chemicals, maceration, and crushing proves that they are viruses or that they do any of the other laundry list of things virologists claim.

Pic related is a roly poly. I have a photograph of it, so that proves it's a predatory mammal which kills its prey with laser beams.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:42:15 UTC No. 16570495

>>16570492
>I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that some black specks seen in heavily compromised cell samples treated with dyes, poisonous chemicals, maceration, and crushing proves that they are viruses
That sure is an opinion you have.

>Pic related is a roly poly. I have a photograph of it, so that proves it's a predatory mammal which kills its prey with laser beams.
strawman fallacy

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:49:12 UTC No. 16570503

>>16570495
My little joke is not a strawman, it's reductio ad absurdum, I'm pointing out that a photograph of a microscopic speck in a slurry full of other things is not proof of it's function. If a cell culture that is 100% identical in all ways to one infected with a virus displays 100% of the same behaviors and results despite not having any virus, why is a photograph of a speck of black *something* in it the one piece of proof you demand? It's absurd.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:50:46 UTC No. 16570505

>>16570503
>the one piece of proof you demand?
I demand you to show that the outcome of the two experiments is the same and that the proof is on some level beyond visual light microscopy, because that technique physically cannot resolve what we are looking for.
You know this, therefore I have to conclude that you are strawmanning.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:05:32 UTC No. 16570525

>>16570505
I don't think you even know what a strawman is, I'm only saying that the thing you're hinging your entire argument on doesn't even prove what you think it does. Regardless, we're at an impasse because I don't know of any such electron microscope images nor do I have access to one to produce them myself. I don't think this exchange can go any further.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:23:33 UTC No. 16570537

>>16570525
>I'm only saying that the thing you're hinging your entire argument on doesn't even prove what you think it does.
but if it doesn't show what you claim it shows, your arguement is irrelevant

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:29:39 UTC No. 16570542

>>16570490
Nope. That's exactly what you're doing.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:31:11 UTC No. 16570543

>>16570542
No, it isn't.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:34:33 UTC No. 16570544

>>16570425
Are you willing to snort pure culture of a bacterium that doesn't cause any respiratory problems? If you are, I'd be happy to join you and snort pure culture of M. tub.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:44:33 UTC No. 16570552

>>16570543
But you are.
The problem with virology is that it doesn't have an isolated independent variable (the virus), so it cannot make any claims about its effect on the dependent variable (the cell culture). It is impossible in principle. You cannot prove a fire is caused by a dragon unless you prove that there even is a dragon in the first place.
You're now saying that the existence of the dragon doesn't need to be demonstrated, but that I on the other hand need to show the non existence by performing an experiment where the non-existent dragon figures as an independent variable. But how can I conduct a scientific experiment with a non-existent independent variable? It doesn't make sense.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:47:53 UTC No. 16570556

>>16570552
your dragon analogy is a strawman

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:53:32 UTC No. 16570560

>>16570556
Whatever, discard the analogy then if you don't like it.
The problem with virology is that it doesn't have an isolated independent variable (the virus), so it cannot make any claims about its effect on the dependent variable (the cell culture). It is impossible in principle. You cannot prove a CPE is caused by a virus unless you prove that there even is a virus in the first place.
You're saying that the existence of the virus doesn't need to be demonstrated, but that I on the other hand need to show its non existence by performing an experiment where the non-existent virus figures as an independent variable. But how can I conduct a scientific experiment with a non-existent independent variable? It doesn't make sense.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:59:48 UTC No. 16570571

>>16570560
I will simply repeat my point. Do you believe that mixing up a cell culture with a commercially avialable "virus sample" will lead to a different outcome than mixing up the cell culture with saline?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 20:11:39 UTC No. 16570582

>>16570571
Nope, the experimental group would probably show stronger CPE than the control group.
Now, what exactly do you believe this proves?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 20:21:20 UTC No. 16570590

>>16570582
Could you also observe other effects that are distinct from the control? Could you perhaps isolate some proteins that you couldn't isolate from the control?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 20:30:13 UTC No. 16570599

>>16570590
I wouldn't know, that depends entirely on what is in the sample, right? And we don't know what's in the sample.
If the sample contained some proteins that don't naturally appear in the culture, we would then find them in the experimental group and not in the control group, sure.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 21:00:11 UTC No. 16570630

>>16570599
You'd agree that we could test our commercial "virus sample" for proteins and figure out how much of each protein is in there?
If we find more of those proteins in the experimental than we added to it and we don't find any in the control, what would that suggest?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 21:23:50 UTC No. 16570647

>>16570630
>You'd agree that we could test our commercial "virus sample" for proteins and figure out how much of each protein is in there?
Well, I don't know whether it's viable to determine EVERY protein that happens to be present in the sample. A sample collected from a person with influenza contains thousands of unique proteins, now I know you have a different sample in mind, but we just don't know what it's made of, we don't know whether there are 10, or 10 thousand unique proteins.
But okay, for the sake of argument I can assume that we're able to determine all unique proteins in the sample and their amount. What next?
>If we find more of those proteins in the experimental than we added to it and we don't find any in the control, what would that suggest?
It would suggest that this protein is produced during the isolation procedure. Clearly we cannot claim that all of this protein was already present in the sample.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 21:29:07 UTC No. 16570659

>>16570647
>I don't know whether it's viable to determine EVERY protein that happens to be present in the sample
everything above LoD, which, if you only take a tiny fraction of it, will certainly be precise enough.

>A sample collected from a person with influenza contains thousands of unique proteins
We are still talking about a commercial "purified virus sample". We know everything that is in there, because the seller provides a certificate of analysis and we can check whether we also find what they say is on the certificate.

>It would suggest that this protein is produced during the [...] procedure
Exactly, it was produced after we mix the culture with our virus sample.
This means something must have incentivized our cell culture to produce this protein.
The question is, how is this possible?
The clear answer is something was present in our "isolated virus sample" that caused the cells to produce it, right?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 21:44:28 UTC No. 16570675

>>16570659
Can you link an example of such a sample with a certificate of analysis, preferably with the information how was the sample obtained/manufactured?

>The clear answer is something was present in our "isolated virus sample" that caused the cells to produce it, right?
Sure. Maybe it was the sample itself: maybe the given cell culture produces this exact protein whenever an arbitrary foreign material (besides saline) solution is mixed with it. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, only that you need to be careful with conclusions you're trying to draw.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 21:53:38 UTC No. 16570686

>>16570675
>the given cell culture produces this exact protein whenever an arbitrary foreign material
It cannot do that, we know the genome
There must be an external influence that causes the cell to produce the protein in a repoducible manner consistent with the expected kinetics (same amount of time passes, same amount of protein is found).
This specifically rules out random mutation and suggests the function of the cells in the culture is being changed in a consistent manner.
And this is the mechanism of what we call a "virus".

>it was the sample itself
there is not enough in there, we can check if the amount we add is below LoD by adding it to a blank without the cell culture or with an incompatible cell culture. The outcome is that we do not detect any protein in those samples.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:03:04 UTC No. 16570691

The idea that scientists are always right is just absurd

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:20:38 UTC No. 16570712

>>16570691
The idea that well-established theories whose results are being used every day to make billions of dollars annually are wrong is equally absurd.
Money is a great bullshit detector, especially over a long period of time.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:33:46 UTC No. 16570733

>>16570686
What is being disputed at this point is a virus as a concrete biological entity. From the observation
>a sample contains a protein
>when it is added to a cell culture during the isolation process, there ends up being more of this protein
one is inferring that
>the sample contains viral particles
>which are a genetic code in a capside
>the genetic code contains gene for said protein
>these viral particles can hijack a cell and make it produce copies of itself
>these copies attack other cells and the "virus" reproduces itself in this manner
>this reproduction is what causes cell death and the stronger CPE exhibited by the inoculated culture
and the main thing is that in the case of popular viruses, it is also inferred that
>the viral particles are causative agents of symptoms and transmit themselves from host to host
Can you agree that such a claim absolutely requires further scientific evidence and cannot be inferred solely from the virus isolation procedure?

>>16570712
But why are you assuming that more valid theory means more money generating theory? I'd say that a bullshit theory that fits any observation, can't be disproved, can be extended ad absurdum (you'll always find new virus) etc. has the potential to make much more money than, you know, the truth.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:52:06 UTC No. 16570751

>>16570686
If you want to continue with your thought experiment
>There must be an external influence that causes the cell to produce the protein in a repoducible manner consistent with the expected kinetics (same amount of time passes, same amount of protein is found).
>This specifically rules out random mutation and suggests the function of the cells in the culture is being changed in a consistent manner.
>And this is the mechanism of what we call a "virus".
Yeah, well, I don't necessarily disagree but all this is extremely vague. What else can you infer from your observation? Can you say anything more about the nature of this "virus", an abstract mechanism that causes the cell culture to make more of a certain protein?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:35:42 UTC No. 16570802

>>16570733
>But why are you assuming that more valid theory means more money generating theory?
If the theory wasn't valid, it would not work. If it does not work it cannot make any money. I can't sell you a kilo of a compound if I haven't made the compound, because you can check what I have sold you.
You can say "actually it works in a different way, that is consistent with all the things needed for it to work in these commercial processes functioning on an invalid theory, yes. "the established theory is wrong, but actually works" seems a little more far-fetched than "the established theory works".

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:39:46 UTC No. 16570804

>>16570751
>What else can you infer from your observation?
We can also infer that whatever is making the cell make additional protein of that sort is multiplying. We can use kinetic studies on the rate of target protein production to determine this.

So here we have a self-replicating, transferrable mechanism that forces the production of certain proteins within host cells.
This alone gives us quite a good idea of other consequences this mechanism might have on the host cells. It certainly can't be good for them. So it will likely have detrimental effects on the host cells.
If we now move this idea from cell culture to living organism, it can be extrapolated that affecting cells in such a fashion might not be good for the organism.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:50:25 UTC No. 16570809

>>16570733
>the sample contains viral particles
it contains something that causes this behavior. I am calling it a "blorb".

>which are a genetic code in a capside
the blorb must contain some genetic code somewhere, but where or how it is transferred, I haven't figured out yet, but it's clearly there, because it is introducing new genetic code into the host cell.

>the genetic code contains gene for said protein
We know it was produced by the cell culture and we also know that the protein in question is not part of the proteome of the cell culture and we also know that it is not random, because this process is repoducible.
Well, where else could it have come from other than the blorb?
>these viral particles can hijack a cell and make it produce copies of itself
We know the rate of target protein production is increasing over time, this means there must be more infected host cells present. And we can observe in the rate of change that the number of blob particles is increasing over time.

>these copies attack other cells and the "virus" reproduces itself in this manner
apparently so

>this reproduction is what causes cell death and the stronger CPE exhibited by the inoculated culture
Sounds plausible, hijacking cell functions can't be good for the cells.

>the viral particles are causative agents of symptoms and transmit themselves from host to host
If something is not good for in vitro cell cultures, it is probably also not good for living organisms.

>Can you agree that such a claim absolutely requires further scientific evidence and cannot be inferred solely from the virus isolation procedure?
Sure I guess, but as you extrapolate further from the thing you actually did, things become more challenging to make a strong case for. You'd likely require more experiments, yes.
But fortunately for you, all the things that you can't test by just measuring some simple kinetics, people have already done.
Kinetics are a very powerful tool when describing all types of systems.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:22:39 UTC No. 16570827

>>16560104
It's fine to not believe scientists about a field they know about and you don't.
However, I'm still going to rip on all these severely retarded "theories".
>Steady state cosmology
extremely dumb
>Aether (pushing gravity)
Slightly less dumb, but still dumb
>Expansion tectonics as opposed to continental drift theory :
Inconcievably dumb I mean yes the earth ocassionally gains and losses small amounts of mass but basically fuck no.
>Metallic hydrogen sun as opposed to plasma sun
Dumb, the sun is, at no known part, cool enough to have non ionized hydrogen
>Plasma cosmology as opposed to Relativistic gravity-based cosmology (the theory that electromagnetism is a better explanation for cosmic structure than gravity)
Extremely extremely dumb, with the only caveat being they both act like fields.
>Lamarckism as opposed to Darwinism (or more specifically the theory that mutation is not random and constant, but it's a causal reaction of the genes to environment and not just mistakes in dna replication, as darwinists imply)
Very Very dumb, there may be some instances where maybe it could happen but generally speaking it is extremely rare and mostly impossible. Not only that, the idea has literal blood on it, since it caused many many many very fixable total crop failures in the soviet union.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:50:21 UTC No. 16570841

>>16570827
>It's fine to not believe scientists about a field they know about and you don't

Belief isn't scientific

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 20:19:02 UTC No. 16571575

>>16570802
That's a fallacious reasoning. A pseudoscientific theory always seems "to work", irregardless of whether it's valid. Everything is consistent with a pseudoscientific theory. That's what makes it pseudoscientific. Saying that some observations or applications are consistent with germ theory holds zero information value, it's trivially true.
If it was true that invalid or unscientific theories cannot generate profit, then religion wouldn't be such profitable business, right?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 20:49:16 UTC No. 16571620

>>16571575
You couldn't produce products worth millions of dollars if the theory didn't work. Products which verifiably are what they are claimed to be.
Refute this claim before any other comments.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:37:35 UTC No. 16571703

>>16571620
Catholic church has produced products worth millions of dollars and nobody in their right mind would take it as an evidence that the Christian god is real. This argumentation just doesn't make any sense.
Diagnostic tests for COVID-19 give completely arbitrary and inconsistent results and yet people went and got tested every day.
Also you're ignoring the main point that germ theory is not a scientific theory and as such fits literally any observation. Thus it cannot "not work", in principle.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:43:41 UTC No. 16571708

>>16571703
>Catholic church has produced products worth millions of dollars
can you tell me what those products are? I am talking about goods, not services.
Churches produce services, not goods.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:05:30 UTC No. 16571730

>>16560104
This is /sci/, not /scizo/. Go peddle your crack pot theories on somewhere else, like Youtube or Facebook.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:09:53 UTC No. 16571732

>>16560104
Well brainlets have turned "science" into a word meaning "result" rather than a process. And further retarded the term by promoting the mentality that "consensus" determines if a theory is proven rather than the scientific method. But blame the sciences for not doing enough to distance themselves from fraudulent 'science based' brainlet degrees like Psychology. Where that type of inshitification is not only encouraged but required.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:24:22 UTC No. 16571741

>>16571708
https://www.mondocattolico.com/collections/rosaries
There's plenty of examples though. What about all "alternative medicine" and all this New Age shit like healing crystals? It's a very profitable business for many, and I'm sure you'd agree that being successful in this branch can be achieved by exploiting pseudoscientific beliefs. In this case it's not true that making more money implies having a more valid theory. Just that they're better at marketing.
A belief in invisible monsters waiting to attack you at every corner is also a very profitable business. Even more so.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:31:43 UTC No. 16571748

>>16571741
Strawman fallacy.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:44:07 UTC No. 16571757

>>16571748
What? I'm just explaining that profitability doesn't necessarily mean being based on a more valid or more scientifically sound theory. That's what you've wanted. In this case I'd say that the literal opposite is probably true. Allopaths are the ultimate snake oil salesmen.
If you think some particular product based on germ theory that is profitable wouldn't be profitable if germ theory was wrong, then go ahead and elaborate. I've already given an example of a product based on germ theory that doesn't work at all and isn't backed up by any science, but makes a huge profit: the diagnostic tests for COVID-19.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:50:51 UTC No. 16571762

>>16571757
you are strawmanning, anon

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:52:01 UTC No. 16571764

>>16571762
Then I'm misunderstanding the point that you're trying to make.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 22:53:40 UTC No. 16571765

>>16571764
Biotechnology is a literal trillion dollar industry. It could not produce what it does produce if germ theory was false, because it relies heavily on bacteria and viruses.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:03:51 UTC No. 16571781

>>16571765
Okay. Is there some part of the biotechnology industry that you think wouldn't be profitable if infectious illnesses weren't in fact contagious (by air, by sexual intercourse etc.)?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:14:47 UTC No. 16571791

>>16571781
so, just to be sure, you agree with these 3 statements:
>Viruses exist and they function as the science suggests.
>Bacteria exist and they function as the science suggests.
>Fungi exist and they function the science suggests.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:16:45 UTC No. 16571792

>>16571791
No, I don't.
I can assume them for the sake of argument.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:17:39 UTC No. 16571793

>>16571792
Okay, then you are wrong, because biotechnology would not exist if these 3 statements were not true and biotechnology is in fact a literal trillion dollar industry.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:43:30 UTC No. 16571806

>>16571793
Yeah, I understand that this is the argument that you're making. And to understand your argument better, I'm asking you a question.
Germ theory makes the following claim
>if you have a cough, it's because there's a virus replicating inside you
>if you cough, the virus goes out
>if you cough at someone's face, he may "catch" the virus
>and it may start replicating inside his organism as well
>and make him cough as well
So assume this hypothesis about the nature of viral illnesses is wrong. Would some part of the industry break down somehow, or stop being profitable? Are you sure it's in a direct contradiction with what you're doing with the bacteria? Please, let's answer this question.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 00:57:40 UTC No. 16571839

>>16571765
He didn't strawman at all. He is exactly on the nose. You think its true because it works. He was precisely right in bringing up Catholicism and whatever Muslim or hindu structures. They make your biotech industry a fart in the bucket historically, profitably, etc. The pathetic attempt and distinguishing between goods and services is a perceptual lapse in judgement. It works. So why aren't you christian muslim and hindu my niggardly friend?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 05:39:22 UTC No. 16571988

>disregard widely tested, confirmed and accepted theories because it doesn't 100% fit this arbitrary criteria I make up in my head
>surely my theory that doesn't make it anywhere past my cocaine-induced fever dreams is better

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 10:35:08 UTC No. 16572096

>>16571839
No, it's a false analogy.
The catholic church does produce supposedly divine goods, but I myself cannot verify that the holy water does in fact have divine in it.
Meanwhile I can go to the enzyme store and buy a genetically modified enzyme and then find out for myself of they actually sold me that enzyme or not, by doing analytics on the enzyme.
This is the different. I don't have to trust the biotechnology industry, I can verify their claims.
I cannot verify the claims of the church and neither can you.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 10:38:51 UTC No. 16572099

>>16560104

>croud

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 10:39:56 UTC No. 16572100

>>16571806
>Would some part of the industry break down somehow, or stop being profitable?
Are you sure it's in a direct contradiction with what you're doing with the bacteria?
Yes. The problem is that you view humans as somehow distinct from a big cell culture.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 10:59:42 UTC No. 16572105

>>16572100
Elaborate how would illnesses not being caused and transmitted by viruses contradict your work. Explain which part of the industry would stop being profitable.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 11:02:49 UTC No. 16572107

>>16572105
If you can't transfer things between cell cultures, you can't do anything.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 11:04:37 UTC No. 16572109

>>16572107
Illnesses not being caused and transmitted by viruses doesn't imply that things can't be transferred betwen cell cultures.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 11:09:13 UTC No. 16572111

>>16572109
It does imply exactly that.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 11:18:02 UTC No. 16572114

>>16572111
Kek, it doesn't at all. Scurvy was once thought to be contagious and being caused by a germ, it was eventually discovered to be a vitamin deficiency condition. Does the existence of scurvy imply that things cannot be passed between cell cultures? It doesn't. Would it be implied if it turned out that actually all illnesses are like scurvy (misdiagnosed non-contagious conditions)? It woudln't.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 11:56:32 UTC No. 16572127

>>16572114
Have you ever taken an analysis class?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:17:20 UTC No. 16572135

>>16572127
What analysis?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:20:01 UTC No. 16572138

>>16572135
Math, anon.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:21:05 UTC No. 16572141

>>16572138
Sure, I actually have a math degree.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:23:59 UTC No. 16572145

>>16572141
that's very nice
then you should immediately see the problem with your "nothing is contagious" theory

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:28:22 UTC No. 16572146

>>16572145
Please, explain the problem as clearly as you can.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:31:44 UTC No. 16572150

>>16572146
it seems that the number of people who are ill has an impact on the number of who will be ill in the future, this is incosistent with the idea that illness is not contagious

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:51:50 UTC No. 16572166

>>16572150
>the number of people using a catchphrase seems to have an impact of the number of people who will be using the catchphrase in the future
>that is inconsistent with the idea that using the catchphrase is not contagious
Anyway, can you elaborate on what is the impact supposed to be, and back it up with scientific evidence?
We've already discussed humans trials from the 1st half of the 20th century that are incosistent with contagion.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 12:53:14 UTC No. 16572167

>>16572166
Do you have any evidence that shows that contagion between people is not possible from the past 50 years?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 13:12:11 UTC No. 16572175

>>16572167
You can't prove a negative claim such as "contagion is not possible". You could always say "but it doesn't prove that contagion is IMPOSSIBLE, it just hasn't occured in this case".
But sure, here's a study from 1997 where they observed like 170 sexually active couples consisting of one HIV positive and one HIV negative for 10 years. Zero transmissions occured.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/146/4/350/60711

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 13:29:53 UTC No. 16572188

>>16560104
What is "true"?
They're all models meant to explain a specific phenomenon. If they can be used for more than that then great

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 13:42:43 UTC No. 16572194

>>16572167
One should also look at the evidence that is supposed to support germ theory. Here's an actual human trial for COVID-19
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1121993/v1
>36 volunteers
>virus isolated from a nose/throat swab cultivated on a cell culture
>i.e. the inoculated material is a cell culture goo mixture of human/monkey DNA, fetal cow blood, antibiotics/antifungals, "nutrients", and chemical additives
>a half (18 out of 36) became "infected"
>where infected simply means that a genetic material has been re-discovered in areas it was previously injected into
>only mild-to-moderate symptoms were self-reported by 16 out of 18 infected
>symptoms in the upper respiratory tract that are perfectly consistent with intranasal administration of a toxic cell culture goo
>no quantitative correlation noted between supposed "viral" load and symptoms
>high "viral" loads even in asymptomatic infections
>first 10 volunteers that tested positive were given pre-emptive Remdesivir, i.e. symptoms they have reported later could have been caused by this treatment
>low "viral" load was found in nose of 3 uninfected volunteers and in throat of 6 uninfected volunteers
>symptoms reported also by the uninfected volunteers (although they were considered milder)
Everyone sees that such experiments don't prove anything. This particular study actually shows that there is a greater association between Remdesivir administration and COVID-19, than there is between viral exposure and COVID-19. It's ridiculous.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 13:47:18 UTC No. 16572196

>>16572194
>>16572175
So, this is very strange. You talk a lot about individual, controlled studies. But you completely ignore it when I ask you about why the rate of increase in cases looks the way it does and not any other way. Why is that?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:00:55 UTC No. 16572198

>>16572196
What exactly do you mean by the observed increase of cases?
A "positive case" means a positive diagnostic test. More positive results there are, more people go and get tested. More people get tested, more positive results occur. It's actually very simple. The thing is that there need not be any clear relationship between a positive diagnostic test and heatlh status.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:07:20 UTC No. 16572200

>>16572198
So, then perhaps the more interesting metric to you would be the ratio of positive tests, right?
if you test the same number of people every day and you look at the increase, that should tell you something about the nauture of the spread.
Assuming you have a homogenous sample each time.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:17:31 UTC No. 16572210

>>16572200
Spread of what exactly? It first needs to be established what does the test measure in the first place.
In the case of RT-PCR tests for COVID-19, it uses the PCR to detect whether specific short fragments of a genetic sequence was present in the sample. So there has to be a verified connection between this piece of genetic information and one's health status.
If the tests give arbitrary results, any metric is meaningless.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:18:16 UTC No. 16572212

>>16572210
You seem very emotional about covid, would it help you if we dicussed any other pathogen instead?
Or is this just a covid thing for you?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:20:02 UTC No. 16572213

>>16572212
Covid is a perfect example for this discussion, with a lot of data available. Why not use it?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:20:22 UTC No. 16572214

>>16572213
because you seem emotionally compromised with regards to it

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:21:36 UTC No. 16572215

>>16572214
What makes you think that?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:25:52 UTC No. 16572217

>>16572215
you keep bringing it up unprompted and you start picking at specific things with this one case, rather than the methodology in the abstract, which has been used many, many times
it seems a little weird

There are other diseases, you know?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:43:17 UTC No. 16572224

>>16572217
Things need to be demonstrated on examples. It's not like I'm not addressing your points.
>Spread of what exactly? It first needs to be established what does the test measure in the first place.
>If the tests give arbitrary results, any metric is meaningless.
The problem with methodology is always the same, there is never proven a relationship between the test and one's health status, and the assumption that a contagion must have occured whenever two positive results appear successively is unsubstantiated.
If you want to make arguments based on data from diagnostic tests, you need to make sure that the data are actually saying something.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:47:39 UTC No. 16572229

>>16572224
>there is never proven a relationship between the test and one's health status
well, covid is unique in one fashion, that healthy people were tested extensively
with things like the novel flu pandemic of 2009, they only tested people who were very likely to be sick with the disease in question based on visible symptoms and we still observe the same trends

refute this

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:56:40 UTC No. 16572235

>>16572229
>well, covid is unique in one fashion, that healthy people were tested extensively
yes, and a huge amount of those heatlhy people was determined as sick by the test, even though they were heatlhy. so the test doesn't work in determining whether someone is ill, or isn't ill, and the data generated by it can't be used to make claims about the spread of an illness.
>with things like the novel flu pandemic of 2009, they only tested people who were very likely to be sick with the disease in question based on visible symptoms and we still observe the same trends
What kind of argument are you trying to make here?
>test people with unspecific symptoms
>if the test is positive, claim that the test has determined cause of those symptoms
>if the test is negative, claim that the symptoms have a different cause
>don't test heatlhy people
What is this supposed to show? What do you want me to refute?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:59:44 UTC No. 16572239

>>16572235
You are denying all forms of testing for disease, is that correct?
What do you base this assertion on?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 15:10:51 UTC No. 16572247

>>16572239
Complete lack of scientific evidence.
What do (You) base your belief that the tests have any merit on?
>>the data is consistent
Okay, let's see this consistent data
>negative test for X + cough = just a cough
>positive test for X + cough = disease X
>negative test for X + healthy = healthy
>positive test for X + healthy = asymptomatic disease X
Yes, data like this is always consistent, it's trivially true. You could have virtually any epidemiological picture, and the data would fit.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 15:21:51 UTC No. 16572256

>>16572247
do you believe that testing is considered as the only way to determine the cause of an illness?
this is a very strange belief you hold there

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 15:30:24 UTC No. 16572259

>>16572256
It is impossible to determine an illness by the symptoms alone. All illnesses have unspecific symptoms that aren't sufficient to make a diagnosis.
You can't tell "flu" from "covid" without a diagnostic test.
You can't tell "measles" from "monkeypox" without a diagnostic test.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 15:31:30 UTC No. 16572260

>>16572259
>You can't tell "flu" from "covid" without a diagnostic test.
>You can't tell "measles" from "monkeypox" without a diagnostic test.
yeah you can, becaues they have different symptoms and a different progression of disease
Do you believe that all doctors are frauds?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 15:39:10 UTC No. 16572262

>>16572260
Really? How do you distinguish "covid" from "flu" based on symptoms?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 15:47:37 UTC No. 16572271

>>16572260
>You cannot tell the difference between flu and COVID-19 from symptoms. Testing for the virus is the only way you can know which virus you have or reveal if someone has both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time.
https://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/influenza/covid-19-and-influenza.html

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:07:10 UTC No. 16572292

>>16572260
>Many U.S. health care providers have never seen a case of measles. Without proper laboratory testing, measles cannot be diagnosed.
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/measles/hcp/clinical.html

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:10:21 UTC No. 16572296

>>16572292
Looks like symptoms associated with "measles" can easily be mistaken for a different disease, or can have a non-pathogenic cause altogether

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:21:47 UTC No. 16572301

so testing is fake then?
why even do it?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:27:08 UTC No. 16572303

>>16572301¨
>so testing is fake then?
100%. There's no actual difference between various diseases, they all have the exact same unspecific symptoms. The only difference is the result of a diagnostic test. But that test always gives arbitrary results and is never scientifically validated.
>why even do it?
Easy profit.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:39:13 UTC No. 16572308

>>16572303
so it's all faked for money?
what else is faked for money?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:40:15 UTC No. 16572309

>>16572303
>There's no actual difference between various diseases, they all have the exact same unspecific symptoms. The only difference is the result of a diagnostic test.
so I have someone who is sick and I test him for everything I have test for and I repeat that process 10 times, what will the result look like?
Can you predict it for me?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:00:17 UTC No. 16572324

>>16572303
Diseases do not present the same. If you give a pregnant woman milk laced with L. mono versus some strain of E. coli, you'll arrive at very different results.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:21:36 UTC No. 16572336

>>16572308
religion. astrology. healing crystals.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:22:15 UTC No. 16572337

>>16572336
so what is real and not faked for money, then?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:28:53 UTC No. 16572348

>>16572309
>the tests give arbitrary results
>>oh really? predict their result then
anon...

there's no general answer. that depends on the particular test and its parameters. a higher Cq value of PCR increases the chance for a positive result, for instance.
what do you think the result would be? assume we get like 4 positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 and 5 positive results for a flu virus. does that mean that the sick individual has a covid and an asymptomatic flu, or a flu and asymptomatic flu? or both covid and flu? or neither? how do you tell?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:34:25 UTC No. 16572356

>>16572348
There is a general answer, one you know and don't want to give, because it makes you look insane. Now give the answer.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 18:08:00 UTC No. 16572379

>>16572356
No idea what you have in mind. Feel free to share your opinion, how would the tests turn out?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 18:17:03 UTC No. 16572397

>>16572379
If what you say is true, some would be positive, some would negative and this applies to every single testable disease.
Do you genuinely believe that this would the outcome of this experiment?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 19:25:33 UTC No. 16572469

>>16572397
>and this applies to every single testable disease
That's not entirely correct. The positivity ratio of distinct tests wouldn't necessarily be the same. If you use a PCR test with an absurdly high Cq value for disease A, and a PCR test with a low Cq value for disease B, then I'd expect a higher positivity ratio for disease A.
What is your expected outcome? Would we get all negatives with the exception for one disease?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 20:09:11 UTC No. 16572531

>>16572469
>If you use a PCR test with an absurdly high Cq value for disease A, and a PCR test with a low Cq value for disease B, then I'd expect a higher positivity ratio for disease A.
why are you litigating the mechanical specifics of purely fictional tests instead of answering the question? That seems a little weird.
Also wouldn't we then expect the diseases for which we use more aplification for to have a significantly increased incidence rate?
Is this the case? Consider it homework.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 21:38:57 UTC No. 16572576

>>16560104
but seriously why are these threads allowed? There's an entire board for trumpanzees fuck off

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:49:47 UTC No. 16572687

>>16572531
I am answering your question; it depends on the particular test. There are cases where you'd expect to get none positive results, there are cases where you'd expect to get a lot of positive results, and there are cases where you'd expect random results. Point is that the results are unrelated to the cause of the symptoms. Think of it like diagnosing flu with a pregnancy test. The outcome wouldn't be random, it would be positive or negative depending on the pregnancy status of the subject. If the test was accurate, you'd get like 10/10 or 9/10 of the same results. But there would be no relation between the result and the symptoms. Understand?
>Also wouldn't we then expect the diseases for which we use more aplification for to have a significantly increased incidence rate?
Yes, that's why there were so many covid cases.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:53:04 UTC No. 16572692

>>16572687
So pregnancy tests work though?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 00:03:52 UTC No. 16572700

>>16572692
I've never looked into it, but I'd expect that they do, because you could easily tell if they didn't.
If a test marks you pregnant and you don't have a baby, that means the test doesn't work.
But if a test marks you flu and you don't have any flu symptoms, that means you have "asymptomatic flu".
With pregnancy tests there's some gold standard each test can be compared to, so that its accuracy (specificity and sensitivity) can be determined: the pregnancy itself.
With diagnostic tests for viral illnesses there is no gold standard because there is no isolated virus. A test for viral illness can never be validated in principle. And that's what leads to paradoxes such as the one outlined above.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 00:10:08 UTC No. 16572711

>>16572700
>I've never looked into it, but I'd expect that they do, because you could easily tell if they didn't.
so then why do tests for viruses not work, they're exactly the same

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 00:21:29 UTC No. 16572725

>>16572711
They are not, they differ in the existence of a gold standard the test can be compared against.
Tests for viral diseases are tautology.
How do you tell that a test for a virus doesn't work? You can't:
>If you're sick and positive, the test is correct in determining that the cause of your symptoms is the virus
>If you're sick and negative, the test is correct in determining that the cause of your symptoms is not the virus
>If you're healthy and negative, the test is correct in finding you healthy
>If you're healthy and positive, the test is correct in finding you as an asymptomatic carrier of the illness
Can you see that if this is the way it works, the hypothesis cannot be disproved as every observation fits it prediction?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 00:26:33 UTC No. 16572730

>>16572725
but we can figure out if the test works, regardless of the patient, because we are testing for presence of the virus, not illness
I know that this is confusing for you, but do try to keep up.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 00:38:28 UTC No. 16572736

>>16572730
you're entirely right that it's important to keep the distinction between presence of a virus and being sick. because there being not any causal link is another point.

>we are testing for presence of the virus
exactly. the presence of the virus is the gold standard here. in the case of infectious illnesses you can never compare against the gold standard, because there is never an isolated virus.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 00:43:03 UTC No. 16572742

>>16572736
>the presence of the virus is the gold standard here. in the case of infectious illnesses you can never compare against the gold standard, because there is never an isolated virus.
this was already litigated three times, you are wrong
you lose
give up

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 00:56:23 UTC No. 16572757

>>16572742
if I'm wrong, give me a concrete example of
>an infectious disease of viral origin
>a virus which causes this disease
>a paper where this virus is isolated
>in the sense that the isolated virus can figure as an independent variable in experiments that could, for example, determine whether diagnostic tests accurately test for the presence of this virus
Can you do it for
>measles
>polio
>HIV
>flu virus
>SARS
>monkeypox
>HPV
>etc...
?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 01:04:41 UTC No. 16572761

>>16572757
let it go

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 01:17:21 UTC No. 16572768

>>16572761
Why would I do that? The truth is on my side.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 03:58:52 UTC No. 16572884

>>16572742
Interesting, so which part of the legal system uses the scientific method? Do you take all declarations of all authorities as factual? Why aren't you a Christian muslim and hindu then?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 04:25:58 UTC No. 16572906

>>16572768
Did you manage to cure anyone with your "truth"? Predict the illness of anyone? Managed to convince anyone you're not a schizo?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 10:29:50 UTC No. 16573115

>>16572884
ESL retard.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Feb 2025 12:19:27 UTC No. 16573157

>>16572906
>not believing in dangerous invisible monsters is schizo
you've got it backwards