Steven Avery
Administrator
Twitter
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1582062649340149760
Answering Tom Conan’s Five Simple Questions for Virologists
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022...cowans-five-simple-questions-for-virologists/
========-=
https://twitter.com/stevenaveryny/status/1565385267401424898
Hi Frank, I asked Jeremy Hammond to relate to the missing original Science that supposedly discovered that “viruses” hijack cell replication functions. Top of comments section at
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/08/26/misinformation-sars-cov-2-whole-genome-sequencing/
Jeremy danced around with a little game, can you or your sources do better?
.
Jeremy, above you try to use a bacteriophage analogy, but at least you acknowledge that even the dubious concepts do not apply to human viruses:
“Also, bacteriophages would not replicate inside of any cell lines used to culture pathogenic human or animal viruses.”
There is a more fundamental question of what is a bacteriophage, about which Stefan Lanka notes:
“The “bacteriophages”, correctly defined as incomplete mini spores and building blocks of the bacteria, have been scientifically isolated ...”
So, let’s avoid the contested analogy.
One fundamental definition of human and primate ‘viruses’ is that their replication is accomplished by hijacking the cell replication function for virus reproduction.
And I have pointed out to you that this incredible cell hijacking feature of viruses only became ‘science’ by osmosis and peer confirmation bias. I asked you and Frank Visser to find the replicable, seminal, ground-breaking studies that established this new dogma. From c. 1950s when this new theory came forth, and there is nothing there. The science is sand.
After a number of your normal diversions, you gave only an “everybody knows” answer.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1568973107238420481?s=61&t=J6pTy3pItYImdbizG4DOzg
“It is unnecessary to cite references for completely uncontroversial statements expressing common knowledge amounted over decades of scientific literature. …”
Jeremy, that does not cut it.
Virology can not have a non-existent scientific base and be accepted as scientific.
Try again.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1582062649340149760
Answering Tom Conan’s Five Simple Questions for Virologists
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022...cowans-five-simple-questions-for-virologists/
========-=
https://twitter.com/stevenaveryny/status/1565385267401424898
Hi Frank, I asked Jeremy Hammond to relate to the missing original Science that supposedly discovered that “viruses” hijack cell replication functions. Top of comments section at
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/08/26/misinformation-sars-cov-2-whole-genome-sequencing/
Jeremy danced around with a little game, can you or your sources do better?
.
Jeremy, above you try to use a bacteriophage analogy, but at least you acknowledge that even the dubious concepts do not apply to human viruses:
“Also, bacteriophages would not replicate inside of any cell lines used to culture pathogenic human or animal viruses.”
There is a more fundamental question of what is a bacteriophage, about which Stefan Lanka notes:
“The “bacteriophages”, correctly defined as incomplete mini spores and building blocks of the bacteria, have been scientifically isolated ...”
So, let’s avoid the contested analogy.
One fundamental definition of human and primate ‘viruses’ is that their replication is accomplished by hijacking the cell replication function for virus reproduction.
And I have pointed out to you that this incredible cell hijacking feature of viruses only became ‘science’ by osmosis and peer confirmation bias. I asked you and Frank Visser to find the replicable, seminal, ground-breaking studies that established this new dogma. From c. 1950s when this new theory came forth, and there is nothing there. The science is sand.
After a number of your normal diversions, you gave only an “everybody knows” answer.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1568973107238420481?s=61&t=J6pTy3pItYImdbizG4DOzg
“It is unnecessary to cite references for completely uncontroversial statements expressing common knowledge amounted over decades of scientific literature. …”
Jeremy, that does not cut it.
Virology can not have a non-existent scientific base and be accepted as scientific.
Try again.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Last edited:
