5 ms·

> if Measles isn't a virus, why can it's spread by halted by vaccination? I say that viruses are still a theory. To truly scientifically prove it they need to

• projektfu 4y ago
  A lot of what you're saying sounds smart but is devoid of meaning. I'm wondering if you have done any bench top research in biology. It's a humbling experience. Viruses clearly exist. You can observe them infecting and lysing cells in real time. You can do controlled experiments where only the cultures containing viruses you've added get lysed. You can purify antibodies against them. You can prove that the antibodies inactivate the virus. As there are viruses that affect everything from bacteria to plants and animals, proving Koch's postulates for at least one virus is trivial. None of that depends on EM. Microscopy merely gave us a picture of these things which lets us understand their structure better. It doesn't depend on genome sequencing. That just helps us understand what proteins they make and why they vary. However, both those techniques are substantially more valid than you give them credit for and are always used in the context of other tests to assure you're studying the right thing. You talked about bovine serum and monkey cells. While both can be used in virology, the trend is for serum-free media and generally you want to use human cells when studying human viruses. In any event, if both the control culture and the test culture use the same media and cell type, anything different between them is likely due to the test. That's kind of fundamental to how science works. After all, human cells may contain dormant viruses or viral genomes, so you want to make sure that your controls are identical such that your intentionally infected cells are the only ones that show viral activity. I used to joke that mouse deer didn't actually exist. That they were just jackelopes that the taxidermists made up for the museum of natural history. I bet that I could have made that very convincing with a lot of rhetoric. A visit, however, to a zoo with said ungulates alive and in the flesh would quickly prove me wrong. I think you're relying on the fact that you won't have to put your ideas to the test and nobody in your real life will be sophisticated enough to show you the reality. In that case, perhaps you'd be better served asking what you can do to prove that viruses exist? Otherwise you'll just go on like this.
  • cies 4y ago
    > You can observe them infecting and lysing cells in real time. Where? How? > proving Koch's postulates for at least one virus is trivial. I thought Koch's postulates were too strict for virologists... And hence were relaxed. (lol) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182102/ Can you show a somewhere the old postulates are all met for a virus? > It doesn't depend on genome sequencing. That just helps us understand what proteins they make and why they vary. And, not totally unimportant, to ID the particle we're looking at. > While both can be used in virology, the trend is for serum-free media and generally you want to use human cells when studying human viruses. Nice trend. Now can they also truly isolate (that is without other DNA/RNA carrying particles present) a virus? Like biologists have done with other biological particles of similar size? Because without true isolation you could always be looking at "dead cell debris" or other stuff that is there and is not the virus, but may look like one. > After all, human cells may contain dormant viruses or viral genomes, so you want to make sure that your controls are identical such that your intentionally infected cells are the only ones that show viral activity. Bingo! So as long as you put "culture" cells in the sample and call that an isolate, it is polluting the sample. > you'd be better served asking what you can do to prove that viruses exist? Isolate them. Truly isolate them. > I used to joke that mouse deer didn't actually exist. That they were just jackelopes that the taxidermists made up for the museum of natural history. I bet that I could have made that very convincing with a lot of rhetoric. A visit, however, to a zoo with said ungulates alive and in the flesh would quickly prove me wrong. Because in the zoo you can see the animal all by itself. Now if you say you can only see deer mouse when they are in a soup with 50 other species of mouse, and you make a crummy black white pictures of the soup claiming some provide proof of your deer mouse: should I take you seriously?
    • tekknik 4y ago
      What looks like a virus that isn’t a virus? Why does this debris in multiple samples look similar if they’re random collections of other matter? Why is it so hard to believe viruses exist?
      • 4y ago