Anyhow, I would not agree with the opinion that sequencing can prove that a virus or this particular virus exists.
For me, the whole hanta-story lacks logic.
If this "virus" is related to mice or rat feces: Why are these particles which some call "virus" are not phages of a typical gut bacteria of these species?
And then: Why are these bacteria not the actually pathogenic items?
Oh, I see ... because some have developed a vaccine ....
A lot of things lack logic to you, Hans-Dunning Kruger.
There is no known species of virus that infects both animals and bacteria. Viruses rely on the host ribosome to make copies of themselves, and bacteria have completely different ribosomes from animals.
Hantaviruses replicate in mammalian cell cultures but not bacterial cultures.
Hantaviruses employ mammalian β-integrin receptors for cell entry.
Other bunyaviruses also infect eukaryotes and not bacteria.
"There is no known species of virus that infects both animals and bacteria."
I fully agree!
"Viruses rely on the host ribosome to make copies of themselves, and bacteria have completely different ribosomes from animals."
This axiom is 100% compatible with the explanation: The particles, the viirologist name "virus" and claim to be a "virus" are in fact phages; phages are not pathogenic to human or animal tissues. I do not contradict this axiom.
"Hantaviruses replicate in mammalian cell cultures..."
Please show me evidence!
It would be worldwide the first time that anybody has shown feature beyond any doubt. If these particles would really replicate within mammalian cells, they must be pathogenic to them. But it was never demonstrated that any particle that the virologists deem to be virus, were in fact pathogenic to mammalian tissues.
Extremely doubtful that this decisive feature has been demonstrated for hantavirus, as this has not been demonstrated for polio, measles, influenza, HPV, TGEV, coronaviruses, and others.
Beyond any doubt means: They have isolated the particles deemed to be viruses, and with these isolated particles they made tissues, whole animals or humans sick, while control experiments (same procedures, but without the deemed virus, did not.
I am really keen to learn the first example where this had been demonstrated,
See for example this study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9591050/. The abstract says: "Here, we used a range of cellular and molecular approaches to investigate the interactions of three different orthohantaviruses-Puumala virus (PUUV), responsible for a mild to moderate form of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in humans, Tula virus (TULV) with low pathogenicity, and non-pathogenic Prospect Hill virus (PHV)-with human and rodent host cell lines. Besides the fact that cell susceptibility to virus infection was shown to depend on the cell type and virus strain, the three orthohantaviruses were able to infect Vero E6 and HuH7 human cells, but only the former secreted infectious particles. In cells derived from PUUV reservoir, the bank vole (Myodes glareolus), PUUV achieved a complete viral cycle, while TULV did not enter the cells and PHV infected them but did not produce infectious particles, reflecting differences in host specificity. A search for mature virions by electron microscopy (EM) revealed that TULV assembly occurred in part at the plasma membrane, whereas PHV particles were trapped in autophagic vacuoles in cells of the heterologous rodent host."
BTW why are so many no-virus people linked to cults or flat earth? One of the leading no-virus people in Germany before COVID was the Scientologist Michael Kent, whose publishing house distributes L. Ron Hubbard's books in German. He made a film about how H5N1 was fake with Hans Tolzin, who is a former Moonie, and who also wrote articles about the no-virus theory for Kent's magazine: https://sars2.net/turbo.html#KLA_tv_and_connection_of_Scientology_to_the_German_speaking_anti_vaccine_movement. Tom Cowan is an anthroposophist. Amandha Vollmer, Kelly Brogan, and Andrew Kaufman all call themselves alchemists and they all say the earth is flat: https://sars2.net/novirus.html#Short_version. Voiceovers for Stefan Lanka's videos have been done by the flat earther Steve Falconer.
I cannot imagine that you were an expert for personality of Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufmann or Stefan Lanka.
You must have asked an AI for this; many other comments you have posted on substack channel all point in this direction: You are shameless in using AI.. Therefore, I am now fully convinced that YOU ARE A TROLL and acting on behalf of somebody. Maybe WEF people, Gates, GAVIE, CEPI, or more directly of CIA and the US deep state.
BTW: Michael Yeadon does also no more belief in the existence of viruses.
The existence of viruses is in itself illogic. You yourself gave some important biochemical arguments for this.
There is no physical, chemical, or biochemical feature that could be used to distinguish viruses from phages. Phages are extremely species-specific, a rationale for this you told in your last post.
Extremely specific, but not when it comes to (e.g.) human tissues?
Then these particles such as SC2 could attack the nasal and throat mucas as well as the gut?
And how can your "viruses" survive the summer? why are they waves, almost nothing in summer, but infections in winter?
Did you read the novirus.html file I linked? I wrote most of it around 6 to 3 years ago, and I don't think I used LLMs for any part of my research. I don't think anyone has done more research on the connection between flat earthers and no-virus people than me.
Mike Yeadon is another crook, and I have been documenting his no-virus quest for a long time. But I'm tired of repeating it, because no-virus people are not redeemable, and the reasonable solution for dealing with no-virus people would be to exterminate them.
Noting else than presumption of guilt by association.
I am discussing topics with weirdos like you, but because of this, I am not becoming a weirdo.
Re. the hantavirus article you linked:
Typical for this kind of claims: 1. They performed no control experiments. This is unscientific, as now nobody knows whether there processes made the effects they claimed. 2. The did not isolate the supposed virus. Hence, bacteria could have exerted the effect. 3. Anyhow, they did not work according to GLP rules., Hence, the claims are meaningless without at least 3 confirmatory investigations.
Not only would they need to rule out the possibility that a sequence was human, wouldn't they also have to rule out sequences from other organisms hosted in the human body?
It would take years to fully understand all the implications. And those who have spent years and decades studying the subject could come to a conclusion that has a near certainty of being a summary of the situation with the Hanta virus, be it Swiss or from Swaziland.
Everything we read from official sources will be a part of a scam to disempower and harm ordinary human beings.
Seems everyone is barking up the wrong tree- even the supposedly "in the know" alt-doctors/dissidents."
It's chemical poisoning of a few people who wandered into an ultra toxic superfund waste site to find some rare birds, and the genomic tests can "find" sequences in anyone once the lab is told what to "find" with the eyes of the world on them.
All they have to do was get some media people placed, demand asymptomatic testing to generate "positives" (2% guaranteed with an allegedly 98% specific test), and the process snowballs and become self-sustaining.
The genome of a hantavirus does not consist of a single molecule, because hantaviruses have a segmented genome with 3 segments, so there are 3 molecules and not 1.
If the de-novo assembler would've accidentally inserted a piece of foregin genetic material to the end of some segment, you would be able to spot it if you aligned the segment against other hantavirus sequences, and the segment had a piece at the end that was missing from the other sequences.
But for example if you compare the L segment of the new genome against earlier hantavirus refseqs, you can see that there's no extra crap at the ends of the segment:
You’re right that hantaviruses are segmented, so strictly speaking the issue is three genome segments, not one single molecule.
You’re also right that alignment to related hantavirus references can rule out obvious junk at the ends, but only if those are considered valid to begin with. And that only shows the assembly looks plausible and hantavirus-like. It still does not prove that the exact segment was directly present in the sample as a complete biological molecule(s), or that the short-read assembly uniquely established it.
I asked Grok how the presence of segmented genomes in viruses was first discovered, but it said through visual inspection with an electron microscope, and through techniques like gel electrophoresis:
> Segmented viral genomes were first discovered and demonstrated in the early 1960s through studies on reoviruses and influenza viruses. In 1963, P.J. Gomatos and I. Tamm characterized reovirus RNA as double-stranded, which was a novel finding at the time. The following year, in 1964, Gomatos and W. Stoeckenius used electron microscopy to directly visualize that the reovirus genome consisted of multiple separate dsRNA segments, eventually resolved as ten distinct pieces. This provided the first clear physical evidence of a segmented viral genome, distinguishing reoviruses from previously known viruses like poliovirus or tobacco mosaic virus that possessed a single continuous RNA molecule.
> Around the same period, genetic evidence emerged for influenza viruses. High recombination rates observed in influenza had been noted earlier by Frank Macfarlane Burnet. In 1962, George K. Hirst deduced from genetic recombination experiments that the influenza genome must be composed of multiple separate RNA segments. Biochemical confirmation of the eight ssRNA segments in influenza followed in subsequent years using techniques such as gel electrophoresis.
And Grok said:
> Gel electrophoresis enabled the direct visualization and confirmation of segmented viral genomes by physically separating the individual nucleic acid pieces according to their size. In this technique, extracted viral RNA or DNA is loaded into a gel matrix (commonly polyacrylamide for high resolution of RNA segments) and subjected to an electric field. Because nucleic acids are negatively charged, they migrate through the gel pores toward the positive electrode, with smaller segments moving faster and farther than larger ones. After the run, staining reveals a pattern of distinct bands, each corresponding to a genome segment of different length. A non-segmented genome produces only one or very few high-molecular-weight bands, while a segmented genome yields a characteristic ladder of multiple discrete bands.
Thank you very much!
Anyhow, I would not agree with the opinion that sequencing can prove that a virus or this particular virus exists.
For me, the whole hanta-story lacks logic.
If this "virus" is related to mice or rat feces: Why are these particles which some call "virus" are not phages of a typical gut bacteria of these species?
And then: Why are these bacteria not the actually pathogenic items?
Oh, I see ... because some have developed a vaccine ....
Maybe I missed, it but where did I say that sequencing can prove that?
The current push is likely to keep the mRNA pipeline warm and/or keep WHO relevant.
And it's appearing in random places all over the world in a very non viral manner
Yes, b/c its likely of human origin.
Or the tests are fraudulent.
A lot of things lack logic to you, Hans-Dunning Kruger.
There is no known species of virus that infects both animals and bacteria. Viruses rely on the host ribosome to make copies of themselves, and bacteria have completely different ribosomes from animals.
Hantaviruses replicate in mammalian cell cultures but not bacterial cultures.
Hantaviruses employ mammalian β-integrin receptors for cell entry.
Other bunyaviruses also infect eukaryotes and not bacteria.
"There is no known species of virus that infects both animals and bacteria."
I fully agree!
"Viruses rely on the host ribosome to make copies of themselves, and bacteria have completely different ribosomes from animals."
This axiom is 100% compatible with the explanation: The particles, the viirologist name "virus" and claim to be a "virus" are in fact phages; phages are not pathogenic to human or animal tissues. I do not contradict this axiom.
"Hantaviruses replicate in mammalian cell cultures..."
Please show me evidence!
It would be worldwide the first time that anybody has shown feature beyond any doubt. If these particles would really replicate within mammalian cells, they must be pathogenic to them. But it was never demonstrated that any particle that the virologists deem to be virus, were in fact pathogenic to mammalian tissues.
Extremely doubtful that this decisive feature has been demonstrated for hantavirus, as this has not been demonstrated for polio, measles, influenza, HPV, TGEV, coronaviruses, and others.
Beyond any doubt means: They have isolated the particles deemed to be viruses, and with these isolated particles they made tissues, whole animals or humans sick, while control experiments (same procedures, but without the deemed virus, did not.
I am really keen to learn the first example where this had been demonstrated,
See for example this study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9591050/. The abstract says: "Here, we used a range of cellular and molecular approaches to investigate the interactions of three different orthohantaviruses-Puumala virus (PUUV), responsible for a mild to moderate form of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in humans, Tula virus (TULV) with low pathogenicity, and non-pathogenic Prospect Hill virus (PHV)-with human and rodent host cell lines. Besides the fact that cell susceptibility to virus infection was shown to depend on the cell type and virus strain, the three orthohantaviruses were able to infect Vero E6 and HuH7 human cells, but only the former secreted infectious particles. In cells derived from PUUV reservoir, the bank vole (Myodes glareolus), PUUV achieved a complete viral cycle, while TULV did not enter the cells and PHV infected them but did not produce infectious particles, reflecting differences in host specificity. A search for mature virions by electron microscopy (EM) revealed that TULV assembly occurred in part at the plasma membrane, whereas PHV particles were trapped in autophagic vacuoles in cells of the heterologous rodent host."
BTW why are so many no-virus people linked to cults or flat earth? One of the leading no-virus people in Germany before COVID was the Scientologist Michael Kent, whose publishing house distributes L. Ron Hubbard's books in German. He made a film about how H5N1 was fake with Hans Tolzin, who is a former Moonie, and who also wrote articles about the no-virus theory for Kent's magazine: https://sars2.net/turbo.html#KLA_tv_and_connection_of_Scientology_to_the_German_speaking_anti_vaccine_movement. Tom Cowan is an anthroposophist. Amandha Vollmer, Kelly Brogan, and Andrew Kaufman all call themselves alchemists and they all say the earth is flat: https://sars2.net/novirus.html#Short_version. Voiceovers for Stefan Lanka's videos have been done by the flat earther Steve Falconer.
Why are you using such simple and ridiculous defamation strategies?
"Flat earth" ... "scientologists" ... ridiculous "arguments".
I cannot imagine that you were an expert for personality of Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufmann or Stefan Lanka.
You must have asked an AI for this; many other comments you have posted on substack channel all point in this direction: You are shameless in using AI.. Therefore, I am now fully convinced that YOU ARE A TROLL and acting on behalf of somebody. Maybe WEF people, Gates, GAVIE, CEPI, or more directly of CIA and the US deep state.
BTW: Michael Yeadon does also no more belief in the existence of viruses.
The existence of viruses is in itself illogic. You yourself gave some important biochemical arguments for this.
There is no physical, chemical, or biochemical feature that could be used to distinguish viruses from phages. Phages are extremely species-specific, a rationale for this you told in your last post.
Extremely specific, but not when it comes to (e.g.) human tissues?
Then these particles such as SC2 could attack the nasal and throat mucas as well as the gut?
And how can your "viruses" survive the summer? why are they waves, almost nothing in summer, but infections in winter?
Did you read the novirus.html file I linked? I wrote most of it around 6 to 3 years ago, and I don't think I used LLMs for any part of my research. I don't think anyone has done more research on the connection between flat earthers and no-virus people than me.
Mike Yeadon is another crook, and I have been documenting his no-virus quest for a long time. But I'm tired of repeating it, because no-virus people are not redeemable, and the reasonable solution for dealing with no-virus people would be to exterminate them.
Weirdly only you are the one bringin up "flat earth" etc. and all that other stuff all the time.
Re, you "novices" article:
Noting else than presumption of guilt by association.
I am discussing topics with weirdos like you, but because of this, I am not becoming a weirdo.
Re. the hantavirus article you linked:
Typical for this kind of claims: 1. They performed no control experiments. This is unscientific, as now nobody knows whether there processes made the effects they claimed. 2. The did not isolate the supposed virus. Hence, bacteria could have exerted the effect. 3. Anyhow, they did not work according to GLP rules., Hence, the claims are meaningless without at least 3 confirmatory investigations.
Not only would they need to rule out the possibility that a sequence was human, wouldn't they also have to rule out sequences from other organisms hosted in the human body?
Exactly!
It would take years to fully understand all the implications. And those who have spent years and decades studying the subject could come to a conclusion that has a near certainty of being a summary of the situation with the Hanta virus, be it Swiss or from Swaziland.
Everything we read from official sources will be a part of a scam to disempower and harm ordinary human beings.
Seems everyone is barking up the wrong tree- even the supposedly "in the know" alt-doctors/dissidents."
It's chemical poisoning of a few people who wandered into an ultra toxic superfund waste site to find some rare birds, and the genomic tests can "find" sequences in anyone once the lab is told what to "find" with the eyes of the world on them.
All they have to do was get some media people placed, demand asymptomatic testing to generate "positives" (2% guaranteed with an allegedly 98% specific test), and the process snowballs and become self-sustaining.
So, in other words, mostly BS modeling. Ugh.
We have symptoms, antibodies , PCR, and full genomic sequencing all telling the same story, but carryon
Like flu like illness?
Pfft
No virus has been isolated to test against and those symptoms can have a dozen different causes.
The genome of a hantavirus does not consist of a single molecule, because hantaviruses have a segmented genome with 3 segments, so there are 3 molecules and not 1.
If the de-novo assembler would've accidentally inserted a piece of foregin genetic material to the end of some segment, you would be able to spot it if you aligned the segment against other hantavirus sequences, and the segment had a piece at the end that was missing from the other sequences.
But for example if you compare the L segment of the new genome against earlier hantavirus refseqs, you can see that there's no extra crap at the ends of the segment:
curl https://virological.org/uploads/short-url/jklVP5qLw930YK9f5BmseNDu3Bs.gz|gzip -dc>hanta.fa
wget https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/refseq/release/viral/viral.1.1.genomic.fna.gz
seqdif()(seqkit fx2tab|gawk -F\\t '{name[NR]=$1;split($2,z,"");for(i in z)seq[NR][i]=z[i];if(length($1)>max1)max1=length($1);if(length($2)>max2)max2=length($2)}END{for(i=1;i<=max2;i+=width){printf("%"(max1+1)"s","");for(pos=i;pos<i+width&&pos<=max2;pos+=10)printf(pos-i>width-10?"%s":"%-10s",pos);print"";for(j in seq){out=sprintf("%"max1"s ",name[j]);for(k=i;k<=max2&&k<i+width;k++)out=out (seq[j][k]==seq[1][k]?seq[j][k]:"\033[31m"seq[j][k]"\033[0m");print out}}}' "width=${1-60}")
seqkit grep -nrip hantavirus viral.1.1.genomic.fna.gz|seqkit seq -m6000|cat <(seqkit grep -nrp _L hanta.fa) -|mafft --thread 7 -|seqdif
You’re right that hantaviruses are segmented, so strictly speaking the issue is three genome segments, not one single molecule.
You’re also right that alignment to related hantavirus references can rule out obvious junk at the ends, but only if those are considered valid to begin with. And that only shows the assembly looks plausible and hantavirus-like. It still does not prove that the exact segment was directly present in the sample as a complete biological molecule(s), or that the short-read assembly uniquely established it.
How is this determined (that it is segmented), if the sequence is essentially a guess?
Correct, there's no way to know by simply looking at 4 possible nucleotides to guess where the end would be. There's no dedicated end marker.
I asked Grok how the presence of segmented genomes in viruses was first discovered, but it said through visual inspection with an electron microscope, and through techniques like gel electrophoresis:
> Segmented viral genomes were first discovered and demonstrated in the early 1960s through studies on reoviruses and influenza viruses. In 1963, P.J. Gomatos and I. Tamm characterized reovirus RNA as double-stranded, which was a novel finding at the time. The following year, in 1964, Gomatos and W. Stoeckenius used electron microscopy to directly visualize that the reovirus genome consisted of multiple separate dsRNA segments, eventually resolved as ten distinct pieces. This provided the first clear physical evidence of a segmented viral genome, distinguishing reoviruses from previously known viruses like poliovirus or tobacco mosaic virus that possessed a single continuous RNA molecule.
> Around the same period, genetic evidence emerged for influenza viruses. High recombination rates observed in influenza had been noted earlier by Frank Macfarlane Burnet. In 1962, George K. Hirst deduced from genetic recombination experiments that the influenza genome must be composed of multiple separate RNA segments. Biochemical confirmation of the eight ssRNA segments in influenza followed in subsequent years using techniques such as gel electrophoresis.
And Grok said:
> Gel electrophoresis enabled the direct visualization and confirmation of segmented viral genomes by physically separating the individual nucleic acid pieces according to their size. In this technique, extracted viral RNA or DNA is loaded into a gel matrix (commonly polyacrylamide for high resolution of RNA segments) and subjected to an electric field. Because nucleic acids are negatively charged, they migrate through the gel pores toward the positive electrode, with smaller segments moving faster and farther than larger ones. After the run, staining reveals a pattern of distinct bands, each corresponding to a genome segment of different length. A non-segmented genome produces only one or very few high-molecular-weight bands, while a segmented genome yields a characteristic ladder of multiple discrete bands.