RP Email Advice Comment: Viruses

Mary Lyn

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
277
I can only speculate, but the exosomes that bud off a cell carry cell organelles, proteins or cellular material that other cells will take up. Supposedly exosomes are involved in cell-to-cell communication and if one cell is lacking something, it could signal to other cells that substance X is low. Conversely, if there is a surplus of something toxic in a cell, if that toxin is trapped in an extracellular vesicle that then interacts with another cell, it could damage that other cell or signal that other cell to produce defensive chemicals like prostaglandins or eicosanoids. I wonder if exosomes can "metastasize" or transfer cancer to other non-cancerous cells, in addition to changing the cellular field/environment.

Microscopy, as how it's done nowadays, tends to inanimate, kill or "freeze" the cell in a moment in time and even the light from the microscope can supposedly affect these cellular functions. Supposedly Dark Field Microscopy is superior for observing some of these phenomena because you don't have the factor of light affecting cellular behavior.




In this video they mention that mast cells produce exosomes, and this would likely INCREASE or spread the inflammatory reaction from an allergen. It's possible this is why someone might get hives that spread when they consume an allergen.
One of the female scientists studying her PHD states she saw proteins from Cell B on Cell A indicating a transfer of proteins happened. Maybe if a cell no longer has use for a protein it can "lend" the protein to another cell?


Thanks but it does not answer my question. If the exosomes are being mistaken for so called viruses, why would they enter cells as presumably viruses can be seen doing?
 

SOMO

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
1,094
Thanks but it does not answer my question. If the exosomes are being mistaken for so called viruses, why would they enter cells as presumably viruses can be seen doing?

Why do exosomes enter other cells cells? Probably because they are cells, albeit partial cells, and are made of similar materials.
Have you ever seen 2 or more drops of oil in a cup of water coalesce and become 1 big drop? Or how about soap suds combining with other soap suds to make a larger bubble?
Electrochemical reasons, polarity and water-solubility also play a part.


Some viruses may be exosomes and some viruses may just be viruses, but the real issue is that some viruses have never been isolated properly only through indirect markers. And in a few cases, when supposed virions/viral particles were photographed, they were likely exosomes.

fmicb-09-02411-g001.jpg

There is overlap between the sizes of the exosomes, viruses and microvesicles and because of this, it is possible someone may mistake one for the other two. I think in some instances, exosomes may be mistaken for viruses.

It has become clear that HIV particles and certain types of EVs, such as exosomes, share many similarities regarding morphology, composition, and biogenesis. This review presents a summary of the literature describing the intricate relationship between HIV and EVs biogenesis. Also, we discuss the latest progress toward understanding the mechanisms by which EVs influence HIV pathogenesis, as well as, how HIV modulates EVs composition in infected cells to facilitate viral spread.
 

Mary Lyn

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
277
SOMO that was very helpful indeed.

"some viruses have never been isolated properly only through indirect markers."

So it is not so black and white.
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,344
Location
HI
Why do exosomes enter other cells cells? Probably because they are cells, albeit partial cells, and are made of similar materials.
Have you ever seen 2 or more drops of oil in a cup of water coalesce and become 1 big drop? Or how about soap suds combining with other soap suds to make a larger bubble?
Electrochemical reasons, polarity and water-solubility also play a part.


Some viruses may be exosomes and some viruses may just be viruses, but the real issue is that some viruses have never been isolated properly only through indirect markers. And in a few cases, when supposed virions/viral particles were photographed, they were likely exosomes.

fmicb-09-02411-g001.jpg

There is overlap between the sizes of the exosomes, viruses and microvesicles and because of this, it is possible someone may mistake one for the other two. I think in some instances, exosomes may be mistaken for viruses.


Hmm well how do we suppose these monkies were infected with this non virus? Macaque monkeys can't become reinfected with COVID-19, small study suggests. | Live Science
 

SOMO

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
1,094
Hmm well how do we suppose these monkies were infected with this non virus? Macaque monkeys can't become reinfected with COVID-19, small study suggests. | Live Science

It's an interesting article, but I see some issues right off the bat soup.

First, let me say that I do believe it is possible there is some strain of highly contagious pathogen that is affecting many people and if left untreated, in people with poor health, can become fatal.

I'm not sure what they infected the throats of these monkeys with, but it definitely wasn't pure Covid19 virus. It was likely RNA-presumed-to-come-from-Covid19 but could have come from another source - another coronavirus, bacteria or fungi.


1. As far as I know (I could be wrong), no scientist has properly isolated Covid19 yet according to Koch's Postulates.
All attempts to isolate Covid19 use indirect markers, and the test that purports to show Covid19 uses indirect markers. You can show someone has Syphilis because you can isolate the bacteria in a petri dish, but this hasn't been done for Covid 19.

One of the first groups to study corona in India (India is less prone to media mass hysteria than America or Europe) said this:
“our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates”

Zhu N et al. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 14. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017 2. Huang C et al.

“we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood”

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

2. The PCR/Viral Load test uses an indirect marker - RNA that-is-presumed-to-come-from-a-virus.
You CAN show that a monkey was infected with some type of RNA, but you can not say that RNA is definitely from Covid19 because nobody has isolated Covid19 and sequenced it's entire genome.

3. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the scientists and say hypothetically that the RNA they use IS 100% definitely from Covid19. It still doesn't prove infection. Kary Mullis who invented the PCR/VL test, says you can not use the test for Quantification or to diagnose a virus.
With regard to the viral-load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.” PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves

The PCR test as it is used nowadays, does not measure virus as YES/NO, it measures HIGH/LOW, even though the inventor of the test says it is not a quantative tool.
The point at which someone is diagnosed Positive is an arbitrary number that the lab decides. Someone can have Covid19 RNA in their blood and be considered Negative, if the number of RNA is below the cutoff.
Did you know that the PCR test, as it's used to diagnose viruses has a numerical "Cutoff" after which you become "Positive".
Someone that has 5000 RNAs, for example, is considered "Negative", but someone that has 5001 RNAs is considered "Indeterminate" and someone that has 6000 RNAs is considered "Positive."


4. The other test used for diagnosis, the Antibody test, is a joke because antibodies cross-react with many antigens. Antibodies are said to be "promiscuous."
Antibodies are not monogamous Nossal GJV. Antibodies and Immunity. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd, 1971: page 36
. "The immunological community was shocked to find that antibodies would be polyreactive in binding to multiple antigens that were complex and ostensibly unrelated to one another" This means:
1. Known antigens cannot identify antibodies
2. Known antibodies cannot identify antigens
Marchalonis JJ et al. Journal of Molecular Recognition 2001; 14:110-21.

Because antibody tests are unreliable, you can not diagnose someone (or a monkey) with Covid19 based off the antibody test.
---

Monkey immunity

Having heard the anecdotal reports of so-called reinfection in humans, Chuan's team aimed to see if rhesus macaques could become infected with COVID-19 twice in a row.
The team introduced SARS-CoV-2 into the throats of four adult macaques and closely monitored the animals' symptoms and vital signs.
-I do not think they introduced Covid19 into the throats, I think they introduced RNA. Can RNA from foreign material make you sick? I would imagine RNA to be allergenic, especially if it gets into your bloodstream. Allergic reactions are generally caused by Proteins, but they can also be caused by RNA.

The team collected swab samples from the animals' noses, throats and anuses to track the changing concentration of the virus throughout the body. The team also euthanized and took tissue samples from one monkey seven days after infection to analyze the viral load in various organs.
-'Viral Load' is a codeword for PCR. PCR can not be used to quantify virus and it can not be used to diagnose the presence of a virus.
You can't use a test that doesn't quantify viral particles, with RNA of unknown origin, to diagnose a monkey and then say how much of the unknown RNA they have in their system.


The team also took X-rays of the monkeys' chests to look for tissue damage and signs of pneumonia. The team also identified antibodies present in the monkeys' blood.

Related: How deadly is the new coronavirus?

The "virus infection and pathology in monkey model are very similar to those of patients, but monkey models did not show severe symptoms of patients [or] death,"
-So maybe the mild reaction can be explained, partially, as an allergic reaction or a general immune response to foreign RNA being inoculated into the organism.

Chuan said. The macaques showed decreased appetite, increased breathing rate and developed mild to moderate pneumonia about a week following infection.
-I do not dispute that they made the monkeys sick with whatever they put into their throats. Obviously the monkeys became sick.

Viral concentrations in the nose and throat peaked around three days post-infection and then declined; the anal concentrations also peaked around three days after infection and fell to undetectable levels by day 14.
-The level is "Undetectable" because the RNA fell below that cutoff line. The monkeys may still have Corona RNA in their body, but they don't have enough for the test to detect. Maybe in 10 year they will have a more sensitive test that will, once again, be able to detect this Covid19 RNA and the monkeys will, overnight, become Positive again.
Using my earlier example, if 6000 RNAs is Positive and 5000 is Negative, the monkeys may have 3000 RNAs and the test itself may only be able to Detect up to 4999 RNAs. If they invent a more sensitive PCR test in a few years that can detect 3000 or less RNA, the monkeys will become Positive again according to the test.
Undetectable Viral Load is NOT ZERO Viral Load.



Blood samples revealed the monkeys developed antibodies built to target SARS-CoV-2 shortly after infection, with significant concentrations appearing in the blood by the 14th day and remaining elevated when checked 21 and 28 days after infection.
-I wonder if they will stay elevated a few weeks or months into the future?

At this point, the monkeys tested negative for the virus, their symptoms had subsided, their vital signs stabilized and their chest X-rays appeared normal, so the team considered them to be fully recovered.
-Whoa, let's slow down. The article just steamrolls through this line. How did the monkeys test negative - on the Antibody Test or the PCR/Viral Load Test? This is extremely important and I wish they would clarify.


At this point, they attempted to infect two of the monkeys a second time. But the infection did not take.
-Meaning that the monkeys did not get pneumonia again or that they were Negative on the Antibody/PCR test?

Swab samples collected from the monkeys did not contain detectable concentrations of the virus following reexposure and remained clear for 14 days. The team sampled tissues from one of the two monkeys five days after reexposure and noted neither tissue damage from the virus nor increased viral loads.
-So the organism learned how to clear the foreign RNA from its cells. This is to be expected with any infection. The word detectable means they likely used PCR, I hate repeating myself but this could mean the monkeys still have Covid19 RNA in their system, just that the test is not sensitive enough to pick up such a small number of RNA.

"No viral load was detected in these main tissues on [day five] after the monkey was exposed to the same dose of virus again," Chuan said. "So, we think the coronavirus did not survive for a long time in the body."

Additionally, future studies could probe how the generation of specific antibodies correlates with immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Different antibodies latch onto different parts of a virus's outer coat. So different antibody types may grant more or less immunity against a given virus.
-"Specific Antibodies" is a straight up lie by this scientist, or maybe he just doesn't know that antibodies cross-react. Also, there is another big issue here which several people on this forum have posted - Covid19 seems to share some proteins/structure with HIV.
HIV%20corona.jpg

So I see a lot of room for error with non-specific antibodies. Also an HIV vaccine has never worked, so one can extrapolate and say that a vaccine to Covid19 may not work.
Giving someone antibodies for something they do not have to react to causes a condition called HyperGammaGlobulinemia - too many antibodies.


Sorry for the extremely long post, but I wanted to point out all the glaring issues with the testing, diagnosis and quantification of Covid19, because they are countless.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
It's an interesting article, but I see some issues right off the bat soup.

First, let me say that I do believe it is possible there is some strain of highly contagious pathogen that is affecting many people and if left untreated, in people with poor health, can become fatal.

I'm not sure what they infected the throats of these monkeys with, but it definitely wasn't pure Covid19 virus. It was likely RNA-presumed-to-come-from-Covid19 but could have come from another source - another coronavirus, bacteria or fungi.


1. As far as I know (I could be wrong), no scientist has properly isolated Covid19 yet according to Koch's Postulates.
All attempts to isolate Covid19 use indirect markers, and the test that purports to show Covid19 uses indirect markers. You can show someone has Syphilis because you can isolate the bacteria in a petri dish, but this hasn't been done for Covid 19.

One of the first groups to study corona in India (India is less prone to media mass hysteria than America or Europe) said this:




2. The PCR/Viral Load test uses an indirect marker - RNA that-is-presumed-to-come-from-a-virus.
You CAN show that a monkey was infected with some type of RNA, but you can not say that RNA is definitely from Covid19 because nobody has isolated Covid19 and sequenced it's entire genome.

3. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the scientists and say hypothetically that the RNA they use IS 100% definitely from Covid19. It still doesn't prove infection. Kary Mullis who invented the PCR/VL test, says you can not use the test for Quantification or to diagnose a virus.


The PCR test as it is used nowadays, does not measure virus as YES/NO, it measures HIGH/LOW, even though the inventor of the test says it is not a quantative tool.
The point at which someone is diagnosed Positive is an arbitrary number that the lab decides. Someone can have Covid19 RNA in their blood and be considered Negative, if the number of RNA is below the cutoff.
Did you know that the PCR test, as it's used to diagnose viruses has a numerical "Cutoff" after which you become "Positive".
Someone that has 5000 RNAs, for example, is considered "Negative", but someone that has 5001 RNAs is considered "Indeterminate" and someone that has 6000 RNAs is considered "Positive."


4. The other test used for diagnosis, the Antibody test, is a joke because antibodies cross-react with many antigens. Antibodies are said to be "promiscuous."



Because antibody tests are unreliable, you can not diagnose someone (or a monkey) with Covid19 based off the antibody test.
---




Sorry for the extremely long post, but I wanted to point out all the glaring issues with the testing, diagnosis and quantification of Covid19, because they are countless.
Very nice post!! I bookmarked it for future reference when debating viral testing.
 

ddjd

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
6,675

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom