The genre of ViroLIEgy has inspired numerous works of fiction for the silver screen, including some major blockbusters, such as, the Spanish flu, HIV House of Horror, and, more recently, CONVID 19. Along the way, we‘ve been treated to some entertaining B movies like Silly Sars 1, Mythical Measles, and Monkeypox for Monkey Business. With such a ‘diverse‘ array of narratives available, there's truly something for everyone, as long as you remember that the genre of viroLIEgy is purely fictional.
Most people, if they deal with the topic at all, probably do not realise the explosive nature of the facts. If reverse transcriptase RT is not the sole characteristic of retro viral existence (assuming that viruses actually exist), then the answer can always be: there is a virus. Or not. Then virology can no longer go beyond the coin toss.
As a compelling consequence, the alleged recognition feature of RT must inevitably be abandoned. Then, instead of constantly looking at secondary phenomena, all that remains is to examine the object itself and not the "traces" it supposedly leaves behind.
Example: Footprints and blurred images FPBI are the only "proof of Bigfoot's existence". However, FPBI also exist from other species with feet, for example humans and apes. In this case, a footprint cannot be sufficient evidence. A bigfoot must be caught and examined. And until then, its existence is a legend, and trackers can only flip a coin to decide what they have found.
RT is only one criterion in which the discriminatory power within virology has been lost.
All the properties assigned to "viruses" are as blurred as the worst Bigfoot photos. Same with the alleged antibodies.
If you expect selectivity, clear rules and stable theories from a science, you are in the wrong place in virology.
Some viruses are called "retroviruses" because of the discovery of the reverse transcriptase (RT) enzyme. When reverse transcriptase was first discovered it was presumed to be rare and thus the supposed viruses associated with reverse transcriptase were imagined to be different from other viruses. The prefix "retro" is another way of saying "reverse."
Since RT enzyme turns out not to be unusual or rare it seems like the entire basis for the existence of retroviruses is wrong, but no one seems interested in correcting the mistake.
Reverse transcriptase was first discovered to be associated with oncogenic viruses, specifically, rous sarcoma virus and murine leukemia virus. And after the findings of this enzyme the viruses were renamed to retrovirus. And Also on the basis on this so called enzyme Temin proposed his "provirus hypothesis" fairy tale. Virus inserting RNA into host genome. Because RNA dependent DNA polymerase activity was detected. Bullshit. More interesting part is. There probably was no CPE involved in the so called discovery of these viruses. Both viruses. Because they were tumor causing viruses. Peyton Rous was the first who planted the seed of virus. He suspected that the cause of tumors in chickens could be a virus!!! So he obtained tumor tissue, grind them up, passed the mixture through berkefeld filter, centrifuged it, basically reduced down the material to the level it contains particles (cell debris, molecules etcetera) of the size of supposed virus, assumed to be present. And injected in chickens, tumors arose. And he he said it's possible the cause was an ultramicroscopic organism but it's also possible that chemical stimulant elaborated by neoplastic cells may have caused tumors. And he left the work. subsequent researchers may have replaced the live chickens as an experimental hosts, with embryonated egg, injected the same foreign biological material in embryonated egg, tumors arose. Obtained the tumor tissue from chick embryos, grind it, filter, it, centrifuge it. And subsequent researchers replaced the egg with cell culture. Temin was the first. Who started his work with so called bryan standard RSV. For sure it wasn't a virus and independent variable. But rather the same just reduced down material with a virus assumed to be present. Which he introduced in cell culture. And the effect of so called 'altered control of multiplication' (Lol) and altered morphology was observed. No CPE mentioned. Which he described as 'foci' induced by a 'virus'. And this was this effect was the proof that virus is present. He found so called enzyme which he gave a name reverse transcriptase. When researchers started finding reverse transcriptase activity in uninfected systems like in the allantoic fluid of uninfected embryonated eggs, they tried to save temin saying their RT was distinct from viral RT. Biochemically. Yes HIV experts agree RT activity is widespread. But dismiss saying the RT activity that was detected by montoo and galloo was distinct 'viral RT'. Only. Biochemically, i remember somewhere reading montoo saying "we charecterized RT, which was 'soundly' of retrovirus" but what makes RT as 'viral RT' when there is no virus to which is was said to be associated with? (RSV)
The genre of ViroLIEgy has inspired numerous works of fiction for the silver screen, including some major blockbusters, such as, the Spanish flu, HIV House of Horror, and, more recently, CONVID 19. Along the way, we‘ve been treated to some entertaining B movies like Silly Sars 1, Mythical Measles, and Monkeypox for Monkey Business. With such a ‘diverse‘ array of narratives available, there's truly something for everyone, as long as you remember that the genre of viroLIEgy is purely fictional.
Great work gain, Aldhissla!!
Most people, if they deal with the topic at all, probably do not realise the explosive nature of the facts. If reverse transcriptase RT is not the sole characteristic of retro viral existence (assuming that viruses actually exist), then the answer can always be: there is a virus. Or not. Then virology can no longer go beyond the coin toss.
As a compelling consequence, the alleged recognition feature of RT must inevitably be abandoned. Then, instead of constantly looking at secondary phenomena, all that remains is to examine the object itself and not the "traces" it supposedly leaves behind.
Example: Footprints and blurred images FPBI are the only "proof of Bigfoot's existence". However, FPBI also exist from other species with feet, for example humans and apes. In this case, a footprint cannot be sufficient evidence. A bigfoot must be caught and examined. And until then, its existence is a legend, and trackers can only flip a coin to decide what they have found.
RT is only one criterion in which the discriminatory power within virology has been lost.
All the properties assigned to "viruses" are as blurred as the worst Bigfoot photos. Same with the alleged antibodies.
If you expect selectivity, clear rules and stable theories from a science, you are in the wrong place in virology.
Excellent article, thanks !
Please share this one, it will also help people to understand the problem :
https://odysee.com/@Gamzuletova:9/RESUMEN:4?r=2tjnZ4vtKeXZPAXKJDteZxXuxLp8ihz2
I got some comments that at min 15:30 Odysee stops the video. Interesting.
At that point starts an important part, so if that is the case, please download the video (you can do that on Odysee) and watch it offline.
Blessings
This was very informative and very clear. Thanks.
It helped to realize:
Some viruses are called "retroviruses" because of the discovery of the reverse transcriptase (RT) enzyme. When reverse transcriptase was first discovered it was presumed to be rare and thus the supposed viruses associated with reverse transcriptase were imagined to be different from other viruses. The prefix "retro" is another way of saying "reverse."
Since RT enzyme turns out not to be unusual or rare it seems like the entire basis for the existence of retroviruses is wrong, but no one seems interested in correcting the mistake.
Interesting!
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia.
Reverse transcriptase was first discovered to be associated with oncogenic viruses, specifically, rous sarcoma virus and murine leukemia virus. And after the findings of this enzyme the viruses were renamed to retrovirus. And Also on the basis on this so called enzyme Temin proposed his "provirus hypothesis" fairy tale. Virus inserting RNA into host genome. Because RNA dependent DNA polymerase activity was detected. Bullshit. More interesting part is. There probably was no CPE involved in the so called discovery of these viruses. Both viruses. Because they were tumor causing viruses. Peyton Rous was the first who planted the seed of virus. He suspected that the cause of tumors in chickens could be a virus!!! So he obtained tumor tissue, grind them up, passed the mixture through berkefeld filter, centrifuged it, basically reduced down the material to the level it contains particles (cell debris, molecules etcetera) of the size of supposed virus, assumed to be present. And injected in chickens, tumors arose. And he he said it's possible the cause was an ultramicroscopic organism but it's also possible that chemical stimulant elaborated by neoplastic cells may have caused tumors. And he left the work. subsequent researchers may have replaced the live chickens as an experimental hosts, with embryonated egg, injected the same foreign biological material in embryonated egg, tumors arose. Obtained the tumor tissue from chick embryos, grind it, filter, it, centrifuge it. And subsequent researchers replaced the egg with cell culture. Temin was the first. Who started his work with so called bryan standard RSV. For sure it wasn't a virus and independent variable. But rather the same just reduced down material with a virus assumed to be present. Which he introduced in cell culture. And the effect of so called 'altered control of multiplication' (Lol) and altered morphology was observed. No CPE mentioned. Which he described as 'foci' induced by a 'virus'. And this was this effect was the proof that virus is present. He found so called enzyme which he gave a name reverse transcriptase. When researchers started finding reverse transcriptase activity in uninfected systems like in the allantoic fluid of uninfected embryonated eggs, they tried to save temin saying their RT was distinct from viral RT. Biochemically. Yes HIV experts agree RT activity is widespread. But dismiss saying the RT activity that was detected by montoo and galloo was distinct 'viral RT'. Only. Biochemically, i remember somewhere reading montoo saying "we charecterized RT, which was 'soundly' of retrovirus" but what makes RT as 'viral RT' when there is no virus to which is was said to be associated with? (RSV)