That's what Gilthorpe said - he didn't cite any specific papers or evidence, just that methods used to ID the virus were acceptable and in general use..
I understand. I listened to the podcast. What he says is classic condescending deflection (unintended, well meaning or otherwise). It isn't difficult to explain the method used in virological isolation™ or the virologically induced cytopathological effect™. In doing so it becomes quickly quite obvious to most that provenance, controls and pathogenicity remain moot at best, or more typically, plainly assumed in circular fallacious reasoning and thus, clearly unfulfilled.
He blithely talks about using synthetic molecules or sequences to complete unknown sequences being SOP, which it may very well be, but that is not 'science' (a philosophy and method of investigation) it's ad hoc technology.
All too often that distinction appears conveniently and lazily blurred.
The interview clarified a few things for me. Also, thanks for your concise summary. I think Dr Gilthorpe was too dismissive of no virus group and to suggest they're manipulative and somehow twisting the facts is false, i.e. re isolation/purification process. It's either pure or impure, "pure enough" is a ridiculous concept. Info. on patents was useful. Karen Kingston and Dr Gilthorpe should debate this openly. KK is sticking to her guns, including re. paper she claims shows proof of GO and that Gilmore claims is simply about coating to enhance imaging techniques or something like that. She also understands as well as he does how the patent system works. The nanotechnology in the vials can't be dismissed either. These issues need to be resolved quickly so appropriate treatments can be devised. Gilthorpe and those like him need to open their minds and help find solutions.
"The virus may not have been isolated to the purity standards some might like, but it has been isolated to a sufficient standard."
Science, references, citations please? ;-)
That's what Gilthorpe said - he didn't cite any specific papers or evidence, just that methods used to ID the virus were acceptable and in general use..
I understand. I listened to the podcast. What he says is classic condescending deflection (unintended, well meaning or otherwise). It isn't difficult to explain the method used in virological isolation™ or the virologically induced cytopathological effect™. In doing so it becomes quickly quite obvious to most that provenance, controls and pathogenicity remain moot at best, or more typically, plainly assumed in circular fallacious reasoning and thus, clearly unfulfilled.
He blithely talks about using synthetic molecules or sequences to complete unknown sequences being SOP, which it may very well be, but that is not 'science' (a philosophy and method of investigation) it's ad hoc technology.
All too often that distinction appears conveniently and lazily blurred.
The interview clarified a few things for me. Also, thanks for your concise summary. I think Dr Gilthorpe was too dismissive of no virus group and to suggest they're manipulative and somehow twisting the facts is false, i.e. re isolation/purification process. It's either pure or impure, "pure enough" is a ridiculous concept. Info. on patents was useful. Karen Kingston and Dr Gilthorpe should debate this openly. KK is sticking to her guns, including re. paper she claims shows proof of GO and that Gilmore claims is simply about coating to enhance imaging techniques or something like that. She also understands as well as he does how the patent system works. The nanotechnology in the vials can't be dismissed either. These issues need to be resolved quickly so appropriate treatments can be devised. Gilthorpe and those like him need to open their minds and help find solutions.