OK. Your assumption is that DPL's Substack is anything other than reporting on the project.
1. Your point that CPE is caused by bacterial contamination is ridiculous, what do you think the Antibiotics are for? 😂😂.. also we used the protocols of the ATCC for the methodology IF these are encouraging contamination the ENTIRE methodology of EVERY isolation is the same hence it is falsified, you can't have it both ways unfortunately.
2. Sure DPL has seemingly written that the CRO identified the "Viruses", this is incorrect. We are falsifying PURELY the EM part by VISUALS alone... if we have found IDENTICAL LOOKING particles that need to be further tested outside of EM to discern WHAT these particles are we have falsified EM. Which we have done.
3. You then go into the realms of fantasy talking about genomics. We have released NO control studies on the genomics part YET so your entire premise that we "CAN'T" is a strawman.
It is typical conjecture and pseudoscience just ASSUMING a dye flourescing amd being picked up by a camera means anything tangible whatsoever. You would need to provide proof of a nucleotide even existing before heading into the fantasy realms of finding all sorts of indicative sequences.
PS: I don't know the role of DPL on the project or how your team is organized. What I know for sure is that the language used by DPL in my dicussion with him on X is NOT conducive to your project. If you want to be taken seriously, maybe you should have a round table with your team about how to engage with constructive criticism. A bit of sarcasm (e.g. 😂😂.. ) as you have used here might be reasonable, but saying "Go a fcking waste someone else's time..." as DPL did, is beyond acceptable. 🙏
1. I never said that it is caused by bacterial contamination, that was highlighted in Ref.1 as one of many plausible sources of contamination. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria do exist in any case. The main point was that mock controls are used to calibrate your experimental setting, in order to observe changes relative to your reference. How do we know in your setting that there is no other source for the observed CPEs? If the protocol that you used does not work to produce a valid reference, no lab would be using it. Mock controls are required.
2. "Sure DPL has seemingly written that the CRO identified the "Viruses", this is incorrect."
Thank you for clarifying that. And, as I said, it is considerably difficult to falsify or verify an EM image simply by looking at it. Even more so in highly complex samples that have not been purified.
3. I'll wait for the sequencing part of your project and comment on it again. With regards to single-virus genomics the staining is only used to verify that a single virion/particle is present, then you sequence it. It would be impossible to sequence anything if there is no genetic material.
1. It is a very simple principle... we followed THE protocols according to ATTC... if THE protocols for ALL cell culture encourage bacterial contamination then the experiment is falsified.
How did we know there wasn't any bacterial contamination.... because there weren't any in the EM...
2. The point is that EM CANNOT be used as proof of existence.. also incredible to see IDENTICAL looking particles.
3. Sure...the entirety of virology rests on Genetics. They are the same fraud IMO.
Ok, we disagree but let's see how the rest of the project goes. I'll be paying attention, I am very interested in the sequencing part.
PS: The main problem with virology, IMO, is the absurdity of considering viruses as disease-causing agents, that is clearly false. The other extremely concerning problem, is the use of the SIR model in epidemiology. As I said many times, our current understanding of "contagion" is ridiculous. I think, at least, we agree on this 🙏
OK. Your assumption is that DPL's Substack is anything other than reporting on the project.
1. Your point that CPE is caused by bacterial contamination is ridiculous, what do you think the Antibiotics are for? 😂😂.. also we used the protocols of the ATCC for the methodology IF these are encouraging contamination the ENTIRE methodology of EVERY isolation is the same hence it is falsified, you can't have it both ways unfortunately.
2. Sure DPL has seemingly written that the CRO identified the "Viruses", this is incorrect. We are falsifying PURELY the EM part by VISUALS alone... if we have found IDENTICAL LOOKING particles that need to be further tested outside of EM to discern WHAT these particles are we have falsified EM. Which we have done.
3. You then go into the realms of fantasy talking about genomics. We have released NO control studies on the genomics part YET so your entire premise that we "CAN'T" is a strawman.
It is typical conjecture and pseudoscience just ASSUMING a dye flourescing amd being picked up by a camera means anything tangible whatsoever. You would need to provide proof of a nucleotide even existing before heading into the fantasy realms of finding all sorts of indicative sequences.
PS: I don't know the role of DPL on the project or how your team is organized. What I know for sure is that the language used by DPL in my dicussion with him on X is NOT conducive to your project. If you want to be taken seriously, maybe you should have a round table with your team about how to engage with constructive criticism. A bit of sarcasm (e.g. 😂😂.. ) as you have used here might be reasonable, but saying "Go a fcking waste someone else's time..." as DPL did, is beyond acceptable. 🙏
1. I never said that it is caused by bacterial contamination, that was highlighted in Ref.1 as one of many plausible sources of contamination. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria do exist in any case. The main point was that mock controls are used to calibrate your experimental setting, in order to observe changes relative to your reference. How do we know in your setting that there is no other source for the observed CPEs? If the protocol that you used does not work to produce a valid reference, no lab would be using it. Mock controls are required.
2. "Sure DPL has seemingly written that the CRO identified the "Viruses", this is incorrect."
Thank you for clarifying that. And, as I said, it is considerably difficult to falsify or verify an EM image simply by looking at it. Even more so in highly complex samples that have not been purified.
3. I'll wait for the sequencing part of your project and comment on it again. With regards to single-virus genomics the staining is only used to verify that a single virion/particle is present, then you sequence it. It would be impossible to sequence anything if there is no genetic material.
1. It is a very simple principle... we followed THE protocols according to ATTC... if THE protocols for ALL cell culture encourage bacterial contamination then the experiment is falsified.
How did we know there wasn't any bacterial contamination.... because there weren't any in the EM...
2. The point is that EM CANNOT be used as proof of existence.. also incredible to see IDENTICAL looking particles.
3. Sure...the entirety of virology rests on Genetics. They are the same fraud IMO.
Ok, we disagree but let's see how the rest of the project goes. I'll be paying attention, I am very interested in the sequencing part.
PS: The main problem with virology, IMO, is the absurdity of considering viruses as disease-causing agents, that is clearly false. The other extremely concerning problem, is the use of the SIR model in epidemiology. As I said many times, our current understanding of "contagion" is ridiculous. I think, at least, we agree on this 🙏