Is COVID-19 Caused by a Virus or a Mycobacterium?

Here is pure science.

"In nature there is a phenomena which happens probably millions of times a day in which one colony of bacteria or mycobacteria sends out its viral phages (bacteriophages or mycobacteriophages) that live inside it to kill another colony of the same type of organism......a sort of natural lysogeny. The bacterialviruses called phages are the most plentiful viruses on earth. But they are species specific in that they only attack like species. The Mycobacterium bovis in BCG are closely related to and in fact part of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Therefore, the phages inside BCG have the potential to destroy TB and other related mycobacteria.

The destruction of TB bacilli in the body is in and of itself “bolstering the immune system”, as there is no other microbe known to man that is quite as immunosuppressive.

And that is exactly how BCG works  ̶  not against "a virus" and not through “training” or “bolstering” the immune system, but by BCG (Mycobacterium bovis) shooting off phages to kill closely related mycobacteria or mycobacterial colonization, latent or active, in the system. Since phages are species specific, they are often used for diagnostic purposes. So just the mere successful use of dilute mycobacteria (BCG) with its mycobacteriophages is evidence in itself that the target, the coronavirus, is not of a spontaneous occurrence, but a mycobacterial generated disease."


published in the most prestigious journal in the world on infectious diseases:

Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186,
1155–1160

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/186/8/1155/2191390

The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Oxford Academic

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens.


We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.


Now, sokarul's turn:

"I wasn't thinking about the other type of acceleration."

"You have to get over the fact that two things can be equal and not be the same thing."

Even an illiterate person would not dare to make such statements.

lol

Does the earth exhibit precession?

lol


And now you are back to the beginning. If you could only understand your sources.

Oh and

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-vaccine-denier-20150320-column.html

The “expert “ Dr. Stefan Lanka.
Lol

Maybe you could front the money he owes for losing.

lol

Dr. Lanka is correct.

Here is what the court said:

"The court had no doubt about the existence of the measles virus".

Unfortunately, there is no measles virus, the infection is caused by mycobacterium.

So, in 2017, Dr. Lanka won the lawsuit.

By January of 2017, Lanka had won a court case in the German Federal Supreme Court regarding the measles “virus”. Lanka had offered €100,000 for scientific proof for the existence of the alleged measles virus. A plaintiff then sued Lanka for what he felt was proof of such a virus. But five experts who looked at the case found that none of the publications introduced into trial contained scientific proof for the existence of the measles virus. So Lanka won the case.

The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that the measles virus does not exist. To the experts involved in that case, there seemed not to be a single scientific study in the world which so far proved the existence of such a measles virus. This raised the question of what was actually injected into millions of German citizens over the past decades. According to the judgment by the Supreme Court and its expert panel, it may not have been a vaccine against measles.

Mihalovic D. Biologist Proves Measles Isn’t A Virus, Wins Supreme Court Case Against Doctor. January 27, 2017.

https://bafremauxsoormally.blogspot.com/2017/02/biologist-dr-stephan-lanka-proves.html?m=0


Now, take a look at the date of the LATimes article: 2015.


This is how precarious and catastrophic your research is.

What else could we expect from you?


And when questioned regarding the electron pictograph of H1N1 that the CDC came up with on their website, German virologist Lanka attested to the fact that the H1N1 picture was bogus. He said that he had “written the CDC many times as to who made the H1N1 photos and whether they were scientifically documented as to chemical characteristics and other properties.” There was never any reply. He concluded “If CDC refuses to cite the source of the photos, they are fake. ... In conclusion, without the isolation of the H1N1, there is no H1N1 infecting virus.”

https://africacheck.org/fbcheck/no-german-supreme-court-didnt-rule-that-measles-doesnt-exist/


Falling for fake news again I see.

No fake news.

You tried to deviously manipulate your readers into believing that Dr. Lanka had lost the lawsuit.

He won the lawsuit.

This is from the wikipedia page on the subject:

"Lanka eventually challenged the judgement. The case was re-evaluated at the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Stuttgart on 16 February 2016 where the original judgement was reversed. Although six scientific publications were submitted showing the existence of measles, they failed to meet the contest requirements as set by Lanka.Bardens commented on the case in an extensive interview on 5 May 2016 and announced his decision to appeal to Germany's Federal Court BGH. In December 2016 Bardens tried to get this ruling revised, but the court saw no reason for that."


You are the one who tried to bamboozle your readers with fake news.

Dr. Lanka won the lawsuit.


As for the africacheck website, here is the real deal:

https://bafremauxsoormally.blogspot.com/2017/02/biologist-dr-stephan-lanka-proves.html?m=0


And when questioned regarding the electron pictograph of H1N1 that the CDC came up with on their website, German virologist Lanka attested to the fact that the H1N1 picture was bogus. He said that he had “written the CDC many times as to who made the H1N1 photos and whether they were scientifically documented as to chemical characteristics and other properties.” There was never any reply. He concluded “If CDC refuses to cite the source of the photos, they are fake. ... In conclusion, without the isolation of the H1N1, there is no H1N1 infecting virus.

He “won” the suit because he asked for 1 paper and instead got 6.

There is a reason it was first ruled he lost. The 6 papers showed measles to be a virus.

The court never said measles as a virus  doesn’t exist, which is what your fake news source claimed.

The CDC didn’t answer him so everything is fake?

Many picture do not come from the CDC.

Just keep posting though, I will continue to destroy you.


Or you could stop posting and work on critical thinking.

The only thing you have destroyed around here is your own credibility.

In less than 2 minutes I was able to debunk your fake news.

Here is what the court actually said:

https://bafremauxsoormally.blogspot.com/2017/02/biologist-dr-stephan-lanka-proves.html?m=0

The CDC could have easily settled the entire matter, given the fact that one of the top biologists in the world asked for the photograph, but they kept silent: they could not provide the source for the photograph.


Take a look at yourself.

Cynically trying to tell your readers that Dr. Lanka had lost the lawsuit.

Now, upon seeing that he actually won the lawsuit, you resort to "africacheck" to get your news.

Pretty lame.

I took a look at the actual translated judgement. The original is of course in German.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flrbw.juris.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Flaender_rechtsprechung%2Fdocument.py%3FGericht%3Dbw%26GerichtAuswahl%3DOberlandesgerichte%26Art%3Den%26sid%3D46bf3db2df690aba6e4874acafaf45b6%26nr%3D20705%26pos%3D0%26anz%3D1


Read up.

I'm done moping the floor with you.

I'll be back tomorrow to clean up whatever mess you make.

Here is pure science.

"In nature there is a phenomena which happens probably millions of times a day in which one colony of bacteria or mycobacteria sends out its viral phages (bacteriophages or mycobacteriophages) that live inside it to kill another colony of the same type of organism......a sort of natural lysogeny. The bacterial viruses called phages are the most plentiful viruses on earth. But they are species specific in that they only attack like species."

That is close to "pure science" but it seems to imply that bacteria and mycobacteria normally contain these bacteriophages or mycobacteriophages.
That part is not correct because bacteriophages and mycobacteriophages are viruses that can infect other bacteria or mycobacteria and neither BCG nor Mycobacterium Tuberculosis normally contain mycobacteriophages.
Read this:

Mycobacteriophages (Author manuscript: Peer-reviewed and accepted for publication)
Abstract
Mycobacteriophages are viruses that infect mycobacterial hosts. A large number of mycobacteriophages have been isolated and genomically characterized, providing insights into viral diversity and evolution, as well as fueling development of tools for mycobacterial genetics. Mycobacteriophages have intimate relationships with their hosts, and provide insights into the genetics and physiology of the mycobacteria, and tools for potential clinical applications such as drug development, diagnosis, vaccines, and potentially therapy.

INTRODUCTION
Because of the importance of mycobacterial diseases such as tuberculosis (TB) and leprosy, mycobacteriophages have been long-studied, with the first ones being isolated in the 1940’s. At that time it was recognized that bacteriophages display particular profiles of specificity for their bacterial hosts, nearly always distinguishing between bacteria in different genera, and sometimes distinguishing between strains of the same bacterial species.
<< etc, etc >>

"The Mycobacterium bovis in BCG are closely related to and in fact part of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Therefore, the phages inside BCG have the potential to destroy TB and other related mycobacteria.

And, of course, "The Mycobacterium bovis in BCG are closely related to and in fact part of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex" is quite correct.
BUT his "Therefore, the phages inside BCG" is simply not implied by what precedes it. BCG does NOT normally contain mycobacteriophages. Mycobacteriophages are viruses that can infect mycobacteria.

The destruction of TB bacilli in the body is in and of itself “bolstering the immune system”, as there is no other microbe known to man that is quite as immunosuppressive.

And that is exactly how BCG works  ̶  not against "a virus" and not through “training” or “bolstering” the immune system, but by BCG (Mycobacterium bovis) shooting off phages to kill closely related mycobacteria or mycobacterial colonization, latent or active, in the system. Since phages are species specific, they are often used for diagnostic purposes. So just the mere successful use of dilute mycobacteria (BCG) with its mycobacteriophages is evidence in itself that the target, the coronavirus, is not of a spontaneous occurrence, but a mycobacterial generated disease."

No, that is NOT "how BCG works" and Dr Laurence Broxmeyer has never given evidence of that.

published in the most prestigious journal in the world on infectious diseases:

Quote from: Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska D. et al

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. by Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186, 1155–1160, The Journal of Infectious Diseases Oxford Academic

We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as Bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.

There is certainly plenty of current research into phage therapy as the treatment of many bacterial diseases, especially those with strains that have become resistant to most current antibiotics and that:
"We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as Bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems."

Even an illiterate person would not dare to make such statements.

You might do better if you stopped pretending that you know better than anybody else, including specialists in microbiology and immunology.

But all of the above is quite irrelevant to the topic, "COVID-19 Caused by a Virus or a Mycobacterium?".
That has been answered by YOUR own references why clearly state that COVID-19 is caused by the virus, SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Lanka won the lawsuit.

As for the africacheck website, here is the real deal:

https://bafremauxsoormally.blogspot.com/2017/02/biologist-dr-stephan-lanka-proves.html?m=0

But Dr. Lanka lost the appeal!

Do you honestly believe as Dr Stefan Lanka does that the the measles virus doesn't exist?
You might like to read this "the real deal" from Africa Check: Africa Check: No, German ‘supreme court’ didn’t rule that ‘measles doesn’t exist’.
And do you still  honestly believe as Dr. Lawrence Broxmeyer does that the cause of COVID-19 "is mycobacterium avium/mycobacterium tuberculosis." (Quote from: sandokhan on April 11, 2020)?

Do you still claim this even when your own references state that the cause of COVID-19 is the virus, SARS-CoV-2?

I have done my part by having provided the references which prove that all RNA viruses carry DNA. There is much more to be said on the subject, of course.

But "all RNA viruses" do not "carry DNA". Not only that but most RNA viruses do not even cause the production of DNA to replicate.
Those that do uses DNA in their replication process are retroviruses.

Dictionary:
retrovirus
noun: retrovirus; plural noun: retroviruses
    any of a group of RNA viruses which insert a DNA copy of their genome into the host cell in order to replicate, e.g. HIV.

or

HIV/AIDS Glossary
Retrovirus
A type of virus that uses RNA as its genetic material. After infecting a cell, a retrovirus uses an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to convert its RNA into DNA. The retrovirus then integrates its viral DNA into the DNA of the host cell, which allows the retrovirus to replicate. HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is a retrovirus.

But, as I have shown you a number of times, most RNA viruses are not retroviruses, do not contain DNA nor even use DNA in their replication process.

But now it's your turn to come up with a single mainstream paper which shows that mycobacteriophages from the BCG interact with non-mycobacterium viruses.

no it's not because no "mycobacteriophages from the BCG interact with non-mycobacterium viruses" simply because there are no mycobacteriophages in norman BCG vaccine.

I took a look at the actual translated judgement. The original is of course in German.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flrbw.juris.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Flaender_rechtsprechung%2Fdocument.py%3FGericht%3Dbw%26GerichtAuswahl%3DOberlandesgerichte%26Art%3Den%26sid%3D46bf3db2df690aba6e4874acafaf45b6%26nr%3D20705%26pos%3D0%26anz%3D1


Read up.

I'm done moping the floor with you.

I'll be back tomorrow to clean up whatever mess you make.

Sandokhan's wisdom is spread far and wide. Look what I found in as a comment in YouTube:

I check into this thread occasionally; but allow me to interject that if you think Sandokhan has proved anything, you've been beguiled.  Do you really think he's communicated anything meaningful, or has he just blinded you with walls of words that appear to be erudite?

I used to try to parse his essays, until it dawned on me that they are nonsense dressed up as academic.

Sandokhan has a narcissistic arrogance and believes he's smarter than those to whom he is responding, and that he can dazzle them with his brilliance; but he's baffling with his BS.  Don't be beguiled just because he sounds like he's confident and citing (copying and pasting) authentic sources.

Now, if you think I'm wrong and are sure you're not just being seduced by academic-sounding words, then you're welcome to re-articulate that which you think he's proved.   But I refute any simple assertion that he's ever proved anything.

(Note: I don't believe he's intentionally parodying anything. I think he's sincere.  But that, in itself, is concerning. It's a delusional.)

The only thing you did is to lick the mess off the floor with your tongue.

The link in German is from the link I posted earlier!

You conveniently forgot to post the rest of the material:

The First Civil Senate of the BGH confirmed a judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) on in February 2016. The sum of 100,000 euros which was offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus did have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.

Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.
In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.

Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.

The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.

The OLG Stuttgart overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from February 16, 2016.

The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.

Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.

Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.

In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.

Here is the entire dismissal of the lawsuit:

https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Protokoll_13_4_20150001.pdf

I do not know who Bobby Shafto is, but he was not able to publish the global formula for the natural logarithm.

But I was:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

I challenge Shafto to come here and show any BS in my messages: it will take perhaps 30 seconds to show to this person how wrong he is.

Arrogance? I am very good at what I do, and he knows it.

Here is another meaningful thing I communicated, the algorithm to find the first 19 zeros of Riemann's zeta function without using mathemtical analysis, the first ever in the history of mathematics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082601#msg2082601

These results, by themselves, prove that I am correct.

Have you or Shafto published anything resembling my results in mathematics?

Not ever.

But Dr. Lanka lost the appeal!

Do you honestly believe as Dr Stefan Lanka does that the the measles virus doesn't exist?
You might like to read this "the real deal" from Africa Check: Africa Check: No, German ‘supreme court’ didn’t rule that ‘measles doesn’t exist’.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Dr. Lanka WON the lawsuit!

Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.
In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.

Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.

The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.

The OLG Stuttgart overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from February 16, 2016.

The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.

Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.

Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.

In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.

But "all RNA viruses" do not "carry DNA". Not only that but most RNA viruses do not even cause the production of DNA to replicate.
Those that do uses DNA in their replication process are retroviruses.

THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID TWO DAYS AGO!

You are changing your tune every day.

Pretty disgusting.

and virii do not have DNA.

YOU SAID ALL VIRII DO NOT CONTAIN DNA!

No mention of retroviruses, or the counterexamples I provided.

In fact, all viruses contain DNA, they have to in order to account for the viral DNA.


But, as I have shown you a number of times, most RNA viruses are not retroviruses, do not contain DNA nor even use DNA in their replication process.

You did not mention retroviruses.

Until two days ago, you had not idea they exist.

All viruses contain DNA, they have to.


no it's not because no "mycobacteriophages from the BCG interact with non-mycobacterium viruses" simply because there are no mycobacteriophages in norman BCG vaccine.

You need psychiatric help right away.

That is exactly what BCG does.

published in the most prestigious journal in the world on infectious diseases:

Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186,
1155–1160

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/186/8/1155/2191390

The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Oxford Academic

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens.


We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.


This means that you are denying reality, a very telling sign of your current condition.

All viruses contain DNA, they have to.

All viruses do not contain DNA, some do, sure, but a lot do not.
How the hell are you still hung up on this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

You are the only person saying that RNA virus do not exist.
Sandy, are you seriously trying to re-write medical knowledge here?

You do know that it is currently 2020 and we can sequence both DNA and RNA fairly accurately and quickly?

You are the only person saying that RNA virus do not exist.

What?!

RNA viruses do exist and they create DNA, they have to in order to account for the viral DNA.

RNA is a molecule similar to DNA, and it is essentially a temporary copy of a short segment of DNA.


Now, please post the mechanism by which BCG will "boost" the immune system thereby influencing SARS-Cov-2.

You can't find any?

Here is the precise mechanism by which the mycobacteriophages in BCG interact directly with mycobacterium:

"In nature there is a phenomena which happens probably millions of times a day in which one colony of bacteria or mycobacteria sends out its viral phages (bacteriophages or mycobacteriophages) that live inside it to kill another colony of the same type of organism......a sort of natural lysogeny. The bacterialviruses called phages are the most plentiful viruses on earth. But they are species specific in that they only attack like species. The Mycobacterium bovis in BCG are closely related to and in fact part of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Therefore, the phages inside BCG have the potential to destroy TB and other related mycobacteria.

The destruction of TB bacilli in the body is in and of itself “bolstering the immune system”, as there is no other microbe known to man that is quite as immunosuppressive.

And that is exactly how BCG works  ̶  not against "a virus" and not through “training” or “bolstering” the immune system, but by BCG (Mycobacterium bovis) shooting off phages to kill closely related mycobacteria or mycobacterial colonization, latent or active, in the system. Since phages are species specific, they are often used for diagnostic purposes. So just the mere successful use of dilute mycobacteria (BCG) with its mycobacteriophages is evidence in itself that the target, the coronavirus, is not of a spontaneous occurrence, but a mycobacterial generated disease."

published in the most prestigious journal in the world on infectious diseases:

Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186,
1155–1160

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/186/8/1155/2191390

The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Oxford Academic

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens.


We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.


The mycobacteriophages are species specific: they will never interact with viruses.

You are the only person saying that RNA virus do not exist.

What?!

RNA viruses do exist and they create DNA, they have to in order to account for the viral DNA.

RNA is a molecule similar to DNA, and it is essentially a temporary copy of a short segment of DNA.

RNA is not a temporary copy of DNA, its an original copy of RNA.
The RNA uses DNA, to make more RNA.
Coronavirus has no DNA in it at all, as it is a RNA virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

Now, please post the mechanism by which BCG will "boost" the immune system thereby influencing SARS-Cov-2.

You can't find any?

Here is the precise mechanism by which the mycobacteriophages in BCG interact directly with mycobacterium:

"In nature there is a phenomena which happens probably millions of times a day in which one colony of bacteria or mycobacteria sends out its viral phages (bacteriophages or mycobacteriophages) that live inside it to kill another colony of the same type of organism......a sort of natural lysogeny. The bacterialviruses called phages are the most plentiful viruses on earth. But they are species specific in that they only attack like species. The Mycobacterium bovis in BCG are closely related to and in fact part of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Therefore, the phages inside BCG have the potential to destroy TB and other related mycobacteria.

The destruction of TB bacilli in the body is in and of itself “bolstering the immune system”, as there is no other microbe known to man that is quite as immunosuppressive.

And that is exactly how BCG works  ̶  not against "a virus" and not through “training” or “bolstering” the immune system, but by BCG (Mycobacterium bovis) shooting off phages to kill closely related mycobacteria or mycobacterial colonization, latent or active, in the system. Since phages are species specific, they are often used for diagnostic purposes. So just the mere successful use of dilute mycobacteria (BCG) with its mycobacteriophages is evidence in itself that the target, the coronavirus, is not of a spontaneous occurrence, but a mycobacterial generated disease."

published in the most prestigious journal in the world on infectious diseases:

Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186,
1155–1160

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/186/8/1155/2191390

The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Oxford Academic

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens.


We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.


The mycobacteriophages are species specific: they will never interact with viruses.

You are asking us to find a study that would normally take more than a few years to conduct on a virus that is less than 4 months old since discovery. This is like me asking you to give me a detailed economic report of 2020 when we are in only the first 4 months of it.

But here is also why it is not TB. Because TB has not been found in patients with Covid19

One way we know this is this amazing discovery of the microscope.

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/54/suppl_63/PA4605
 Mycobacterial shape within alveolar macrophages varied from shorter oval, approximately 500 to 1000 nm in length, to the classical rods with a mean length in 2000-4000 nm, and long filamentous forms over 6000-7000 nm in length

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/
Thus, SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the betaCoVs category. It has round or elliptic and often pleomorphic form, and a diameter of approximately 60–140 nm.

TB is MASSIVE compared to Covid19 and would have been detected very quickly in the lungs of patients, just through the use of electron microscopes. So scientists can directly observe that this is NOT TB

And then the final nail in the coffin

There is no evidence that the Bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine (BCG) protects people against infection with COVID-19 virus
https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/bacille-calmette-gu%C3%A9rin-(bcg)-vaccination-and-covid-19

Until there is actually real evidence that BCG does work, your entire argument is baseless. As in, it does not stand on its own merits.
Show us that BCG actually works in an actual study, then we can start the discussion again.

But "all RNA viruses" do not "carry DNA". Not only that but most RNA viruses do not even cause the production of DNA to replicate.
Those that do uses DNA in their replication process are retroviruses.

That is not what you said two days ago!
You are changing your tune every day.
Pretty disgusting.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 12, 2020, 11:32:23 PM

and virii do not have DNA.

You said all virii do not contain DNA!

No mention of retroviruses, or the counterexamples I provided.

Yes, I made a mistake, admitted it and corrected it but
YOU, on the other hand, insist that YOU know better than all the virologists and microbiologists and continue to make the error below!.

In fact, all viruses contain DNA, they have to in order to account for the viral DNA.

NO, RNA viruses do not contain DNA and there is no need "to account for the viral DNA" in RNA viruses (not even IN retroviruses) because there is NO DNA in RNA viruses.

But, as I have shown you a number of times, most RNA viruses are not retroviruses, do not contain DNA nor even use DNA in their replication process.

You did not mention retroviruses. Until two days ago, you had not idea they exist.

So what? I did not mention retroviruses two days ago but why would I because even RNA retroviruses do not contain DNA but they "coopt" the infected cells replication "machinery" DNA in their replication process'
And before you drag it up, there are a few DNA retroviruses that use RNA in their replication process.

All viruses contain DNA, they have to.

No they not, do not have to and in normal (non-retroviruses) viral DNA isn't produced in the replication process.
If you disagree please show some reliable source and I refuse to accept your Dr Lawrence Broxmeyer as an authority on that matter!

no it's not because no "mycobacteriophages from the BCG interact with non-mycobacterium viruses" simply because there are no mycobacteriophages in norman BCG vaccine.

You need psychiatric help right away.

Not I, sir! You might check the accuracy of certain doctor who seems to claim that mycobacterium  tuberculous is the cause of influenza, HIV/AIDS, COVID-19 and I don't know hor many other diseases.

That is exactly what BCG does.

No! That is NOT "what BCG does" and in the following paper Dr Lawence Broxmeyer MD et al do not claim that!

published in the most prestigious journal in the world on infectious diseases:

Quote from: Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska D. et al

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. by Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186, 1155–1160, The Journal of Infectious Diseases Oxford Academic

We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as Bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.

This means that you are denying reality, a very telling sign of your current condition.

No, I am not denying reality at all and that paper mention BCG only in closing part that you quoted:

That paper lends no support for your claim "That is exactly what BCG does" - note that it only says "Bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems."

But neither the normal Mycobacterium tuberculosis nor the Mycobacterium Bovis BCG contain any mycobacteriophages until infected by those mycobacteriophages.

I am have not and am not denying anything that I've seen so far in that paper by Dr Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD et al.
I agree with far more of what Dr Lawrence Broxmeyer writes than what you come out with.

But I cannot swallow claims like this:
      AIDS:“It’s the bacteria, stupid!” by Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD and Alan Cantwell
      Questions raised by the "new" coronavirus by Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD
      The Great Influenza Pandemic: What Really Happened in 1918?  by Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD

This seems far more likely than Dr Lawrence Broxmeyer,'s "Mycobacterium Tuberculous" did it all:

The Origin and Virulence of the 1918 “Spanish” Influenza Virus by JEFFERY K. TAUBENBERGER, Chairman, NCBI
Abstract
The “Spanish” influenza pandemic of 1918–19 caused acute illness in 25–30 percent of the world’s population and resulted in the death of up to an estimated 40 million people. Using fixed and frozen lung tissue of 1918 influenza victims, the complete genomic sequence of the 1918 influenza virus has been deduced. Sequence and phylogenetic analysis of the completed 1918 influenza virus genes shows them to be the most avian-like among the mammalian-adapted viruses. This finding supports the hypotheses that:
    (1) the pandemic virus contains genes derived from avian-like influenza virus strains and that
    (2) the 1918 virus is the common ancestor of human and classical swine H1N1 influenza viruses.

<< And much more supporting material. >>

So are we to believe the unlikely scenarios of one person, Dr Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD, or what is written by so many other highly qualified microbiologists and virologists?

All viruses do not contain DNA, some do, sure, but a lot do not.

Brilliant.

You say: all viruses do not contain DNA

You say: some do

You say: but a lot do not


RNA is not a temporary copy of DNA, its an original copy of RNA.
The RNA uses DNA, to make more RNA.

Brilliant.

You say: RNA is a copy of itself

You say: RNA uses DNA

Question: where does the DNA come from? Answer: from the RNA itself.


Because TB has not been found in patients with Covid19

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

MYCOBACTERIUM: mycobacterium avium, mycobacterium influenzae, and many other types.

Mycobacterium have RNA.

Mycobacterium pass through microfilters, just like viruses.

The symptoms for mycobacterium avium are exactly the same as those attributed to Covid-19.

But Dr. Lanka lost the appeal!

Do you honestly believe as Dr Stefan Lanka does that the measles virus doesn't exist?
You might like to read this "the real deal" from Africa Check: Africa Check: No, German ‘supreme court’ didn’t rule that ‘measles doesn’t exist’.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Dr. Lanka WON the lawsuit!

I'll let the legal experts fight over that but you have not yet answered this:

Do you honestly believe as Dr Stefan Lanka does that the measles virus doesn't exist?
You might like to read this "the real deal" from Africa Check: Africa Check: No, German ‘supreme court’ didn’t rule that ‘measles doesn’t exist’.

And do you still honestly believe as Dr. Lawrence Broxmeyer does that the cause of COVID-19 "is mycobacterium avium/mycobacterium tuberculosis." (Quote from: sandokhan on April 11, 2020)?

Do you still claim this even when your own references state that the cause of COVID-19 is the virus, SARS-CoV-2?

Yes, I made a mistake, admitted it and corrected it but

No mistake, just pure ignorance on your part.

Yet, just one line later, you say it was not a mistake:

NO, RNA viruses do not contain DNA and there is no need "to account for the viral DNA" in RNA viruses (not even IN retroviruses) because there is NO DNA in RNA viruses.

All viruses have DNA, in order to account for the viral DNA.

All RNA viruses manufacture DNA.


I did not mention retroviruses two days ago but why would I because even RNA retroviruses do not contain DNA but they "coopt" the infected cells replication "machinery" DNA in their replication process'

You did not mention retroviruses because you had no idea they existed in the first place.

Pure ignorance on your part.

RNA viruses create DNA before they "coopt" the cell themselves.


No they not, do not have to and in normal (non-retroviruses) viral DNA isn't produced in the replication process.

Please come to your senses.

Nobody here cares in the least what you have to say on virology.

Remember this?

and virii do not have DNA.

That is NOT "what BCG does" and in the following paper Dr Lawence Broxmeyer MD et al do not claim that!

But they do.

In fact, just one line later you actually agree.


That paper lends no support for your claim "That is exactly what BCG does" - note that it only says "Bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems."


Do you understand where this paper was published?

In the most prestigious journal on infectious diseases in the world today.

They have multiple peer reviews of each article.

The claim that BCG acts as a phage delivery system stands correct.


But neither the normal Mycobacterium tuberculosis nor the Mycobacterium Bovis BCG contain any mycobacteriophages until infected by those mycobacteriophages.


Let's put your word to the test.

published in the most prestigious journal in the world on infectious diseases:

Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186,
1155–1160

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/186/8/1155/2191390

The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Oxford Academic

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens.


We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.

All viruses do not contain DNA, some do, sure, but a lot do not.

You might learn to use the "[quvote] . . . . [/quote]" facility to indicate whom you are trying to ridicule !

All viruses do not contain DNA, some do, sure, but a lot do not.

Brilliant.

You say: all viruses do not contain DNA

You say: some do

You say: but a lot do not

It was a simple sentence. Your inability to understand it explains everything

RNA is not a temporary copy of DNA, its an original copy of RNA.
The RNA uses DNA, to make more RNA.

Brilliant.

You say: RNA is a copy of itself

You say: RNA uses DNA

Question: where does the DNA come from? Answer: from the RNA itself.

FFS Sandy, please try.

Your logic = Cars are made in factories, therefore factories and cars are the same thing.

Because TB has not been found in patients with Covid19

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

MYCOBACTERIUM: mycobacterium avium, mycobacterium influenzae, and many other types.

Mycobacterium have RNA.

Mycobacterium pass through microfilters, just like viruses.

The symptoms for mycobacterium avium are exactly the same as those attributed to Covid-19.

Do you now honestly think that symptoms are a reliable way of telling a person exactly what is infecting them?

MS has 16 different other diseases with the same symptoms.
Symptoms is not equal to disease. The same as RNA is not equal to DNA.

Show us a study linking Covid19 patients to TB. Until you can do that you are talking out of your ass.

There is no evidence that the Bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine (BCG) protects people against infection with COVID-19 virus
https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/bacille-calmette-gu%C3%A9rin-(bcg)-vaccination-and-covid-19

What is this?

The main reference used by the WHO is dated 2018.

Please wake up.

BCG vaccine (commonly used to inoculate against tuberculosis (TB)) is also used to treat the coronavirus:

https://www.rt.com/news/485206-tb-vaccine-covid-19/

Although trials will start in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK, the Australian arm of the trial will be one of the largest, where 4,000 healthcare workers, doctors and nurses will participate, half of them getting the vaccine and the other half not getting it. Healthcare workers and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to infection and many, many of them have fallen sick or worse from “the virus”. It is projected that some sign of the effectiveness of giving this vaccination designed to combat tuberculosis will be in evidence by 3 months into this study’s trials, with researchers claiming that the vaccine works by somehow “boosting the body’s immune system”.

Australia’s lead investigator Dr. Nigel Curtis said: “If I didn’t think [the TB vaccine] would work, I wouldn’t have been here seven days a week for the last month with a team of 20 people."


Coronavirus has no DNA in it at all, as it is a RNA virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

The first link says nothing of the kind.

I posted the second link here.

Please read:



APL biologist Tom Mehoke reviews the DNA sequencing analysis of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, at the molecular diagnostics laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/04/02/sequencing-genome-sars-cov-2/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

A next generation sequencing (NGS) library was constructed after amplifying the full-length genes of the isolates using the synthesized cDNA and primers designed based on published SARS-CoV-2 DNA sequence.


Show us a study linking Covid19 patients to TB.

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

ALL STUDIES INDICATE A MYCOBACTERIUM INFECTION.

Dr. Didier Raoult treated over 1.000 pacients using ANTIMYCOBACTERIUM MEDICATION.

Another doctor from NY used ANTIMYCOBACTERIUM MEDICATION TO TREAT 699 PACIENTS.

BCG will be used to treat "Covid-19".

Mycobacteria tuberculosis (TB) acts like a virus. It is a seasonal infection peaking in winter just like cold and flu viruses. While the TB mycobacterium is spread throughout the year, it is only when vitamin D levels are low and the immune system weak that it produces symptoms. It is a cell-wall deficient germ that appears like a virus under a microscope. It attacks the lungs, resulting in inflammation that essentially drowns infected patients who cannot breathe, just like COVID-19 coronavirus is said to do.


Until you have a mechanism linking SARS-Cov-2 to the "boosting" of the immune system by applying BCG, I win.

Now, you show me a single study/picture of SARS-Cov-2 having been ISOLATED as a virus in a single pacient and having satisfied Koch's postulates.


https://journal-neo.org/2020/04/15/the-remarkable-doctor-a-fauci/

In a sharp rebuttal of the Gallo claims, claims endorsed by Fauci and the NIAID as well as CDC, Roberto A. Giraldo, MD and Etienne de Harven, MD, the scientist who produced the first electron micrograph of a retrovirus, pointed out that both the ELISA and Western blot, and a genetic test, the PCR or ‘Viral Load’ test,” the two major tests used to determine if one has AIDS, are invalid. “None of these tests detect the HIV virus itself, nor do they detect HIV particles.” They add that there are “more than 70 different documented conditions that can cause the antibody tests to react positive without an HIV infection.” Among the false positive cases are influenza, the common cold, or the existence of pregnancy. The same tests are used today to determine SARS-CoV-2-positive.

They concluded, “The fact that after 25 years of intense research HIV has been neither isolated nor purified in terms of classical virology indicates to us that the infectious view of AIDS as a contagious viral disease is based on an apparently non-existent microbe!”

This is highly relevant to his role today as the Trump Administration coronavirus “pope.” Has his NIAID or any other laboratory in the world rigorously, with electron microscopy, isolated and purified samples of patients tested SARS-CoV-2 positive for Covid-19? Or are the virus proofs as faulty as Fauci and the AIDS clique have made for HIV?

Fauci, Birx and Redfield, all incestuously complicit in the HIV/AIDS frauds and malpractice, today hold the future of not only American public health, but also of the entire world economy in their hands. Not a good situation. As their work on the proved HIV=IDS fraud shows, the coronavirus tests do not at all prove presence of a deadly virus in any patient. If this is so, it is perhaps the greatest criminal fraud in medical history.


Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, from whom the allegation of a reconstruction of the 1918 pandemic virus originates, works for the US-American army and has worked for more than 10 years on producing, on the basis of samples from different human corpses, short pieces of gene substance by means of the biochemical multiplication technique PCR. Out of the multitude of produced pieces he has selected those which came closest to the model of the genetic substance of the idea of an influenza virus, and has published these. In no corpse however was a virus seen or isolated or was a piece of gene substance from such isolated. By means of the PCR technique there were produced out of nothing pieces of gene substance whose earlier existence in the corpse could not be demonstrated.

If viruses had been present, then these could have been isolated, and out of them their gene substance could have been isolated too; there would have been no necessity for anyone to produce laboriously, by means of PCR technique - with clearly a [deceptive] intention - a patchwork quilt of a model of the genetic substance of the idea of an influenza virus. ... In order to see through this one only has to be able to add up the published length pieces, in order to ascertain that the sum of the lengths of the individual pieces, which supposedly makes up the entire viral gene substance of the purported influenza virus, does not make up the length of the idea of the genome of the influenza virus model.

Even simpler it is to ask in what publication you can find the electron microscope photo of this supposedly reconstructed virus. There is no such publication.


Dr. Stefan Lanka, one of the world's top microbiologists/virologists exposes the virus fraud, how the photographs taken of "viruses" were doctored and faked:

http://neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

https://www.theart-oflife.com/blog/virushoax

"Viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous -- in fact do not exist at all. The pictures of influenza, herpes, HIV, measles, hepatitis B, smallpox and other diseases are not pictures of viruses, but pictures of damaged cells with typical particles or other cellular material."

"It must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses."

Many of the photos are colored. This is proof enough, that they are the (art)work of designers, because electron microscopic photos always appear in black and white.


MYCOBACTERIUM have RNA.

MYCOBACTERIUM pass through microfilters.

ALL STUDIES USE ANTIMYCOBACTERIUM MEDICATIONS.

Yes, I made a mistake, admitted it and corrected it but
No mistake, just pure ignorance on your part.

No, a mistake!

Yet, just one line later, you say it was not a mistake:
NO, RNA viruses do not contain DNA and there is no need "to account for the viral DNA" in RNA viruses (not even IN retroviruses) because there is NO DNA in RNA viruses.

Can't you read? "RNA viruses do not contain DNA" (correct) is not the same as "virii do not contain DNA" (a mistake).

All viruses have DNA, in order to account for the viral DNA.

No! RNA viruses do not have DNA.

All RNA viruses manufacture DNA.

No! RNA viruses, other that RNA retroviruses, do not manufacture DNA and even RNA retroviruses coopt the infected cell to make the DNA..

I did not mention retroviruses two days ago but why would I because even RNA retroviruses do not contain DNA but they "coopt" the infected cells replication "machinery" DNA in their replication process'

You did not mention retroviruses because you had no idea they existed in the first place.

No, of course I knew retroviruses existed! But even RNA retroviruses do not contain DNA.

RNA viruses create DNA before they "coopt" the cell themselves.
No they not, do not have to and in normal (non-retroviruses) viral DNA isn't produced in the replication process.

Please come to your senses.

Why? the above statement is quite correct. If you disagree show supporting evidence!

Nobody here cares in the least what you have to say on virology.

That is NOT "what BCG does" and in the following paper Dr Lawence Broxmeyer MD et al do not claim that!
But they do.

Incorrect! Neither normal BCG nor mycopbacterium tuberculosis contain mycobacteriophages.

In fact, just one line later you actually agree.

No, I did not!

That paper lends no support for your claim "That is exactly what BCG does" - note that it only says "Bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems."

And it doesn't!

Do you understand where this paper was published?
In the most prestigious journal on infectious diseases in the world today.
They have multiple peer reviews of each article.
The claim that BCG acts as a phage delivery system stands correct.

Yes, and if you bothered to read exactly what I wrote you might find that I did not question nor doubt anything in that paper.

But neither the normal Mycobacterium tuberculosis nor the Mycobacterium Bovis BCG contain any mycobacteriophages until infected by those mycobacteriophages.

Let's put your word to the test.

OK, you do just that!

published in the most prestigious journal in the world on infectious diseases: << let me tidy it up a little >>

Quote from: Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska D. et al

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. by Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186, 1155–1160, The Journal of Infectious Diseases Oxford Academic

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens.

We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.

Yes thank you, I read all that already said that I agreed with it! But that paper, as even its title indicates, is entirely about research into possible phage therapy for multiple drug resistant TB and other diseases and NOT about normal BCG or mycobacterium tuberculosis that are not infected by appropriate mycobacteriophages.

Are you totally incapable of understanding the difference?
     1) Normal BCG or mycobacterium tuberculosis does not contain mycobacteriophages.
     2) BCG or mycobacterium tuberculosis infected by mycobacteriophages does contain mycobacteriophages.
It's that simple.

PS So sorry but this is a little rushed and so could contain typos etc .

There is no evidence that the Bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine (BCG) protects people against infection with COVID-19 virus
https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/bacille-calmette-gu%C3%A9rin-(bcg)-vaccination-and-covid-19

What is this?

The main reference used by the WHO is dated 2018.

Please wake up.

Its not the main refrence, its just the first!
You also skipped over the refrence that talks of existing studies to try and find this link.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04327206
BCG Vaccination to Protect Healthcare Workers Against COVID-19

Detailed Description:
Healthcare workers are at the frontline of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Participants will be healthcare workers in Australian hospital sites. They will be randomised to receive a single dose of BCG vaccine, or no BCG vaccine. Participants will be followed-up for 12 months with regular mobile phone text messages (up to weekly) and surveys to identify and detail COVID-19 infection. Additional information on severe disease will be obtained from hospital medical records and government databases. Blood samples will be collected prior to randomisation and at 12 months to determine exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Where required, swab/blood samples will be taken at illness episodes to assess SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BCG vaccine (commonly used to inoculate against tuberculosis (TB)) is also used to treat the coronavirus:

https://www.rt.com/news/485206-tb-vaccine-covid-19/

Although trials will start in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK, the Australian arm of the trial will be one of the largest, where 4,000 healthcare workers, doctors and nurses will participate, half of them getting the vaccine and the other half not getting it. Healthcare workers and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to infection and many, many of them have fallen sick or worse from “the virus”. It is projected that some sign of the effectiveness of giving this vaccination designed to combat tuberculosis will be in evidence by 3 months into this study’s trials, with researchers claiming that the vaccine works by somehow “boosting the body’s immune system”.

Australia’s lead investigator Dr. Nigel Curtis said: “If I didn’t think [the TB vaccine] would work, I wouldn’t have been here seven days a week for the last month with a team of 20 people."

People are trying everything, including this.
There are loads of experimental treatments for Covid19. You just somehow got hooked on this one.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-israeli-covid-19-patients-improve-in-experimental-drug-trial/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-israeli-covid-19-patients-improve-in-experimental-drug-trial/

Maybe it works, maybe it does not. Only a conclusive study will tell. And those studies will only be out in about a year.
I am not saying it will definately not work, I am saying that you are jumping the gun in presuming it defiantly does.

Coronavirus has no DNA in it at all, as it is a RNA virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

The first link says nothing of the kind.

I posted the second link here.

Please read:
APL biologist Tom Mehoke reviews the DNA sequencing analysis of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, at the molecular diagnostics laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/04/02/sequencing-genome-sars-cov-2/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

Please quote the part in either article where it says Covid19 has DNA in it. And a dont misrepresent the article as you did.
The article title is actually says
"Molecular biologists Peter Thielen and Thomas Mehoke are rapidly sequencing the genome of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Their work will help shed light on how the virus evolves as it spreads and how well containment efforts are working."

Please dont lie, I do actually read links

A next generation sequencing (NGS) library was constructed after amplifying the full-length genes of the isolates using the synthesized cDNA and primers designed based on published SARS-CoV-2 DNA sequence.

The full quote
Using reverse transcriptase, cDNA was synthesized from RNA extracted from the cultured cell medium in which the virus was replicated. A next generation sequencing (NGS) library was constructed after amplifying the full-length genes of the isolates using the synthesized cDNA and primers designed based on published SARS-CoV-2 DNA sequence. The prepared library was purified and analyzed with Miseq 150 PE. De novo assembly was performed on the sequenced product using Megahit to secure a full-length genome.[\i]

Your mixing up the car from the factory again.
In the experiment the replicate the virus using Vero cells (the paragraph just before this one). Once the virus has infected the cell DNA it becomes part of that DNA so that it can produce more of itself. They detect the DNA that has the C19 RNA in it.
Why do they do that? Because we dont have a machine that can quickly detect just RNA, so they have to synthesis a DNA version of it. The method of detecting Covid19 is through a machine called RT-PCB

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/how-is-the-covid-19-virus-detected-using-real-time-rt-pcr

Here is a nice little quote for you

Some viruses such as the coronavirus (SARS-Cov2) only contain RNA, which means they rely on infiltrating healthy cells to multiply and survive. Once inside the cell, the virus uses its own genetic code — RNA in the case of the coronavirus — to take control of and ‘reprogramme’ the cells so that they become virus-making factories. 

In order for a virus like the coronavirus to be detected early in the body using real time RT-PCR, scientists need to convert the RNA to DNA. This is a process called ‘reverse transcription’. They do this because only DNA can be copied — or amplified — which is a key part of the real time RT-PCR process for detecting viruses.

Its a honest mistake im sure you made. Easy to misunderstand if you dont know the process of detection.

Show us a study linking Covid19 patients to TB.

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

ALL STUDIES INDICATE A MYCOBACTERIUM INFECTION.

Dr. Didier Raoult treated over 1.000 pacients using ANTIMYCOBACTERIUM MEDICATION.

Another doctor from NY used ANTIMYCOBACTERIUM MEDICATION TO TREAT 699 PACIENTS.

BCG will be used to treat "Covid-19".

Mycobacteria tuberculosis (TB) acts like a virus. It is a seasonal infection peaking in winter just like cold and flu viruses. While the TB mycobacterium is spread throughout the year, it is only when vitamin D levels are low and the immune system weak that it produces symptoms. It is a cell-wall deficient germ that appears like a virus under a microscope. It attacks the lungs, resulting in inflammation that essentially drowns infected patients who cannot breathe, just like COVID-19 coronavirus is said to do.


Until you have a mechanism linking SARS-Cov-2 to the "boosting" of the immune system by applying BCG, I win.

First, just because you are treating people with TB medication, does not mean they have TB.
Just as all things in water are not fish.

Show me a study that has shows everyone with Covid-19 to be tested positive for TB
BTW, I live high burden TB country (top 10) with low rates of Corona-virus. Unbeknown to some westerners, our medical researchers are not a bunch of monkeys, and I am sure they would have tested them and made the link to TB long ago as this is a standard test here.
So if TB was Coronavirus, we would have more of it than anywhere else.[/i]

Maybe it works, maybe it does not.

Of course it does.

https://www.rt.com/news/485206-tb-vaccine-covid-19/

"Molecular biologists Peter Thielen and Thomas Mehoke are rapidly sequencing the genome of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Their work will help shed light on how the virus evolves as it spreads and how well containment efforts are working."

Sure.

In the experiment the replicate the virus using Vero cells (the paragraph just before this one). Once the virus has infected the cell DNA it becomes part of that DNA so that it can produce more of itself.

Of course.

Now, where does the viral DNA come from? Answer: it was manufactured by the RNA.

Can you understand?

Scientists can recover the DNA from the RNA. So can the "virus"!


Show me a study that has shows everyone with Covid-19 to be tested positive for TB

MYCOBACTERIUM

Plenty of studies: 1.000+ pacients treated using ANTIMYCOBACTERIUM MEDICATION, 699 pacients from NY cured using ANTIMYCOBACTERIUM MEDICATION.

Most PhDs cannot distinguish between mycobacterium and a virus.

There are only four labs in the world which can do this, but they will not get involved since they work directly with the respective defense departments: VECTOR/Russia, Pirbright Institute/England, Pasteur Institute/France, Fort Detrick/USA.

Until and unless azithromycin was used, the pacients suffered fully from the symptoms; once the first line defense medication used for Mycobacterium Avium was utilized, the pacients recovered.