>>16589208
>So now anthrax isn't even real either?
The symptoms of anthrax are real and so is B. anthracis. There's no apparent causative relationship though.
>So you have to add a virus to a sample before it spreads and is measurable in the sample?
A sample is what is collected from the sick host (like mucus or BALF). The sample contains lots of genetic material of various origins MAYBE including a virus. But it is never attempted to actually find the hypothetical virus in the sample. Instead the sample is added to a cell culture together with other chemicals. The fact that the culture decays under this procedure is taken as a definite proof that there was a virus present in the original sample, but that is circular reasoning. It is not "measurable" by any means.
>Again isn't that exactly how adding bacteria to a culture works?
This is completely different than what is done with bacteria. Bacteria are simply isolated directly from the sample and then grown independently. They are not added to any host cell culture.
>No, they find the same sequence in the individual sample too, they don't need to incorporate millions of samples to get the DNA of an individual sample of a virus...
You are making stuff up, anon. A viral genome is sequenced by reading many short fragments of all genetic material present in the sample/cell culture supernatant which is then assembled using an algorithm. Some fragments are discarded, some are modified or supplemented. This results in thousands of hypothetical genomes which are then compared with already known viruses obtained by the same fraudulent method. If a high enough match is found, it is proclaimed that a new mutation has been found.
Again, this is completely different from the genome sequencing of bacterias or other real microorganisms, where you actually isolate the DNA macromolecule, determine the length of the genome first, and then read it gradually in small steps in its entirety.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

Are viruses and prions, living beings?