Electron Microscopy And SARS-CoV-2

originally posted by: Kenzo

I'm sorry to break it to you, but there seems to be some weird fundamental problems with the evidence how they claim to see SARS-CoV-2 infecting cells.

The thing is that electron microscopy cannot be used to image living cells because the electrons destroy the samples , dead particles is what electron microscopy sees when the process is at work. So when i read something like this one i cant see how it could be possible.

Electron microscopy has been used for SARS-CoV-2 to determine how the virus uses its outer “spike” protein to interact with our cells and infect them. Such studies are really useful in working out how the virus gains access to our cells so we can work out how to use drugs to block it.

Five techniques we’re using to uncover the secrets of viruses

The technology of electron microscopy cannot be used to image living cells because the electrons destroy the samples.

To peer inside a living cell

Please notice the date on this 11 year old article linked immediately above.

Electron microscopes are the most powerful type of microscope, capable of distinguishing even individual atoms. However, these microscopes cannot be used to image living cells because the electrons destroy the samples.

Nobel laureate Dennis Gabor concluded in 1956 was the fundamental limitation of electron microscopy: "the destruction of the object by the exploring agent."

However, biologists have been unable to unleash the high power of electron microscopes on living specimens, because of the destructive power of the electrons. The radiation dose received by a specimen during electron microscope imaging is comparable to the irradiation from a 10-megaton hydrogen bomb exploded about 30 meters away. When exposed to such energetic electron beams, biological specimens experience rapid breakdown, modification of chemical bonds, or other structural damages. Although there exist special chambers to keep biological samples in a watery environment within the high vacuum required for electron microscopes, chemical preservation or freezing, which kill cells, is still required before biological samples can be viewed with existing electron microscopes.

An electron microscope that won't destroy living cells

We’ve all seen those scary images of monstrous looking insects captured by high-resolution electron microscopes, like the house dust mite in the image above. One thing you may not be aware of though, is that all the creepy crawlies in such images are dead. That’s because the particle beam of electrons used to illuminate a specimen also destroys the samples, meaning that electron microscopes can’t be used to image living cells

A non-invasive electron microscope could shed light on fundamental questions about life and matter, allowing researchers to observe molecules inside a living cell without disturbing them. If successful, such microscopes would surmount what Nobel laureate Dennis Gabor concluded in 1956 was the fundamental limitation of electron microscopy: "The destruction of the object by the exploring agent."

Differences between Light Microscope and Electron Microscope

This article linked immediately does not have a date obvious in it, but look at the ancient HP tower PC in the picture - at least 10 years old.

Light Microscope : Live or Dead specimen may be seen .

Electron Microscope : Only Dead or Dried specimens are seen

Electron Microscope : Specimen is coated with heavy metals in order to reflect electrons

The method used ( coating with heavy metals ) to prepare the specimen for viewing with an electron microscope kills the specimen.

And if i remember right, electron microscopy also generates heat in to the object what is photographed , the higher magnification the higher voltage/power is needed...and as viral size particles are so small, they will have to use very high magnification and higher power which can heat the object to quite high temperature . ( Sorry now links about that now )

So, to recap...electron microscopy cannot be used to image living cells because the electrons destroy the samples. Chemical preservation of the photographed
object kill`s cells. And electron microscopy can can also generate considerable amount of heat to subject.

All those fancy colourfull 3D images of SARS-CoV-2 virus are computer generated , and not " photographed " like when using light Microscope.

Modern scanning electron microscopes send data to computers which is then rendered as images.

So when we think that they have not really either proved SARS-CoV-2 infecting cells with Koch's postulates or other similarly reliable method, all that is left
then is , you just have to trust their words , trust the "science "

.

Oh and the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequences are also in human genome itself and in hundred microbes.

The Scam Has Been Confirmed: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2

All the RNA sequences in the SARS-nCov-2 viruses map to one of the 25 amino acids that also appear in the human body, and also are produced by the exact same sequences of human RNA. Of course there are 'similarities', that is how life, and genomics, works.

The blog article you have linked to immediately above is just not science. It is like the person who wrote it has entirely the wrong idea about how these things occur and is trying desperately to reinterpret the real science through their reality distortion filters.

The article itself is extremely self-contradictory. It uses assumptions based upon conventional science to try and prove that those assumptions themselves are invalid. If the assumptions are valid, then they are valid. If they are invalid, then they can't be used as a basis of proof of their own invalidity, because they would be invalid. It's just irrational to try and do so.

The 'entire genome' of SARS-nCov-2 does not occur in the human body unless we have the virus. PCR works to identify the viral sequence in a sample. It is literally the best tool we have to determine the genomic sequence.

a reply to: ArMaP


Random articles and videos i seen from people who have studyed about the subject. There was actually people who opposed the current narrative at the very the beginning of the HIV--AIDS theory...but they ignored them and pushed the fake theory as fact , again big financial interest also then.

It`s not been about facts anymore, they do what ever they like and the MSM is then repeating the narrative etc.

Fauci was also in the part one episode, so now part two and he is doing it again .

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Wow ...100 people is quite big group of people! Maybe they wanted to delete them ? Nothign would surprice me ..

They never find the plane .

Well i guess i will not much fly then

Some think Tron was a movie with great graphics

fourwinds10.com...


Chaos is good for business

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: ArMaP


Drugs and also other toxicity causes AIDS, recreational drugs being one big cause....it's basically that toxic substances attact the immune system , making enough injury that it goes to immunodeficiency mode.


So as the aids hoax is stll alive, i cant say i have much trust in modern medicine....it's been converted to pseudo stuff and religion

and now it's round two with SARS-CoV-2 .

WTF dude, AIDS is a hoax?? my uncle was a doctor who specialised for a couple decades, treating AIDS patients. I'll be sure to let him know its all bull, cuz a plumber or garbageman on ATS said so

SMGDH.

originally posted by: Kenzo
Random articles and videos i seen from people who have studyed about the subject.

Thanks for the information.

One last question on this AIDS topic: did you know anyone that died with AIDS?

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: one4all

Mudfossils ?? thats new to me ..

Its another part of their lies.

Oil is not millions of years old...nor are Fossils.

OIl is fresh and liquid and nowhere near millions of years old.

Explaining the truth of the oil explains the truth of the bastardized timelines and other much bigger things.

The same techniques used to suppress these truths have been used to suppress Medical truths....same programs and processes same group.

a reply to: Kenzo

Are you saying that babies who are born HIV positive are positive due to recreational drug use?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Kenzo
Random articles and videos i seen from people who have studyed about the subject.

Thanks for the information.

One last question on this AIDS topic: did you know anyone that died with AIDS?

I have, my uncle. And I can very much guarantee that his AIDS was caused by the HIV virus regardless of what some may have you believe.

a reply to: Kenzo

I don’t think they are really understanding the differences of exosomes and viruses. We can tell the difference. Viruses, especially retroviruses, can use exosomes generated from hijacked cells to increase uptake into healthy cells and spread infection. So, of course there are going to be similarities. Exosomes are being researched as a therapeutic target for antiviral therapies. The contained RNA is also different in exosomes versus virus. Exosomes are also used in cellular communication, which a virus or the cell can modify through changing gene and protein expression. It’s why we get inflammation.

Electron microscopy can freeze a natural process in time, I don’t really see how this doesn’t help.

Every organism on earth shares nucleotide sequences in genetic material and amino acid sequences in proteins. We all evolved from distant common ancestors and live in the same environment. In a world where 64, 3 nucleotide sequences encode for 20 amino acids plus a couple more rare ones here and there are bound to have similarities. It’s why testing is used with an algorithm to make a diagnosis. PCR should be specific for each test.

a reply to: maya27

Exposure to drugs and corticosteroids in utero and their exposure to corticosteroids
used after birth to treat their chronic illnesses.

Malnutrition is another big reason for AIDS , AIDS is weakened immune system...so in Africa they knew about the condition before they give a name for it, AIDS.

Basically anyone with certain insult to immuno system can develop same immuno deficiency condition, taking just AIDS drug
AZT seems to cause same kind of condition . It`s chemical /life style/ nutrition epidemic and not viral infection .


HIV Does Not Cause AIDS

a reply to: ArMaP

I dont remember knowing anyone personnally with AIDS diagnose or died to it.

a reply to: stonerwilliam


I did not know about tron os , quite suspicious that the very same plane with all those engineers crashed . So Japan was way ahead back then , but was not allowed to win ...that`s what i think now after reading about all related .

Chaos.inc is good company for making profits

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: stonerwilliam


I did not know about tron os , quite suspicious that the very same plane with all those engineers crashed . So Japan was way ahead back then , but was not allowed to win ...that`s what i think now after reading about all related .

Chaos.inc is good company for making profits

a reply to: stonerwilliam


Yes , Strategic decisions ...


There might be real life character of Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg out there..

originally posted by: Kenzo
So, to recap...electron microscopy cannot be used to image living cells because the electrons destroy the samples. Chemical preservation of the photographed
object kill`s cells. And electron microscopy can can also generate considerable amout of heat to subject.

The amount of radiation living cells receive in electron microscopy is lethal. But you can receive a lethal dose of radiation, and not instantly die from it.

A nuclear scientist was experimenting with this "demon core" when he accidentally allowed the two halves to touch, then it went critical and he received a very large, lethal dose of radiation.


But the man didn't die instantly. The massive dose of radiation caused extreme damage to his tissue, but he (and his cells) continued to live for some time after receiving all that radiation.

While electron microscopy is different, I think that example is at least partly relevant that cells can receive a lethal dose of radiation, without necessarily dying instantly. But you won't ever see the damaged cells reproduce, and how quickly they die depends on how much radiation they are exposed to (or how many electrons in the case of electron microscopy).

There is also an opportunity to focus the electron beam on a specific region of the cell, which may only damage that region of the cell, but may not kill the entire cell, at least not instantly. The damaged cell, like the damaged man exposed to radiation from the demon core, might live for some time after the exposure. Here is an article which describes that technique:

Electron Microscopy of Living Cells During in Situ Fluorescence Microscopy

We present an approach toward dynamic nanoimaging: live fluorescence of cells encapsulated in a bionanoreactor is complemented with in situ scanning electron microscopy (SEM) on an integrated microscope. This allows us to take SEM snapshots on-demand, that is, at a specific location in time, at a desired region of interest, guided by the dynamic fluorescence imaging. We show that this approach enables direct visualization, with EM resolution, of the distribution of bioconjugated quantum dots on cellular extensions during uptake and internalization.

Look at illustration (a) from that link, where the majority of the cell is not affected by the electron beam, just a tiny little bit of the cell on the right is affected. (d) is a close-up with a rectangle drawn around the small part of the cell irradiated with electrons:



This definitely damages the small part of the cell in the electron beam, but most of the cell is undamaged by the electrons.

So while I agree that electron microscopy of an entire living cell will eventually kill the cell, we should note that:
1. It is not necessary to irradiate the entire cell with electrons to see what is happening in a part of the cell.
2. The cell will die if enough of it is exposed to electrons, but death may not be immediate, especially if exposure to electrons doesn't affect the entire cell.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the effort , i did not real all about the study as it is so big.

But is there still difference when looking cell stuctures and or looking actual biological process like virus infecting cell.
The process of actually photograph virus as it enters cell would require longer exposure to electrons ? Virus is smaller than cells so most likely electrons would kill it even faster .

The MIT site i linked in OP says quite clear that destruction of the object by the exploring agent. etc...so there is some conflicting views . It was from 2009, but not sure has the EM much changed from that .

And since EM is invasive techic , creating energy to object, i have doubts of how reliable it can be for something like photographing biological process because a force from outside is directed to cell/virus...it`s not just a photograph but also energy beam effectign the subject. It`s no problem if photograph non-living things...but to photograph living cells and virus infecting it ?


I wont deny your view, but i still have doubts , it`s compicated since we are theorizing this without personnally actually using EM equipment or seeing itself cells/virus after exposures .


Yikes plutonium ...

originally posted by: TheAMEDDDoc
a reply to: Kenzo

I don’t think they are really understanding the differences of exosomes and viruses. We can tell the difference. Viruses, especially retroviruses, can use exosomes generated from hijacked cells to increase uptake into healthy cells and spread infection. So, of course there are going to be similarities. Exosomes are being researched as a therapeutic target for antiviral therapies. The contained RNA is also different in exosomes versus virus. Exosomes are also used in cellular communication, which a virus or the cell can modify through changing gene and protein expression. It’s why we get inflammation.

Electron microscopy can freeze a natural process in time, I don’t really see how this doesn’t help.

Every organism on earth shares nucleotide sequences in genetic material and amino acid sequences in proteins. We all evolved from distant common ancestors and live in the same environment. In a world where 64, 3 nucleotide sequences encode for 20 amino acids plus a couple more rare ones here and there are bound to have similarities. It’s why testing is used with an algorithm to make a diagnosis. PCR should be specific for each test.

I see you fail to grasp that your Education AND the references you are using are and have historiclly been bastardized and weaponized.

Exosomes and viruses.....lol...lol.....so many have been lied to.

I am not bothering anymore trying to show the way back to truth for those ruined by their bastardized educations.

That will be a Generational Task for those who hold the future in their hands today and thats not my old arse Generation anymore....we are now observers.

Coles Notes version.....take all of your Degrees and Educations and put them under your bed and forget about them.... then use your life experience and common sense to apply what lis you have been taught to the Template of Truth which happens to be the Pleomorphic Bacteria that is causing Humanity all of these problems.

Once you learn that you need to KEEP ALL OF THE RESEARCH BUT FILTER OUT THE LIES....then it doesnt feel like you wasted your entire life on a hollow bastardized career.....81% of what you learned was based on truth and hard data.

The Template of Truth says that the data you are attaching to fictional viruses and other lies .... happens to fit LOCKSTEP into the Template of Truth.

LOCKSTEP MEANS TRUTH.

Lockstep means tighter than what lies and misdirections you have learned.

a reply to: Kenzo

You don't need electron microscopy to isolate and characterize the spike protein on the SARS virus, or any virus for that matter. The mechanism of entry into cells has been elucidated and characterized in a number of papers:

scholar.google.com...,29

The place to go to research is Google Scholar. Put in any query about the spike protein and a bunch of published papers will come up, including suggestions at the bottom of the page. What you read on the general internet is usually a lot of junk.

It's often said that a virus is "not alive". But in a real sense, a virus is parasitic. A few years ago it was suggested that viruses be categorized as parasites. I think it makes more sense because just like other parasites, a virus can't survive without the cell's engineering.

Anyway, the mechanism of cell entry is fairly well elucidated. Too much crap on the general internet that people fall prey to.

Also, there are alternatives to electron microscopy that don't damage the cell:

Optical sectioning and 3D reconstructions as an alternative to scanning electron microscopy for analysis of cell shape1

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So once again, it's important to do a literature search when a question like this comes up. General internet

a reply to: one4all

Oh my sweet Jesus, you’re right, my masters in infectious disease program is a complete sham. All those classes in molecular biology, molecular medicine and immunology wasted. The coursework on bacteria, viruses, fungi, prions and parasites all falsified. My whole life, years of time and study completely lost, wandering aimlessly through the world of microbiology until some person on the internet helped me to see the light and that we’re dealing with the Borg of microorganisms.

I can’t believe I have finally found the topic for my PhD thesis. The thesis defense is so simple, I can throw every proven theory into a garbage dumpster as wrong and unprovable nonsense because I can create a specific definition of proof that can’t be proven wrong, like isolating virus without the use of cells or a medium. Or freezing a biological process in a vacuum to get a detailed image for study so I can better understand how it works. Even the genome mapping that allows us to computer model protein folding and interactions with the host. Plus the loads of other fluorescence studies we perform in viruses and cells. There are resonance studies that prove all of this that measure interactions under 100 nm in cells as proteins interact and move.

a reply to: Phantom423


Yes, too muc crap on the internet...such as claims that they isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus , which they have not done. And this was more about showing how the virus infects cell. So two things here, evidence of cell infection...and isolation or virus .

SARS-CoV-2 has not been proven to exist; I can do this forever


Freedom of Information reveals Public Health Agency of Canada has no record of “SARS-COV-2” isolation performed by anyone, anywhere, ever


FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever

COVID19 – Evidence of global fraud

In the U.S. the Centre For Disease Control (CDC) RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel state:

…No quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available……..Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Virus is dead , so not parasite .



It easy to just write paper which claims yeeh we isolated SARS-CoV-2 bla bla bla...and so have they done , but people are not buying it , people who know the details about real isolation .