Public
- Public
- Network
- Groups
- Featured
- Popular
- People

The amount of the sample orally administered to the mice is incredibly small. If the 7.13~7.33 log10 TCID50/ml influenza presence is accurate then the sample would have to have been an isolate. 3,000,000 plaque forming units would be just about the total 0.05 milliliters compared to the unaltered sample. This indicates that the mice were not given milk but instead given the isolated virus as a massive concentrated dose into their mouths.

Download link

The amount of the sample orally administered to the mice is incredibly small. If the 7.13~7.33 log10 TCID50/ml influenza presence is accurate then the sample would have to have been an isolate. 3,000,000 plaque forming units would be just about the total 0.05 milliliters compared to the unaltered sample. This indicates that the mice were not given milk but instead given the isolated virus as a massive concentrated dose into their mouths.
https://media.baraag.net/media_attachments/files/112/508/538/005/775/585/original/1e8ce56ece86f0ac.jpg

Notices where this attachment appears

Embed this notice
fluffy@baraag.net's status on Monday, 27-May-2024 03:49:27 JST fluffy
in reply to

@jeffcliff @sun
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2405495
Let's take a look at this very early research.
Well, as I see it these methods are very flawed.
Allow me to explain my concerns.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12250-020-00230-5
The measurement of 7.33 log10 TCID50/ml is incredibly odd, it's basically at the limits of detection, I have no idea why they'd use the log10 range unless it was to skew results.
It's clear that they isolated the virus from the samples before the mice experiment.
Also, it proves intentional spread.

In conversation about a year ago from baraag.net permalink