without any or without seeing any evidence of

[Reda Bzikha]

Hello, which of the following sentences are correct?

1: Without seeing any evidence of
or
2: Without any evidence of

Thank you!

 

[emsr2d2]

As always, please give us complete sentences to consider.

 

[Reda Bzikha]

Which of the following sentences are correct?
1: Sepsis was biologically confirmed, without seeing any evidence of viral infection.
2: Sepsis was biologically confirmed, without any evidence of viral infection.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't quite understand what you mean. I'm not sure what biologically is doing in those sentences. Perhaps you mean something like this:

Sepsis was confirmed, despite a lack of biological evidence of viral infection.

 

[Reda Bzikha]

I meant that laboratory tests confirmed the sepsis while the proofs of the existence of a viral infection had not been found.

 

[Reda Bzikha]

Sepsis was biologically confirmed, without seeing any evidence of viral infection.

Hello, Is the following sentence grammatically correct ?

"Sepsis was biologically confirmed, without seeing any evidence of viral infection."

I want to mean that laboratory tests confirmed the sepsis while the proofs of the existence of a viral infection had not been found.

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Sepsis was biologically confirmed, without seeing any evidence of viral infection

Reda, I have merged your recent thread with this one because you're basically asking the same question. Jutfrank already showed you in post #4 how to write it more naturally.

 

[Reda Bzikha]

I think that the answer of jutfrank does not mach with the meaning that I want. What I want to mean is that sepsis and viral infection are two different things, by running laboratory tests we confirmed the sepsis by biological inflammatory syndrome. however, we did not exclude the viral infection even if we did not found any virus in laboratory tests. That what I want to mean by "Sepsis was biologically confirmed, without seeing any evidence of viral infection."
By using the previous sentence between quotation marks, have I the meaning that I want ?

 

[jutfrank]

Then you could just say:

Sepsis was confirmed, with no evidence of viral infection.

Does that seem right? It's hard to give suggestions when we don't have the context.

You don't need to mention anything being 'biological'. I'm sure that's obvious, right?

 

[Reda Bzikha]

Thank you. yes that is clear for me now.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you. Yes, that is clear for me now.

emsr2d2

 

[Tarheel]

I meant that laboratory tests confirmed the sepsis while the proofs of the existence of a viral infection had not been found.

That seems contradictory to me. If the lab confirmed the existence of sepsis that's the proof.

 

[Tarheel]

They run lab tests based on what the patient says and what the doctor determines from examining the patient. If there is no reason to think there is a problem they don't run a lab test.

 

[probus]

That seems contradictory to me. If the lab confirmed the existence of sepsis that's the proof.

I think what the OP is getting at, Tar, is that the sepsis must be bacterial since no evidence of any virus was found. That said, viruses are much harder to detect than cellular pathogens such as bacteria, because viruses live inside the cells of the organism they have infected.

 

[Tarheel]

Absolutely! Generally speaking, there are only two choices. That is, an infection is either bacterial or viral.