APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

Fair enough. I've noted repeatedly your "information" simply repeats something without regard to the mountain of evidence. You make an extraordinary claim and therefore need extraordinary evidence to back it up, you brought nothing, not one study, nothing but conjecture and repetition of the same conjecture.

On the contrary, the studies being used are the very ones being used to justify that biological viruses exist in the first place. Mike Stone, publisher of the Viroliegy Newsletter, wrote a very good article on this just last week. I'll quote the first part of it below:
**
March 14, 2025

From the very beginning of my research into virology’s claims, my priority has been to examine the foundational evidence for the existence of “pathogenic viruses.” Rather than relying on external critiques, I chose to analyze virology’s own literature, exposing its pseudoscientific methods using the field’s own work. My approach has been to highlight the internal flaws and logical inconsistencies in virological research, demonstrating that its conclusions fail to meet essential scientific standards. The experiments had already been conducted, and the supposed “evidence” was already documented—I simply needed to expose how it failed to support virology’s claims. As Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, emphasized, challenging a scientific claim is ultimately about logic.

One does not need to be a virologist, work in a lab, or conduct experiments to critically evaluate the evidence behind a hypothesis. The key question is whether the foundational research adheres to the scientific method and provides logically sound evidence. If it does not, the hypothesis is invalid. The burden of proof lies entirely with those making the claim, meaning that anyone asserting virology’s conclusions as scientific fact must either produce valid evidence or acknowledge its absence.

This approach has been highly effective for myself and others working to expose the flaws of virology. Every aspect of this pseudoscientific field—from failed contagion studies to flawed cell culture experiments—has been systematically refuted using virology’s own sources. Through simple logic, we have demonstrated that the scientific evidence virology claims to have does not actually exist within its own literature and that the “viral” hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. Their burden of proof remains unmet.
**

Full article:

"Virus-like" Particles

A Critical Analysis

substack.com

 

[Damocles]

On the contrary, the studies being used are the very ones being used to justify that biological viruses exist in the first place. Mike Stone, publisher of the Viroliegy Newsletter, wrote a very good article on this just last week. I'll quote the first part of it below:
**
March 14, 2025

From the very beginning of my research into virology’s claims, my priority has been to examine the foundational evidence for the existence of “pathogenic viruses.” Rather than relying on external critiques, I chose to analyze virology’s own literature, exposing its pseudoscientific methods using the field’s own work. My approach has been to highlight the internal flaws and logical inconsistencies in virological research, demonstrating that its conclusions fail to meet essential scientific standards. The experiments had already been conducted, and the supposed “evidence” was already documented—I simply needed to expose how it failed to support virology’s claims. As Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, emphasized, challenging a scientific claim is ultimately about logic.

One does not need to be a virologist, work in a lab, or conduct experiments to critically evaluate the evidence behind a hypothesis. The key question is whether the foundational research adheres to the scientific method and provides logically sound evidence. If it does not, the hypothesis is invalid. The burden of proof lies entirely with those making the claim, meaning that anyone asserting virology’s conclusions as scientific fact must either produce valid evidence or acknowledge its absence.

This approach has been highly effective for myself and others working to expose the flaws of virology. Every aspect of this pseudoscientific field—from failed contagion studies to flawed cell culture experiments—has been systematically refuted using virology’s own sources. Through simple logic, we have demonstrated that the scientific evidence virology claims to have does not actually exist within its own literature and that the “viral” hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. Their burden of proof remains unmet.
**

Full article:

"Virus-like" Particles

A Critical Analysis

substack.com

Which does not reference a study that proves that viruses do not exist. Again you simply repeat the same claim without the evidence. This is a childlike argument..... "Nuh-uh!"

Literally thousands of studies and mountains of evidence exist for the side that says viruses exist, and all you have are claims that it "isn't enough" with no studies that counter the claims and falsify their information.

In short, what you have are people just repeating "it's not enough, they didn't do it like I want them to!" without evidence to back it up, and that is not part of the scientific process. Your articles are from sites that continue your confirmation bias but continue to produce no actual evidence of the claim.

Your claim is extraordinary and instead of producing the extraordinary evidence with data from studies that prove this hypothesis has merit you produce the same claims repeatedly.

Shoot one of your claims had an "expert" that referenced her own book as "evidence" and that book had no studies, it simply once again stated that one study wasn't done "right" according to their opinion. Books based on the opinion of folks that are not experts in the field and without studies to back them up are not "evidence" they are just that same previously referenced childlike argument coming up again... "Nuh-uh!"

 

[Scott]

On the contrary, the studies being used are the very ones being used to justify that biological viruses exist in the first place. Mike Stone, publisher of the Viroliegy Newsletter, wrote a very good article on this just last week. I'll quote the first part of it below:
**
March 14, 2025

From the very beginning of my research into virology’s claims, my priority has been to examine the foundational evidence for the existence of “pathogenic viruses.” Rather than relying on external critiques, I chose to analyze virology’s own literature, exposing its pseudoscientific methods using the field’s own work. My approach has been to highlight the internal flaws and logical inconsistencies in virological research, demonstrating that its conclusions fail to meet essential scientific standards. The experiments had already been conducted, and the supposed “evidence” was already documented—I simply needed to expose how it failed to support virology’s claims. As Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, emphasized, challenging a scientific claim is ultimately about logic.

One does not need to be a virologist, work in a lab, or conduct experiments to critically evaluate the evidence behind a hypothesis. The key question is whether the foundational research adheres to the scientific method and provides logically sound evidence. If it does not, the hypothesis is invalid. The burden of proof lies entirely with those making the claim, meaning that anyone asserting virology’s conclusions as scientific fact must either produce valid evidence or acknowledge its absence.

This approach has been highly effective for myself and others working to expose the flaws of virology. Every aspect of this pseudoscientific field—from failed contagion studies to flawed cell culture experiments—has been systematically refuted using virology’s own sources. Through simple logic, we have demonstrated that the scientific evidence virology claims to have does not actually exist within its own literature and that the “viral” hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. Their burden of proof remains unmet.
**

Full article:

"Virus-like" Particles

A Critical Analysis

substack.com

Which does not reference a study that proves that viruses do not exist.

Mike Stone and others in his camp have never claimed that they have proof that biological viruses don't exist. Instead, they have pointed out that there is no scientific evidence that they do. It's the diffence between saying that there is proof that unicorns don't exist and pointing out that there is no scientific evidence that they do.

What Mike Stone and others -have- done is point to virology's own studies to point out how they don't follow the scientific method. He actually links to 2 pages in the material I quoted above that point this out. You may have missed them as they look like regular text until you hover over them, so here they are:

Infectious Myth Busted – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Infectious Myth Busted written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

Cell Culture – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Cell Culture written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

 

[Damocles]

Mike Stone and others in his camp have never claimed that they have proof that biological viruses don't exist. Instead, they have pointed out that there is no scientific evidence that they do. It's the diffence between saying that there is proof that unicorns don't exist and pointing out that there is no scientific evidence that they do.

What Mike Stone and others -have- done is point to virology's own studies to point out how they don't follow the scientific method. He actually links to 2 pages in the material I quoted above that point this out. You may have missed them as they look like regular text until you hover over them, so here they are:

Infectious Myth Busted – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Infectious Myth Busted written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

Cell Culture – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Cell Culture written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

They ignore mountains of evidence and their arguments do not "disprove" any of it, even the ones they say it does.

Repeating things often, and repeating them from the same source, is not the same thing as repeatability in a scientific study. It simply is not "evidence" of anything.

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone and others in his camp have never claimed that they have proof that biological viruses don't exist. Instead, they have pointed out that there is no scientific evidence that they do. It's the diffence between saying that there is proof that unicorns don't exist and pointing out that there is no scientific evidence that they do.

What Mike Stone and others -have- done is point to virology's own studies to point out how they don't follow the scientific method. He actually links to 2 pages in the material I quoted above that point this out. You may have missed them as they look like regular text until you hover over them, so here they are:

Infectious Myth Busted – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Infectious Myth Busted written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

Cell Culture – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Cell Culture written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

They ignore mountains of evidence

What "mountains of evidence" are you referring to?

 

[Damocles]

What "mountains of evidence" are you referring to?

Literally thousands of studies. We've spoken before, you seem to have the same issue as some of the liberals on the site, you appear incapable of absorbing information if it does not fit within your confirmation bias.

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone and others in his camp have never claimed that they have proof that biological viruses don't exist. Instead, they have pointed out that there is no scientific evidence that they do. It's the diffence between saying that there is proof that unicorns don't exist and pointing out that there is no scientific evidence that they do.

What Mike Stone and others -have- done is point to virology's own studies to point out how they don't follow the scientific method. He actually links to 2 pages in the material I quoted above that point this out. You may have missed them as they look like regular text until you hover over them, so here they are:

Infectious Myth Busted – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Infectious Myth Busted written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

Cell Culture – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Cell Culture written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

They ignore mountains of evidence

What "mountains of evidence" are you referring to?

Literally thousands of studies.

You seem to continue to ignore all the studies that authors like Mike Stone cites. I suspect you never even clicked on the links. Here they are again:

Infectious Myth Busted – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Infectious Myth Busted written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

Cell Culture – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Cell Culture written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

 

[Damocles]

You seem to continue to ignore all the studies that authors like Mike Stone cites. I suspect you never even clicked on the links. Here they are again:

Infectious Myth Busted – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Infectious Myth Busted written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

Cell Culture – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Cell Culture written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

He cited no studies he has done, he only pointed at other folk's studies and said they weren't good enough for him. I've already gone over how that isn't scientific, and it isn't a study or evidence.

Anyone can point at something and say "not good enough" but peer review disagrees with him and his opinion holds little value considering the myriad consistent results from literally thousands of studies.

What you have to back up your claim: Opinions written by folks that are not among the peer review, are not qualified, and do not produce any studies of their own. They have no hypothesis, they just want to believe something so badly they use confirmation bias sourced opinions that suggest what they want to believe rather than read and understand the decades of science and thousands of studies that prove them wrong.

Viruses are scientific fact. From DNA sequencing down to actual images. "Nuh-uh" isn't a good enough argument for science to discount those results.

YOU have made an extraordinary claim, YOU must bring extraordinary evidence to back it up. Earlier you told us that "nobody" would fund such a study... because you have none.

 

[Scott]

You seem to continue to ignore all the studies that authors like Mike Stone cites. I suspect you never even clicked on the links. Here they are again:

Infectious Myth Busted – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Infectious Myth Busted written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

Cell Culture – ViroLIEgy

Posts about Cell Culture written by Mike Stone

viroliegy.com

He cited no studies he has done

That's true. What he -has- done is analyzed the studies that virologists themselves use as evidence for their claims. It appears you haven't been listening to what I've been quoting from him, specifically in post #101. Once more:
**
**
March 14, 2025

From the very beginning of my research into virology’s claims, my priority has been to examine the foundational evidence for the existence of “pathogenic viruses.” Rather than relying on external critiques, I chose to analyze virology’s own literature, exposing its pseudoscientific methods using the field’s own work. My approach has been to highlight the internal flaws and logical inconsistencies in virological research, demonstrating that its conclusions fail to meet essential scientific standards. The experiments had already been conducted, and the supposed “evidence” was already documented—I simply needed to expose how it failed to support virology’s claims. As Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, emphasized, challenging a scientific claim is ultimately about logic.

One does not need to be a virologist, work in a lab, or conduct experiments to critically evaluate the evidence behind a hypothesis. The key question is whether the foundational research adheres to the scientific method and provides logically sound evidence. If it does not, the hypothesis is invalid. The burden of proof lies entirely with those making the claim, meaning that anyone asserting virology’s conclusions as scientific fact must either produce valid evidence or acknowledge its absence.

This approach has been highly effective for myself and others working to expose the flaws of virology. Every aspect of this pseudoscientific field—from failed contagion studies to flawed cell culture experiments—has been systematically refuted using virology’s own sources. Through simple logic, we have demonstrated that the scientific evidence virology claims to have does not actually exist within its own literature and that the “viral” hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. Their burden of proof remains unmet.
**
Full article:

"Virus-like" Particles

A Critical Analysis

substack.com

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same false information. It will never become true. Ever.

 

[Scott]

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same false information. It will never become true. Ever.

You aren't even specifying what information you believe to be false. This reminds me of other narratives that don't conform with the mainstream and a line from a professor of theology that I thought was quite good:
**
A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false.
In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizng story for people.
The focus is not on the story's relation to reality but on its function.
A story cannot function, unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation.
It is not a matter of debate if some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story.
The keepers of the faith do not enter into the debate with them.
They ignore them, or denounce them as blasphemers.
**

Clearly, I am the "blasphemer" here and your main goal is not to debate me, but to simply label me as such.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

You aren't even specifying what information you believe to be false. This reminds me of other narratives that don't conform with the mainstream and a line from a professor of theology that I thought was quite good:
**
A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false.
In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizng story for people.
The focus is not on the story's relation to reality but on its function.
A story cannot function, unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation.
It is not a matter of debate if some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story.
The keepers of the faith do not enter into the debate with them.
They ignore them, or denounce them as blasphemers.
**

Clearly, I am the "blasphemer" here and your main goal is not to debate me, but to simply label me as such.

Yes. Since I can't fix willful ignorance, the best I can do is point out the b.s. Why have you never answered my question? Let me repeat it.
What is your whole point in this nonsense? What do you hope to gain from repeatedly posting your unfounded and false claim that viruses do not exist? What's in it for you?

^ ^ ^ These are the questions that every informed person should ask when presented with information, esp. information that seems suspicious.

 

[Scott]

You aren't even specifying what information you believe to be false. This reminds me of other narratives that don't conform with the mainstream and a line from a professor of theology that I thought was quite good:
**
A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false.
In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizng story for people.
The focus is not on the story's relation to reality but on its function.
A story cannot function, unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation.
It is not a matter of debate if some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story.
The keepers of the faith do not enter into the debate with them.
They ignore them, or denounce them as blasphemers.
**

Clearly, I am the "blasphemer" here and your main goal is not to debate me, but to simply label me as such.

Yes. Since I can't fix willful ignorance, the best I can do is point out the b.s.

You haven't pointed out anything, just the usual "blasphemer" narrative for someone who doesn't share your mythology.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Agreed. However, I don't think you actually know what being a scientist entails. Here's the first definition of the term from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**
A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science.
**
Source:

scientist — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Mike Stone definitely qualifies in this regard.



Absolute balderdash. Mike Stone understands the scientific method thoroughly. The problem is that most people don't.



Exactly.



First of all, claiming that there are "mountains of evidence of... viruses" has to be demonstrated first. You can't just claim this and expect people to believe you. Secondly, once again, I have never claimed that I have proof that biological viruses don't exist.



Not interested. Try to see this from my perspective- since I no longer believe that biological viruses exist, all this talk about where these non existent viruses originated is hardly something that would interest me. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the true causes of death of all the people who allegedly died of the Cov 2 virus. But figuring -that- out is a lot harder than pointing out that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist.



Would this 'old scold' be TOP? Enquring minds want to know -.-

How nice. Sorry TL;DR. My father was a scientist. My husband and one of my sons are as well. My education in the health care field included several university level science courses -- biology x2, microbiology, chemistry, anatomy & physiology. Suffice it to say that I have a little bit more knowledge of science than the average non-scientifically-educated person.

Maybe you can explain to us how it is that scientists in Sweden, the U.S. Japan, Nairobi, Quito, Moscow, Wuhan can put samples of the the HIV virus retrieved from 10 different infected patients (for example) under an electron microscope and come up with the exact same photographs of it. After fumbling that football, maybe you can explain to us how vaccines work, and have for over 200 years. I'll get the popcorn.

 

[IBDaMann]

... I present below the argument that there is no solid evidence that they actually exist...

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

...

The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative.

Let's jump to the chase. Your argument is based on equating doctors, and even other professionals, with biologists. Doctors are not biologists. Logic 101: your argument is not valid.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. However, I don't think you actually know what being a scientist entails. Here's the first definition of the term from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**
A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science.
**
Source:

scientist — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Mike Stone definitely qualifies in this regard.

Absolute balderdash. Mike Stone understands the scientific method thoroughly. The problem is that most people don't.

Exactly.

First of all, claiming that there are "mountains of evidence of... viruses" has to be demonstrated first. You can't just claim this and expect people to believe you. Secondly, once again, I have never claimed that I have proof that biological viruses don't exist.

Not interested. Try to see this from my perspective- since I no longer believe that biological viruses exist, all this talk about where these non existent viruses originated is hardly something that would interest me. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the true causes of death of all the people who allegedly died of the Cov 2 virus. But figuring -that- out is a lot harder than pointing out that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist.

Would this 'old scold' be TOP? Enquring minds want to know -.-

How nice. Sorry TL;DR. My father was a scientist. My husband and one of my sons are as well. My education in the health care field included several university level science courses -- biology x2, microbiology, chemistry, anatomy & physiology. Suffice it to say that I have a little bit more knowledge of science than the average non-scientifically-educated person.

Maybe you can explain to us how it is that scientists in Sweden, the U.S. Japan, Nairobi, Quito, Moscow, Wuhan can put samples of the the HIV virus retrieved from 10 different infected patients (for example) under an electron microscope and come up with the exact same photographs of it.

The problem is in how they came to the conclusion that they have "found" any biological viruses at all. Seeing electron micrographs of microbes is not the same thing as knowing that those microbes fit the description of biological viruses. As I've said elsewhere, it took me about a year to finally come to the conclusion that the group of medical doctors and other researchers referenced in the opening post of this thread were right that there has never been any solid evidence that biological viruses actually exist. Our society has been deeply indoctrinated to believe that they exist. But the more I read from the group of researchers referenced in the opening post, the more I came to believe that they were right.

After fumbling that football, maybe you can explain to us how vaccines work

They don't. Here's a good article on why that is, referencing a book I read a while back:

Vaccinations: How Vaccines Wreck Immunity (2015)

By Dr Jack & Mary Stockwell – 30 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary

unbekoming.substack.com

The article and the book it references may have some flaws, but I think that all and all, it's on the right track.

 

[Scott]

...I present below the argument that there is no solid evidence that they actually exist...

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

I'll quote the first few paragraphs of the statement here:
**
July 14, 2022

Settling the Virus Debate

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative.

Let's jump to the chase. Your argument is based on equating doctors, and even other professionals, with biologists. Doctors are not biologists. Logic 101: your argument is not valid.

No, my argument isn't based on that at all. I believe these people because I've read a lot of their work, and I've found that it is logically consistent. My argument is based first and foremost on logic.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, my argument isn't based on that at all.

I regret to inform you that your OP is based entirely on conflating doctors with biologists. Read it. You did not make an argument based on how biologists classify biological viruses. You made an invalid authority fallacy of what some DOCTORS say.

Why should any rational adult care how doctors possibly misunderstand biological classifications? Very few doctors, after all, are biologists.

I believe these people because I've read a lot of their work,

Exactly. You believe them not because they are virologists explaining biology. You believe them simply because you read their work. This leads to the question of whether you believe everything you read on the internet. If you believe something just because you read it, regardless of whether the author is a wacko, there's no reason anyone should pay any attention to your regurgitation thereof.

So, I ask you, do you have any treatises from virologists explaining how viruses really aren't what they are all cracked up to be?

and I've found that it is logically consistent.

You have not shown that the argument is valid, much less that the argument is sound. Before you can go down that path, you have to show that your theorem, i.e. biological viruses do not exist, has any real meaning. You need to define all your terms. You need to explain why my understanding is erroneous. You need to show that you aren't pulling it all out of your azz. You need either some corroboration by a virology researcher or by new science models.

My argument is based first and foremost on logic.

Nope. I am rejecting that premise. I have found too many errors, and only one error is sufficient to get your theory scrapped.

The good news is that you get unlimited do-overs. You clearly have some work to do, but once you have met the above requirements, you might very well be onto something.

 

[Scott]

No, my argument isn't based on that at all.

I regret to inform you that your OP is based entirely on conflating doctors with biologists. Read it.

Read it? I -wrote- it. I did no such thing.

You did not make an argument based on how biologists classify biological viruses.

Yes, I did. You just didn't bother to look up the footnote.

 

[Scott]

I believe these people because I've read a lot of their work,

Exactly. You believe them not because they are virologists explaining biology. You believe them simply because you read their work.

No, that's not why I believe them. It might help if you had responded to my entire sentence in one go instead of cutting it in half. The whole sentence was:
**
I believe these people because I've read a lot of their work, and I've found that it is logically consistent.
**

That second part is the important one.