That's akin to asking a scientologist how scientology isn't all it's cracked up to be. Not quite a fair analogy, since there are a -lot- of people who aren't so keen on scientology, including some former members, but if we add the word -current- scientologist, I think it'd be about right.
APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
That's akin to asking a scientologist how scientology isn't all it's cracked up to be. Not quite a fair analogy, since there are a -lot- of people who aren't so keen on scientology, including some former members, but if we add the word -current- scientologist, I think it'd be about right.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Not exactly, it's akin to asking an ex-scientologist how scientology isn't all it's cracked up to be.
I can certainly agree that that could apply to anyone who no longer believes in virology. I think his very first line is quite good:
"If you're ever anywhere where you can't question what's put before you..."
My point exactly.
Analyzing a single study and pointing out what he considers errors in that study while ignoring the thousands of other studies that support the conclusions is simply cherry picking an error and then trying to use that to disprove all things that he can't show errors in.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:
Logic requires that you include all the evidence and not just limit your argument to what supports your bias. To claim that this challenge to the virus theory is logic is to completely ignore what logic entails.
Their approach is classic conspiracy theory tactics where they try to highlight errors while ignoring all the evidence that they can't refute.
Analyzing a single study and pointing out what he considers errors in that study while ignoring the thousands of other studies that support the conclusions is simply cherry picking an error and then trying to use that to disprove all things that he can't show errors in.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:
Mr. Stone has analyzed way more than one study. But that's not the only point. There's a passage from a book that has nothing to do with biological viruses that I think is quite apt here. Quoting from it:
**
These are two classic examples of what’s called the “confirmation bias” — or cherry picking evidence. When you’re already convinced that something is true or untrue — you’re always on the lookout for additional proof (and studies) which confirms how right and smart you are.
In order to avoid this mistake and spot real science from pseudoscience, famous science philosopher Karl Popper proposed that real science should be based on the principle of “falsifiability”38 — always looking for evidence which might show that your theory is wrong.39
Let me give you an example. Let’s say you take the hypothesis “All swans are white.” To prove this statement, most people would be tempted to start counting white swans. But as Magda Havas, PhD explains, “no number of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black swan disproves it.”
A much better way to go would be to use falsification, and try to find a black swan. If you look real hard and aren’t able to find a single black swan, you can feel reasonably confident that your theory (all swans are white) is right — even if it hasn’t been definitely proven just yet.
**
Source:
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology (pp. 24-25). (Function). Kindle Edition.
Now, let’s apply this idea to whether biological viruses exist. We don’t verify that they exist by counting studies that suggest that they do. This is the same as counting white swans, and is an example of cherry picking. Instead, we do it by reading articles pointing to flaws in the evidence that they exist — because every single article which provides logical arguments showing that the evidence that they exist is flawed shatters the theory pushed by authorities that they definitely exist.
Congratulations. It appears you didn't read what you posted.
Since REAL SCIENCE is based on the principle of falsifiability then it should be obvious to you that Mike Stone has done nothing that could be classified as REAL SCIENCE.
Real science would require that Mike Stone provide an answer of what is in the electron microscope pictures, what causes the diseases associated with viruses and show that his answer is more likely than viruses. But Mike Stone does none of that. He simply claims there were errors without ever doing any real science. Mike Stone's theories are falsified by electron micrographs that you simply deny exists. Mike Stone's theories are falsified by the fact that vaccines work the way they do. Mike Stone's theories are falsified by the RNA sequencing of viruses. These three things and many more falsify Mike Stone's theory that viruses don't exist since he provided no evidence to explain these things.
Not only did I read it all, I wrote some of it. As to Mr. Pineault's book, I quoted only the part of it that I felt applied to our discussion here.
On the contrary, I believe that Mr. Stone has done an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in virology.
Not if his goal is to point out the flaws in the reasoning of virologists who believe what they've seen are biological viruses. In case you're wondering, that was in fact his goal.
He has certainly given alternative explanations for what is observered in laboratories and claimed to be the work of biological viruses. A good article of his where he does this:
ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies
The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers.
mikestone.substack.com
Pointing out flaws is not falsification. If it was, pointing out the flaws in your argument would prove you wrong.
Thanks for admitting that Mike Stone is not presenting any science. The goal of science as you provided it is to present a theory that can be falsified by observation or experimentation.
The funny thing is all of his alternative explanations have been falsified so it proves him wrong.He has certainly given alternative explanations for what is observered in laboratories and claimed to be the work of biological viruses. A good article of his where he does this:
ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies
The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers.
Mike Stone's argument are quite funny. He accuses virologists of begging the question when they follow the scientific method. The scientific method is you create a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. If you can't disprove it then your hypothesis is likely correct. Stone turns that on its head and claims if you can't disprove it then you have committed a logical fallacy.
You can't argue that they are not following the scientific method at the same time you accuse them of begging the question when they create a hypothesis.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The reason I mention this is that you are arguing that an element of current science (biological viruses) simply doesn't exist. Viruses exist in biology. You are arguing that biology is wrong in that regard without presenting an alternative model. If I were to argue that electromagnetic radiation doesn't exist, it would be incumbent upon me to present an alternative model; otherwise, until such time as I offer my explanation, the existing model would have to remain as the default.
Just saying "nuh uh" isn't questioning anything.
If you want to prove that the disease caused by viruses are caused by some other thing you need to propose a hypothesis, then test and test some more until you've shown that your hypothesis has stood up to the testing (when you test you are trying to show your hypothesis wrong, if your testing shows that you are wrong then you don't get to call it a theory) or you have proven it false.
In this case you seem to be trying to argue the "fruit of the poison tree" because one study was done in a way that some guy didn't like. The problem with this is that thousands and thousands of tests following proved that his theory was correct even if your "questions" had any merit. Study after study has shown that viruses are real.
The number one thing you will never be able to argue past using "but they didn't isolate it well enough for random author of some book I read" is the fact that we can map viruses' DNA and RNA. This is simple fact. There are myriad other we mentioned throughout, but that one you will never get past. The DNA proves that they exist, are other than the person, are not dirt or some other poison, these are biological entities. Once we map them we can even use that map to predict likely symptoms and then test.... Nothing you have said here negates this kind of real evidence of actual biological entities, and nothing you can say will.
I've given the example of the flat earth society several times here in this thread... and it still is a strong analogy. You ignore so much evidence and keep repeating the same thing over and over... including ignoring actual images and DNA... It's like a flat earther ignoring the "blue marble" and shouting "ice wall" every time someone mentions the South Pole.
The Cov 2 "virus", like all other viruses, was never isolated in the common meaning (as opposed to virology's twisted meaning) of isolation. Dr. Mark Bailey gets into this in the essay, and the line you quote is certainly part of that. Below, I include it in its proper context. The sentence you quoted is in orange:
**
PROFESSOR STEPHEN BUSTIN’S PRIMING OF A PCR PANDEMIC
Scientists have a tendency to assume that everything outside of their domain of interest is true and that they can just rely on it.
— David Crowe following his interview of Stephen Bustin in April 2020.137
To sustain the illusion of the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’, cases were required. These were provided by the world’s largest ever human ‘testing’ programme involving billions of PCR kits distributed around the world. It remains unclear to us as to why Stephen Bustin, who is a, “world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR, and his research focuses on translating molecular techniques into practical, robust and reliable tools for clinical and diagnostic use,”138 failed to decisively point out the inappropriate use of the PCR process. Bustin was the lead author for the 2009 publication,“The MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments,”139 in which the key conceptual considerations for real-time PCR experiments were outlined as follows:
1. 2.1 Analytical sensitivity refers to the minimum number of copies in a sample that can be measured accurately with an assay, whereas clinical sensitivity is the percentage of individuals with a given disorder whom the assay identifies as positive for that condition...
2. 2.2 Analytical specificity refers to the qPCR assay detecting the appropriate target sequence rather than other, nonspecific targets also present in asample. Diagnostic specificity is the percentage of individuals without a given condition whom the assay identifies as negative for that condition.
If Bustin remained true to the science then he should have called a halt to the PCR pandemic in January 2020 when the Corman-Drosten PCR protocols were published.140 The word ‘specificity’ appears only once in the Corman-Drosten paper and it had nothing to do with diagnosing a clinical condition, let alone a viral infection. There was no “detection of 2019-nCoV” as the paper claimed, all that was established was the analytical specificity of their assay to detect selected target sequences. It was an in vitro molecular reaction experiment with synthetic nucleic acid technology that does not require the existence of a virus. Further, there was no establishment of how the PCR result related to a clinical condition, i.e. the COVID-19 PCR kits were never shown to diagnose anything in a human subject. An invented disease based on a fictional virus.
Aside from the issue of specificity, it was not well publicised that the world-expert on PCR said to David Crowe in April 2020 that, (even on virology’s own terms,) calling a coronavirus PCR result“positive” at 36-37 cycles, as was happening around the world was, “absolute nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever."141 However, the PCR fraud was even more apparent when Eric Coppolino interviewed Bustin on Planet Waves FM in February 2021.142 Coppolino’s intention was to find out more details about the problematic reverse transcription (RT) step of the RT-PCR process but he was stunned after the interview to realise that what he thought was a sometimes inaccurate test was completely fraudulent.143 Bustin appeared uncomfortable when Coppolino pointed out that all positive PCR results were being called a, “confirmed case of infection,” even if they had no symptoms.144 Instead of admitting that the diagnostic specificity of the PCR kits had never been established, Bustin offered peripheral explanations such as claiming that, “ICUs are overrun at the moment.”
He further defended the PCR protocols in use with the assertion that, “this pneumonia was being caused by this virus. And this virus started popping up where more and more people were coming down with the same symptoms. And these primers were detecting that virus.” When Coppolino pushed him on the lack of virus isolation to be able to make these claims, Bustin responded that,“the way the sequence was established by taking the samples from the original patient, growing up something and then sequencing it and then disassembling the sequence and what came out of that was the SARS virus.” Unfortunately, Bustin lent support to virology’s misuse of the word ‘isolation’ and the loose terminology involved in detecting a “virus.” The crucial issue is that it doesn’t matter how well designed any primers are — if the provenance or significance of the genetic sequences being amplified through the PCR are unknown, then nothing more can be concluded by their mere presence. Bustin can reassure the world about the potentially very high analytical performance of a PCR protocol but the establishment of its diagnostic performance is where the rubber meets the road. Even if SARS-CoV-2 had been shown to physically exist and the PCR was accepted as a valid diagnostic tool, Bustin would have to admit that none of the PCR assays have been developed as his MIQE Guidelines specify and none qualify as being clinically-validated.
**
Source:
Again, there is no solid evidence for the Cov 2 virus to begin with. That's precisely the problem and that's what Dr. Mark Bailey is pointing out above. The molecular reaction doesn't require there to be a biological virus, only a given set of genetic sequences. For anyone curious to see the wider context of Dr. Mark Bailey's quote above, I included it in my previous post- searching for synthetic should do the trick.
You misunderstood what Dr. Mark Bailey said. He didn't say that the samples didn't come from humans. He said that "the COVID-19 PCR kits were never shown to diagnose anything in a human subject."
There's plenty of it, since there's no solid evidence that the alleged cause of this disease, the alleged Cov-2 virus, exists.
People have been getting sick since the dawn of humanity. The issue here is whether there's any solid evidence that a biological virus was the cause of any of it.
No, no solid evidence of a biological virus has ever been found. All that's been found are genetic sequences of unknown providence. Considering the fact that these genetic sequences came from humans, it's quite possible that they were simply human genetic sequences. Recently, there has been talk about how humans have "viral" genetic sequences. It's a good cover, considering there has never been any solid evidence of biological viruses.
Let's just move on from your ideas of what is "obvious" and get to the actual argument...
I decided to look at the context of your quoted material. Turns out, you're missing quite a lot of revealing information. For anyone who'd like to follow along with Mike Stone's original article, it's here:
First of all, his fraudulent method of "infecting" chickens with cholera:
**
However, when discussing how he studied the disease for vaccination, Pasteur stated that he injected his cultured poison into the pectoral muscles and thighs of chickens.
“I inoculate them in their pectoral muscles or, still better, in the muscle of the thigh, so as to observe with greater ease the effect of the innoculation.”
His use of injections to “prove” the microbe as the causative agent was admitted by Pasteur in his 1881 address An Address on Vaccination in Relation to Chicken Cholera and Splenic Fever where he claimed that he injected the blood and cultured broth of “infected” chickens into the skin of healthy chickens.
“Let us take one of our series of culture preparations-the hundredth or the thousandth, for instance—and compare it in respect to virulence with the blood of a fowl which has died of cholera; in other words, let us inoculate under the skin ten fowls, for instance, each separately with a tiny drop of infectious blood and ten others with a similar quantity of the liquid in which the deposit has first been shaken up. Strange to say, the latter ten fowls will die as quickly and with the same symptoms as the former ten: the blood of all will be found to contain after death the same minute infectious organisms.”
Obviously, feeding chickens diseased muscles from other dead chickens and injecting cultured broth and blood into the pecs, thighs, and skin of healthy chickens are not natural routes of exposure, and thus, this recreation of experimental disease would not be reflective of anything that could be observed in nature. These experiments did not line up with Pasteur's hypothesized natural exposure route of the pus of guinea pigs contaminating the feed. Thus, the proposed hypothesis was never tested in any way that could logically confirm or reject it. Instead, Pasteur employed unnatural methods where chickens cannibalized other chickens or were injected with substances in ways that they would not be subjected to in nature, thus invalidating the evidence presented.
However, this isn't the most damning revelation. In the 1882 paper Pasteur's Experiments by Rollin Gregg, M.D., a fatal flaw was pointed out regarding the assumptions made by Pasteur and other researchers studying chicken cholera and related diseases. They were mistaking coagulated fibrin as living microorganisms.
“This brings us then to one of the most important of all questions, for a better and more scientific understandiug of this subject, and that is: What are these microbes? Prof. Pasteur says they are living organisms, bacteria, or vegetable parasites, and all investigators and writers, not only upon these diseases, but on diphtheria as well, assert the same. But have not all such observers overlooked one ever-present and very important fact in all these and similar cases, and that the fact, that in every instance where blood congests, as the result of their inoculation, the fibrin in the blood of the animal inoculated commences at once, or soon, to coagulate, locally at first, and then more or less throughout the whole system, into minute granules as the result of the poison introduced; and that these minute granules of fibrin have been mistaken by them for living organisms, or vegetable parasites?”
Dr. Gregg went on to say that these fibrin particles appear indistinguishable from the forms of bacteria that had been discovered at the time, and that injecting coagulated fibrin into healthy chickens causes the same coagulation to occur within them leading to disease.
Again, it should be borne in mind, that the molecular granules; the fibrils and spirals of coagulating fibrin, are, in their very appearance, and under all circumstances, precisely like the three classified forms* of bacteria, spherical, rod-like and spiral (the microscope has never pointed out the slightest distinction between them), and that they occupy the same positions and demean themselves in precisely the same manner wherever found.
Therefore, if Prof. Pasteur will repeat his highly important experiments, recently reported in London, and while doing so, keep well in view the foregoing facts, he will no doubt be led to revise his conclusions, from seeing that his microbes, or bacteria, of chicken cholera, and of splenic fever, are simply coagulated particles of fibrin in the blood of the diseased animals, and that those caused in healthy animals by their inoculation with such blood, are also nothing but coagulating particles of the fibrin of their blood—the coagulation thereof being simply induced in the healthy animal by like matter, coagulated fibrin, in the diseased animal’s blood, introduced by the inoculation.”
Dr. Gregg then criticized Pasteur for assuming and asserting the presence of unnatural elements within the blood without proof while ignoring a natural element in fibrin that can be proven easily. He then challenged Pasteur to prove his burden of an unnatural element, or the natural explanation should take its place.
“He assumes and asserts the presence of an unnatural and foreign element, vegetable organism, in the blood, etc, without clear proof that they are such, while we can positively assert and prove the actual presence of a normal element, fibrin, there, but morbidly changed, that is, coagulated into minute particles, by the inoculating poison, or by the inflammation which that excites. Therefore, I repeat, the burden of proof lies wholly with him to make good his unnatural claim, or the natural fact must and should take its place.”
Based upon Dr. Gregg's account, we can see that it was a misinterpretation of what Pasteur witnessed within the blood, as well as the unnatural experimental mode of injection, that led to disease. This had absolutely nothing to do with how a chicken would acquire the disease in nature or Pasteur's hypothesized natural exposure route. Thus, Pasteur's experiments failed as an explanation of an observed relationship of a natural phenomenon. Ironically, even Robert Koch rejected some of Pasteur's experiments as worthless and naive, particularly ridiculing his work with chicken cholera.
**
I was going to include what you quoted in this post, but it was passing the 12,000 character limit, so I'll do it in my next post.
Alright, continuing from my last post, we've established that Pasteur's method of "infecting" his chickens was fraudulent. Now on to establishing that his vaccine was just as fraudulent. Those who'd like to read this in the original article can do so here:
Continuing...
**
Regardless, based upon his experimental evidence with the bacterium, Pasteur was eventually credited with creating an attenuated vaccine for chicken cholera in 1880, which some consider as the birth of “immunology.” However, there is controversy over how this came about. As legend has it as told by Pasteur’s most trusted partner Emile Duclaux and recounted in his semi-autobiograpghy written by his son-in-law Rene Vallery-Radot, a virulent culture of Pasteurella that killed injected hens was forgotten about by an assistant and left on the bench during Pasteur’s vacation in the summer of 1879. Upon his return, Pasteur used this old bacterial culture to inject the hens and was surprised to find that it failed to kill them. He then prepared a fresh virulent culture and injected it into the same hens, which did not result in the death of the hens as expected. From that observation, Pasteur assumed that the bacterium, when exposed to the air, lost its “virulence,” allowing for it to be used as a vaccine. He would go on to state, “In the fields of observation, chance favors only prepared minds.” In other words, the creation of the vaccine was a happy coincidence. Interestingly, Pasteur would not go on to reveal the methods for how he was able to develop this vaccine until late October of 1880, nine months after he had announced his successful creation of the vaccine. According to Geison, at that time, Pasteur provided no explanation as to why exactly oxygen should weaken microbes, especially the aerobic microbes that depended on it for life. Perhaps this delay in explaining his vaccine is due to the fact that, when he made his announcement, it was still an inconclusive program of research and the means had not yet been fully established through decisive experiments. In other words, Pasteur simply had no explanation, and the story concocted at a later date was nothing but pure fiction.
**
Only -after- this paragraph do we get to the one you partially quoted:
**
To support this contention, in 1878, Pasteur instructed his son-in-law to never allow his lab notebooks to be released to the public. However, nearly 100 years later in 1964, his grandson, Professor Louis Pasteur Vallery-Radot, donated all 152 notebooks to the French National Library. This allowed historians, such as Gerald Geison, to comb over Pasteur's work, and upon doing so, it was revealed that within his notebooks, there was no text between July 1879 and November 1879 mentioning this “fortunate” event that resulted in the attenuation of the culture. However, on January 14th, 1880, Pasteur wrote in his lab book: “Hen’s germs: when should we take the microbe, so it could vaccinate?” He would go on to announce the discovery of the vaccine in February of 1880. This was a clear admission that Pasteur had no understanding of the vaccine when he was said to have performed the experiments the year prior. Pasteur had lied about the events leading up to the creation of the vaccine. While he is still given credit for proving the causative agent and for demonstrating the effectiveness of the vaccine, even Pasteur noted in his 1881 paper that, as the result of many experiments, “the effects of vaccination are very variable,” and that vaccines “rarely act as a complete preventative.” Nearly 100 years later, in the 1959 paper Studies on Control of Fowl Cholera, we find out that the effects weren't just variable, but that vaccination was ineffective against the disease and that it provided no protection to the vaccinated flock, making it an unreliable method to control disease.
Finally, Mike Stone summarizes all of Pasteur's failures in regards to his "infecting" chickens with cholera and then "vaccinizing" them for the same:
**
Thus, from Pasteur's first attempt to prove his germ hypothesis:
Continuing...
**
Regardless, based upon his experimental evidence with the bacterium, Pasteur was eventually credited with creating an attenuated vaccine for chicken cholera in 1880, which some consider as the birth of “immunology.” However, there is controversy over how this came about. As legend has it as told by Pasteur’s most trusted partner Emile Duclaux and recounted in his semi-autobiograpghy written by his son-in-law Rene Vallery-Radot, a virulent culture of Pasteurella that killed injected hens was forgotten about by an assistant and left on the bench during Pasteur’s vacation in the summer of 1879. Upon his return, Pasteur used this old bacterial culture to inject the hens and was surprised to find that it failed to kill them. He then prepared a fresh virulent culture and injected it into the same hens, which did not result in the death of the hens as expected. From that observation, Pasteur assumed that the bacterium, when exposed to the air, lost its “virulence,” allowing for it to be used as a vaccine. He would go on to state, “In the fields of observation, chance favors only prepared minds.” In other words, the creation of the vaccine was a happy coincidence. Interestingly, Pasteur would not go on to reveal the methods for how he was able to develop this vaccine until late October of 1880, nine months after he had announced his successful creation of the vaccine. According to Geison, at that time, Pasteur provided no explanation as to why exactly oxygen should weaken microbes, especially the aerobic microbes that depended on it for life. Perhaps this delay in explaining his vaccine is due to the fact that, when he made his announcement, it was still an inconclusive program of research and the means had not yet been fully established through decisive experiments. In other words, Pasteur simply had no explanation, and the story concocted at a later date was nothing but pure fiction.
**
Only -after- this paragraph do we get to the one you partially quoted:
**
To support this contention, in 1878, Pasteur instructed his son-in-law to never allow his lab notebooks to be released to the public. However, nearly 100 years later in 1964, his grandson, Professor Louis Pasteur Vallery-Radot, donated all 152 notebooks to the French National Library. This allowed historians, such as Gerald Geison, to comb over Pasteur's work, and upon doing so, it was revealed that within his notebooks, there was no text between July 1879 and November 1879 mentioning this “fortunate” event that resulted in the attenuation of the culture. However, on January 14th, 1880, Pasteur wrote in his lab book: “Hen’s germs: when should we take the microbe, so it could vaccinate?” He would go on to announce the discovery of the vaccine in February of 1880. This was a clear admission that Pasteur had no understanding of the vaccine when he was said to have performed the experiments the year prior. Pasteur had lied about the events leading up to the creation of the vaccine. While he is still given credit for proving the causative agent and for demonstrating the effectiveness of the vaccine, even Pasteur noted in his 1881 paper that, as the result of many experiments, “the effects of vaccination are very variable,” and that vaccines “rarely act as a complete preventative.” Nearly 100 years later, in the 1959 paper Studies on Control of Fowl Cholera, we find out that the effects weren't just variable, but that vaccination was ineffective against the disease and that it provided no protection to the vaccinated flock, making it an unreliable method to control disease.
**
Finally, Mike Stone summarizes all of Pasteur's failures in regards to his "infecting" chickens with cholera and then "vaccinizing" them for the same:
**
Thus, from Pasteur's first attempt to prove his germ hypothesis:
- The experiment did not reflect his hypothesis as to how the disease spreads.
- The agent utilized may have been nothing more than normal coagulated fibrin.
- The route of exposure of feeding chickens diseased muscles and/or injecting the blood of diseased chickens into healthy ones was not a natural exposure route.
- The act of injecting coagulated fibrin into a healthy animal can cause disease.
- The vaccine, used as proof of his success in identifying the causative agent, was ineffective and unsuccessful despite claims stating otherwise.
- Pasteur fabricated the account of how the attenuated vaccine came to be created.
We are back to you demanding that viruses be treated like bacteria. Viruses are not bacteria. They are viruses.
Requiring that viruses be isolated like bacteria ignores that viruses are not cells. It ignores that viruses do not have DNA.
The PCR test has nothing to do with "isolation."
It is nonsense to claim that something that looks for sequences of RNA of a virus is not finding the virus. You are the one here using logical fallacies and ignoring the scientific method. Dr Bailey is simply ignoring the thousands of other times that the the virus RNA sequence has been found and all the other scientific papers that uphold the PCR test as valid. Falsification is required for it to be science. Denial is not science. Dr Bailey would have an argument if he actually conducted the experiments and could not find any of the COVID virus sequences. He has not done any science.
No, neither I nor the 'no evidence for biological viruses' group referenced in the opening post of this thread have ever claimed that electron micrographs aren't real. The claim is that there is no solid evidence that the microbes recorded in electron micrographs are biological viruses.
Show me solid evidence that any of the microbes recorded in any electron micrograph is actually a biological virus and then we can talk about your "proofs".
Posting garbage doesn't make it not garbage.Let's just move on from your ideas of what is "obvious" and get to the actual argument...
I decided to look at the context of your quoted material. Turns out, you're missing quite a lot of revealing information. For anyone who'd like to follow along with Mike Stone's original article, it's here:
First of all, his fraudulent method of "infecting" chickens with cholera:
**
However, when discussing how he studied the disease for vaccination, Pasteur stated that he injected his cultured poison into the pectoral muscles and thighs of chickens.
“I inoculate them in their pectoral muscles or, still better, in the muscle of the thigh, so as to observe with greater ease the effect of the innoculation.”
His use of injections to “prove” the microbe as the causative agent was admitted by Pasteur in his 1881 address An Address on Vaccination in Relation to Chicken Cholera and Splenic Fever where he claimed that he injected the blood and cultured broth of “infected” chickens into the skin of healthy chickens.
“Let us take one of our series of culture preparations-the hundredth or the thousandth, for instance—and compare it in respect to virulence with the blood of a fowl which has died of cholera; in other words, let us inoculate under the skin ten fowls, for instance, each separately with a tiny drop of infectious blood and ten others with a similar quantity of the liquid in which the deposit has first been shaken up. Strange to say, the latter ten fowls will die as quickly and with the same symptoms as the former ten: the blood of all will be found to contain after death the same minute infectious organisms.”
Obviously, feeding chickens diseased muscles from other dead chickens and injecting cultured broth and blood into the pecs, thighs, and skin of healthy chickens are not natural routes of exposure, and thus, this recreation of experimental disease would not be reflective of anything that could be observed in nature. These experiments did not line up with Pasteur's hypothesized natural exposure route of the pus of guinea pigs contaminating the feed. Thus, the proposed hypothesis was never tested in any way that could logically confirm or reject it. Instead, Pasteur employed unnatural methods where chickens cannibalized other chickens or were injected with substances in ways that they would not be subjected to in nature, thus invalidating the evidence presented.
However, this isn't the most damning revelation. In the 1882 paper Pasteur's Experiments by Rollin Gregg, M.D., a fatal flaw was pointed out regarding the assumptions made by Pasteur and other researchers studying chicken cholera and related diseases. They were mistaking coagulated fibrin as living microorganisms.
“This brings us then to one of the most important of all questions, for a better and more scientific understandiug of this subject, and that is: What are these microbes? Prof. Pasteur says they are living organisms, bacteria, or vegetable parasites, and all investigators and writers, not only upon these diseases, but on diphtheria as well, assert the same. But have not all such observers overlooked one ever-present and very important fact in all these and similar cases, and that the fact, that in every instance where blood congests, as the result of their inoculation, the fibrin in the blood of the animal inoculated commences at once, or soon, to coagulate, locally at first, and then more or less throughout the whole system, into minute granules as the result of the poison introduced; and that these minute granules of fibrin have been mistaken by them for living organisms, or vegetable parasites?”
Dr. Gregg went on to say that these fibrin particles appear indistinguishable from the forms of bacteria that had been discovered at the time, and that injecting coagulated fibrin into healthy chickens causes the same coagulation to occur within them leading to disease.
Again, it should be borne in mind, that the molecular granules; the fibrils and spirals of coagulating fibrin, are, in their very appearance, and under all circumstances, precisely like the three classified forms* of bacteria, spherical, rod-like and spiral (the microscope has never pointed out the slightest distinction between them), and that they occupy the same positions and demean themselves in precisely the same manner wherever found.
Therefore, if Prof. Pasteur will repeat his highly important experiments, recently reported in London, and while doing so, keep well in view the foregoing facts, he will no doubt be led to revise his conclusions, from seeing that his microbes, or bacteria, of chicken cholera, and of splenic fever, are simply coagulated particles of fibrin in the blood of the diseased animals, and that those caused in healthy animals by their inoculation with such blood, are also nothing but coagulating particles of the fibrin of their blood—the coagulation thereof being simply induced in the healthy animal by like matter, coagulated fibrin, in the diseased animal’s blood, introduced by the inoculation.”
Dr. Gregg then criticized Pasteur for assuming and asserting the presence of unnatural elements within the blood without proof while ignoring a natural element in fibrin that can be proven easily. He then challenged Pasteur to prove his burden of an unnatural element, or the natural explanation should take its place.
“He assumes and asserts the presence of an unnatural and foreign element, vegetable organism, in the blood, etc, without clear proof that they are such, while we can positively assert and prove the actual presence of a normal element, fibrin, there, but morbidly changed, that is, coagulated into minute particles, by the inoculating poison, or by the inflammation which that excites. Therefore, I repeat, the burden of proof lies wholly with him to make good his unnatural claim, or the natural fact must and should take its place.”
Based upon Dr. Gregg's account, we can see that it was a misinterpretation of what Pasteur witnessed within the blood, as well as the unnatural experimental mode of injection, that led to disease. This had absolutely nothing to do with how a chicken would acquire the disease in nature or Pasteur's hypothesized natural exposure route. Thus, Pasteur's experiments failed as an explanation of an observed relationship of a natural phenomenon. Ironically, even Robert Koch rejected some of Pasteur's experiments as worthless and naive, particularly ridiculing his work with chicken cholera.
**
I was going to include what you quoted in this post, but it was passing the 12,000 character limit, so I'll do it in my next post.
This is what in logic is called a red herring argument.
Simply because there is an error in the reasoning does not mean the conclusion is wrong. This would be an example of Mike Stone making an error in logic.
Example
1+3 = ?
If I say because a horse's hoof has only one segment and a horse has 4 legs then the answer is 4.
2+3 = ?
If I say because a cow's hoof has 2 segments and a horse has 4 legs then the answer is 4.
The fact that my reasoning was wrong doesn't make the conclusion incorrect. The only way to show that a conclusion is incorrect is by showing the correct way to reach the conclusion.
The fact that Pasteur got some things wrong doesn't show that viruses don't exist. It is simply a red herring to avoid looking at the correct way to figure out if viruses exist.