No, I prefer actually discussing evidence, rather than claiming that science is on my side and repeatedly linking to various links. I have nothing against your links, but I suggest you start quoting them rather than simply assuming that I'll read them all to try to prove your case for you.
Settling the Biological Virus Debate
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
No, I prefer actually discussing evidence, rather than claiming that science is on my side and repeatedly linking to various links. I have nothing against your links, but I suggest you start quoting them rather than simply assuming that I'll read them all to try to prove your case for you.
No, it's not, just as it's not incumbent on you to prove that viruses exist. I created this thread for those who'd -like- to discuss the evidence or lack thereof that viruses exist.
Can you provide evidence that -any- virus has actually been isolated or sequenced? And when I say sequenced, I don't mean a computer guessing how a virus may be sequenced, I mean actually sequencing an isolated virus.
Into the Night
Verified User
Then you haven't looked. Viruses are parasites.
Into the Night
Verified User
Lie. You are DENYING evidence. You deny and discard theories of science. A Holy Link is not a proof.
Into the Night
Verified User
No evidence needed. Viruses exist by definition. Proof by identity. We can observe them and even manipulate them.
Into the Night
Verified User
See the work of Louis Pasteur and Dmitri Ivanovsky.
Also see the work of Walter Fiers.
Except you don't discuss the evidence. I have given you multiple links that show how to isolate and sequence viruses. You dismiss them out if hand without bothering to read them or discuss them. We can't discuss evidence when you simply refuse to look at any of the evidence.
Once again.. here is the evidence of how science can isolate and sequence a virus.
Directions of how to isolate a virus and sequence it's RNA
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...42682219300728
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2016.182
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709572/
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/...985-017-0741-5
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0027805
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01360-14
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502977/
Let us know when you want to discuss it.
Your repeated linking to ONE article is certainly not a discussion when you refuse to read anything that shows your article is nothing but bullshit and ignores the actual science.
In other words, you are simply trolling. You don't want to discuss the evidence. You simply want to throw it out there to try to get gullible people to believe bullshit.
ROFLMAO. And you simply repeat the same bullshit over and over and ignore all the links I provided. If we accept your argument then nothing has ever been sequenced since RNA is sequenced in the exact same way that DNA has been sequenced. Are you truly going to argue that CRSPR doesn't work. Are you really going to argue that DNA of humans and mice hasn't been sequenced?
Here is evidence of viruses existing since it shows how to isolate and sequence them.
Directions of how to isolate a virus and sequence it's RNA
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...42682219300728
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2016.182
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709572/
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/...985-017-0741-5
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0027805
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01360-14
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502977/
Here.. tell us what is wrong with this step in isolating a virus for sequencing? (From the last link that shows the specific steps.)
Primer design and one-step RT-PCR.
A “pan”-HIV-1 primer set for the amplification of HIV-1 genomes of all groups and subtypes was designed based on 1,496 sequences of the 2009 “Web alignment” from the Los Alamos HIV Sequence Database (Table 1). One-step RT-PCRs generating overlapping amplicons of 1.9 kb, 3.6 kb, 3 kb, and 3.5 kb were performed by using a SuperScriptIII One-Step RT-PCR system with Platinum Taq DNA High Fidelity polymerase (Invitrogen). Each 25-μl reaction mixture contained 12.5 μl reaction mix (2×), 4.5 μl RNase-free water, 1 μl each of each primer (20 pmol/μl), 1 μl SuperScriptIII RT/Platinum Taq High Fidelity mix, and 5 μl of template RNA. Cycling conditions were 50°C for 30 min; 94°C for 2 min; 35 cycles of 94°C for 15 s, 58°C for 30 s, and 68°C for 4 min 30 s; and, finally, 68°C for 10 min. Amplicons were verified by agarose gel electrophoresis and quantified by using Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA reagent (Invitrogen).
I have seen no evidence that any lab has ever isolated this alleged Cov 2 virus. Iain Davis point, which I quoted to you in the last post, is that all alleged sequences of the Cov 2 virus are based off that first Wuhan sequence, which itself was basically a computer program guessing what this alleged Cov 2 virus might look like based on the particles found in the samples.
Sure. The question is, what is causing these illnesses? There is no hard evidence that this alleged Cov 2 virus is the culprit.
It is incredibly relevant. If the Cov 2 virus has never been isolated and its sequence merely guessed at by a computer, it points to the fact that the evidence that the Cov 2 virus exists at all is incredibly flimsy.
You get the evidence even more wrong than Davis does. The sequence is not done by a computer program guessing. It is done by taking genetic sequences that overlap and figuring out how they go together. It is a simple thing to do and if it is done wrong the million of times done since then would have found the error. A computer program is faster than humans for assembling the data but it is something that humans have been doing with data for over a century. It is more accurate than reassembling a shredded document since you have multiple copies and can see where the duplicates overlap.
Then you complain you have seen no evidence after you have refused to look at the evidence I presented on numerous occasions. None so blind as those that are determined to promote conspiracy theories.
Here is one scientific article on the isolation of the virus in India.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366528/
Stop telling us you have seen no evidence and tell us why you think the evidence is wrong. Davis fails to address the evidence of the virus being isolated.
If you're not interested in either looking up your own previous answer or answering it again, I suspect that your previous answer (assuming you did answer) wasn't particularly persuasive.
Agreed, but I think you should be a bit more concerned here. Essentially, we can all define words and compound terms the way we like, but if no one else defines them the way you do, communication will break down between you and others. This actually happened to me with a former friend I had who insisted that abortion should be defined as murder even though all the dictionary definitions I've seen don't define it that way.
You've now sunken to direct insults. I think I'll stop here.
I decided this subject deserved its own thread, and so have responded fully here:
The Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines, Post #2 | justplainpolitics.com
I'd argue that that I've looked at the evidence a lot more than most. Now, do you have actual evidence that viruses exist or is making assertions without backing them up the best you can do?
Last edited:
I suspect you weren't following the conversation here. As can be seen from my comment a few posts back above, this whole sub discussion here started when I suggested that PRS start quoting information in his links that he felt was relevant as I do instead of just repeating them endlessly.
I think it best we agree to disagree on that one.
Oh, I have. It looks like you haven't, at least not the important part...
**
Louis Pasteur’s Work
In the early 1860s, Louis Pasteur gained his celebrity scientist position by popularizing germ theory. His process of experimentation included finding sick people, isolating the bacterium (so he claimed), and giving the “pure” culture to animals — typically by injecting it into their brains. When the animals inevitably became sick, Pasteur claimed successful infection and disease caused by bacteria.
Historian Dr. Gerald Geison investigated Pasteur’s work by comparing his personal notebooks to his published papers. Of his findings, he wrote in 1995 in his book The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, “During his lifetime, Pasteur permitted absolutely no one — not even his closest co-workers — to inspect his notes… [He] arranged with his family that the books should also remain closed to all even after his death.”
Truly, it’s remarkable that anyone could have taken an ounce of Pasteur’s science seriously with this level of secrecy shrouding his work. Scientific theories require reproducibility by unbiased third parties, and Pasteur did not allow anyone to see his notes, double check his conclusions based on his own data, or perform their own duplications of his work to confirm accuracy.
The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that Pasteur deliberately deceived those with whom he shared his work, scientists and the public alike.
We only know the intimate details of Pasteur’s work now because one of his grandsons ignored his wishes and donated Pasteur’s notebooks to the French national library in 1914, making them available for public viewing.
These notebooks revealed the extensive fraud that Pasteur had committed in his studies.
His claims of purifying bacteria cultures for his studies were false, as that was an impossible task at the time. The Contagion Myth by Thomas S. Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell reveals “the only way [Pasteur] could transfer disease was to either insert the whole infected tissue into another animal (he would sometimes inject ground-up brains of an animal into the brain of another animal to “prove” contagion) or resort to adding poisons to his culture which he knew would cause the symptoms in the recipients.”
**
Full article:
Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com
I strongly disagree.
You have certainly given me multiple links. I've asked you to actually quote portions of them that you deem relevant as I do with my links instead of just linking to them. I strongly suspect that at this point, you're just copying and pasting links you'd already linked to previously. The reason I say this is because a lot of your links are dead, which is something that happens when you copy and paste long links from a forum such as this one, due to the forum shortening them.
Not sure why you think pointing out relevant facts of this discussion is "trolling". Feel free to try to explain.