Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

See the work of Louis Pasteur

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

Fallacy fallacy.

Where do you see a fallacy fallacy in what I've said? For those who haven't heard of a fallacy fallacy:
The Fallacy Fallacy: Why Fallacious Arguments Can Have True Conclusions | effectiviology.com

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Are you referring to the Appeal to the Stone fallacy? For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

If so, could you point out what argument you believe I've unfairly dismissed?

Strawman fallacy.

What strawman do you believe I've built up?

 

[Scott]

I have given you multiple links that show how to isolate and sequence viruses.

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.

Paradox.

Where?

 

[Into the Night]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that I've lied?

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

If you'd care to explain where you believe these fallacies are in my post, by all means.

RQAA. You really should stop asking the same questions over and over. They've been answered.

 

[Into the Night]

I did an internet search on your term, found this:

**
Fallacy #10: The Thought-Terminating Cliché

The thought-terminating cliché (also called thought-stopper or bumper sticker logic) is more purely a verbal weapon than the rest of the fallacies we’ve covered. But it is very common.

The thought-terminating cliché is a common phrase, usually catchy and sharp, used to end a discussion. The purpose of the cliché is not to make a rational point, but rather to escape a rational discussion.
**

Source:
Fallacy #10: The Thought-Terminating Cliché | freemansperspective.com

The premise in this fallacy is that the discussion was rational to begin with. As can be seen above in the nested quotes, I'd been responding to you saying that "No evidence needed". I'm not interested in trying to persuade you that evidence is, in fact, needed, at least if your goal is to try to make a persuasive argument, so if you're willing to stick to that logic, I decided it'd be best to throw in the towel in trying to persuade you here.

Cliche fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Where do you see a fallacy fallacy in what I've said? For those who haven't heard of a fallacy fallacy:
The Fallacy Fallacy: Why Fallacious Arguments Can Have True Conclusions | effectiviology.com



Are you referring to the Appeal to the Stone fallacy? For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

If so, could you point out what argument you believe I've unfairly dismissed?



What strawman do you believe I've built up?

Redefinition fallacy. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Where?

RQAA.

 

[Scott]

RQAA.

Saying that a question has been repeated and that you (or someone else) has already answered it is not the same thing as providing solid evidence that this is the case.

 

[Scott]

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.

Strawman fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

If you'd care to explain where you believe these fallacies are in my post, by all means.

RQAA. You really should stop asking the same questions over and over. They've been answered.

Again, saying that a question has already been answered is not the same thing as providing solid evidence for your assertion.

 

[Scott]

I did an internet search on your term, found this:

**
Fallacy #10: The Thought-Terminating Cliché

The thought-terminating cliché (also called thought-stopper or bumper sticker logic) is more purely a verbal weapon than the rest of the fallacies we’ve covered. But it is very common.

The thought-terminating cliché is a common phrase, usually catchy and sharp, used to end a discussion. The purpose of the cliché is not to make a rational point, but rather to escape a rational discussion.
**

Source:
Fallacy #10: The Thought-Terminating Cliché | freemansperspective.com

The premise in this fallacy is that the discussion was rational to begin with. As can be seen above in the nested quotes, I'd been responding to you saying that "No evidence needed". I'm not interested in trying to persuade you that evidence is, in fact, needed, at least if your goal is to try to make a persuasive argument, so if you're willing to stick to that logic, I decided it'd be best to throw in the towel in trying to persuade you here.

Cliche fallacy.

No, I gave you a small essay there. Based on what you just said, I'd say you're the one who's close to a cliche fallacy here. Only it's not even that, because your assertion doesn't even past a superficial logic test.

 

[Scott]

Where do you see a fallacy fallacy in what I've said? For those who haven't heard of a fallacy fallacy:
The Fallacy Fallacy: Why Fallacious Arguments Can Have True Conclusions | effectiviology.com



Are you referring to the Appeal to the Stone fallacy? For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

If so, could you point out what argument you believe I've unfairly dismissed?


What strawman do you believe I've built up?

Redefinition fallacy.

I'm going to guess that you're referring to Wikipedia's "Fallacies of definition":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition

If you'd like to explain why you think I've engaged in such a fallacy, by all means.

 

[Scott]

I have given you multiple links that show how to isolate and sequence viruses.

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.

Paradox.

Where?

RQAA.

Again, saying that you've already answered a question is not the same thing as providing solid evidence that you've done so.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You haven't shown any evidence that Davis has gotten anything wrong.



You clearly didn't read Iain Davis article in depth. Quoting from it:

**
The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian


I imagine you don't know what de novo assembly is. I certainly didn't before Iain's article. Iain Davis helpfully provides a link above that goes to a page that defines the various types of de novo assembly. Here's one of them that essentially is saying what I just said above:

**

Assembly Algorithms

There are many de novo assembly algorithms and software applications available for Next Generation sequencing projects. For small genome assembly (i.e. bacterial scale genomes) our clients often use Spades and Geneious but may use other tools if it’s more appropriate.
**

Source:
What is de novo assembly? | thesequencingcenter.com

I read his article....

It seems there is no evidence that a virus called SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called COVID 19.

That is false. There is a lot of evidence. The virus had been sequenced over 100,000 times by October of 2020.
https://asm.org/Articles/2020/October/SARS-CoV-2-Sequencing-Data-The-Devil-Is-in-the-Gen

How can they sequence something that doesn't exist over 5,00,000 times?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=txid2697049[Organism:noexp] NOT 0[Mbases

The original sequencing article can be found here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

Davis simply ignores much of the science and pretends that his idiotic claims prove their scientific paper is false.
Would you care to compare this to what Davis claims?
RNA library construction and sequencing

Total RNA was extracted from the BALF sample using the RNeasy Plus Universal Mini kit (Qiagen) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The quantity and quality of the RNA solution was assessed using a Qbit machine and an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies) before library construction and sequencing. An RNA library was then constructed using the SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq kit v.2 (TaKaRa). Ribosomal RNA depletion was performed during library construction following the manufacturer’s instructions. Paired-end (150-bp reads) sequencing of the RNA library was performed on the MiniSeq platform (Illumina). Library preparation and sequencing were carried out at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Davis simply ignores all the science. And you are willing to trot along after him because you are nothing but a troll that promotes conspiracy theories.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I never said the process of isolating various microbes such as bacteria or even proteins doesn't exist. I -am- saying that I don't believe a biological virus has ever been isolated, because they simply don't exist.

And yet your ONLY argument against the science was that they didn't use the word "isolate" in their article. Yep, you are nothing but a troll.
The HIV virus has been sequenced over 1.6 million times by multiple labs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=HIV

How can they sequence something that doesn't exist?
Why is the sequence for HIV so different from Sars Covid 2 and other viruses? Why are the symptoms of those found with HIV particular to that virus?

Occam's razor keeps cutting your arguments off at the knees and revealing you for the troll you are.

 

[Into the Night]

Saying that a question has been repeated and that you (or someone else) has already answered it is not the same thing as providing solid evidence that this is the case.

Attempted proof by negation.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I gave you a small essay there. Based on what you just said, I'd say you're the one who's close to a cliche fallacy here. Only it's not even that, because your assertion doesn't even past a superficial logic test.

Redefinition fallacy. Discard of logic.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm going to guess that you're referring to Wikipedia's "Fallacies of definition":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition

If you'd like to explain why you think I've engaged in such a fallacy, by all means.

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Again, saying that you've already answered a question is not the same thing as providing solid evidence that you've done so.

Nonsense statement.

 

[Scott]

You clearly didn't read Iain Davis article in depth. Quoting from it:

**
The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian


I imagine you don't know what de novo assembly is. I certainly didn't before Iain's article. Iain Davis helpfully provides a link above that goes to a page that defines the various types of de novo assembly. Here's one of them that essentially is saying what I just said above:

**

Assembly Algorithms

There are many de novo assembly algorithms and software applications available for Next Generation sequencing projects. For small genome assembly (i.e. bacterial scale genomes) our clients often use Spades and Geneious but may use other tools if it’s more appropriate.
**

Source:
What is de novo assembly? | thesequencingcenter.com

I read his article....

It seems there is no evidence that a virus called SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called COVID 19.

That is false. There is a lot of evidence. The virus had been sequenced over 100,000 times by October of 2020.
https://asm.org/Articles/2020/October/SARS-CoV-2-Sequencing-Data-The-Devil-Is-in-the-Gen

Saying that the alleged Cov 2 virus has been sequenced 100k times over and over again doesn't make it so. You didn't address the quote from Iain Davis' article at all. You know, the fact that all alleged sequencing of the Cov 2 virus is based on the original Wuhan sequencing, which was de novo sequencing- that is, an arrangement guessed at, probably by computer software, and the alleged cov 2 virus has never been isolated.

The original sequencing article can be found here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

Iain Davis actually links to that very article- it's the very first link in the quote I made from his article. It's apparently where he realized that they had never isolated the alleged virus and simply guessed at its arrangement using de novo assembly.

 

[Scott]

A lot of technical terms there, but have you noticed that that terms such as isolate or isolation were not mentioned once? I also note that the paper is talking about the alleged AIDS virus, HIV. Here's a link I personally find quite revealing:
http://www.newscastmedia.com/aids-hoax.html

Quoting from it:
**
Newscast Media -- It has been dubbed the incurable disease caused by an elusive virus called the HIV/AIDS virus. However, scientists have presented compelling evidence showing that HIV/AIDS is nothing more than a pseudo-science hoax and the real culprits are the AIDS medications like AZT that do more harm than good.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that every case of AIDS includes one of the 29 pre-existing illnesses that were defined by the CDC. These include the three additional conditions namely: Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and Cervical cancer that were added on October 28, 1992. James Curran, CDC's associate director for AIDS justified the addition by saying, "We expect this expansion to result in more comprehensive monitoring of the epidemic of HIV infection and related disease in the United States." Click here to download entire 16 page PDF. *(See Page 9 for full list.)

What is most remarkable is that the addition of just those three categories brought in an additional 160,000 HIV-infected people who were not yet seriously ill and were not now considered to have AIDS. With these additions Virologists, researchers, and clinics can now receive huge grants and funding for research. We can therefore make the inference that AIDS is not a new disease, it is simply a collection of designated illnesses already known to the scientific community and the general public.

Notice that none of the 29 AIDS illnesses are new and none appear exclusively in people who test positive for HIV antibodies.
**

Full article:
AIDS Hoax: The truth behind the virus that never was | newscastmedia.com

ROFLMAO. SO because they don't use the word "isolate" you think the process doesn't exist?

I never said the process of isolating various microbes such as bacteria or even proteins doesn't exist. I -am- saying that I don't believe a biological virus has ever been isolated, because they simply don't exist.

And yet your ONLY argument against the science was that they didn't use the word "isolate" in their article.

No, my main arguments against the quote you posted at the end of Post #190 consisted of an article that I quoted, which is the start of the nested quotes above. The fact that they made no mention of isolating the alleged HIV virus was just highly suggestive that said virus hasn't been isolated.

Yep, you are nothing but a troll.

Well, at least you got a sentence in before laying in with an ad hominem attack.