Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Concart]

I see you have decided to use Into The Night's tactics of simply declaring logical fallacies while never defending your statements.

You have presented no evidence of fraud by the thousands that have sequences millions of viruses. The fact that you have accused them of fraud but now admit you will not be presenting any evidence of their fraud points to your argument being the one that is void of any actual evidence.

If germ theory is a fraud then Koch's postulates must also be a fraud since they rely on germ theory. If Koch's postulates are a fraud then requiring a fraud be used to prove the existence of viruses would appear to be illogical beyond belief.

Let's put this in perspective. You are arguing that germ theory is a fraud while at the same time one of the basic tenets of germ theory must be used before you will believe viruses exist. You have no other argument at this point. You have shown the only fraud is you.

A precise and surgical defenstration of his position.

Although I prefer to quote the words of the immortal SpongeBob Squarepants: 'Hey, we already PLAYED babbling like an idiot"

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Good deflection, but I see through it. If you can't provide evidence that their method isn't valid, this conversation ends here.

I have already shown that humans can exist as living creatures that multiply but cannot be proven to exist by Koch's postulates.
Since one creature can exist then it is possible that others like viruses can exist without be proven by Koch's postulates.
Stating that viruses don't exist because they can't be isolated by Koch's postulates is nonsense.

Do humans exist even though they can't be isolated using Koch's postulate? This is some simple logic here.
Koch's postulates apply to bacteria. They don't apply to humans, worms or viruses.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I disagree, I believe the above statement I made was a great defense of the statement I quoted. I also note that you didn't even try to defend Louis Pasteur. Do you agree that he was a fraud?

What I believe is irrelevant since it is your argument we are discussing. Your attempt to deflect by not addressing my poking gaping holes in your arguments is what? An admission you can't defend your position?

If as you claim Loius Pasteur is a fraud then Koch must also be a fraud since Koch's work built on Pasteur. If Koch is a fraud then you are demanding that we use a fraud to prove viruses exist. At this point your argument is completely bereft of any substance. Your attempt to deflect is noted. Your failure to defend your argument is noted.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I never claimed to have such evidence. Fraud implies that those doing the sequencing know that what they are claiming isn't true. I've never made that claim. But just because many people believe something is true doesn't make it so. Some of the originals in the germ theory vs. terrain theory were definitely frauds, however. Do you agree that Lous Pasteur was a fraud?

Since you have no evidence of fraud the tenets of logic and Occam's razor would indicate that thousands of people duplicating a process millions of times would be valid and true. What they believe isn't relevant. The results are what is relevant. Millions of times they have come up with the same sequences for particular viruses. For that to not be the result of sequencing those actual viruses would be impossible from a mathematical standpoint.

Just because a few people think something isn't true doesn't make it so. Evidence to support their claim is what makes it so. Simply denying the overwhelming evidence doesn't make their claim true. The denial points to them being conspiracy theorists that can't defend their own position in any manner.

 

[Scott]

Good deflection, but I see through it. If you can't provide evidence that their method isn't valid, this conversation ends here.

I have already shown that humans can exist as living creatures that multiply but cannot be proven to exist by Koch's postulates. Since one creature can exist then it is possible that others like viruses can exist without be proven by Koch's postulates. Stating that viruses don't exist because they can't be isolated by Koch's postulates is nonsense.

I believe I remember you talking about Koch's postulates and humans. If you like, link me to that post and I'll check it out again. In any case, the team of doctors came up with their own criteria for looking for evidence of viruses. In the article referenced and linked to in the opening post, the signatury group of doctors outlined what I'll call their gold standard for detecting viruses:

**

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**

However, they acknowledge that virologists or other interested parties probably won't do these steps and offer to meet them halfway:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

STEP ONE

5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.

(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)


If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.
It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.
**

 

[Scott]

Strawman, I never claimed I'd presented such evidence. I said "I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur"

Perhaps I should have limited myself to Louis Pasteur himself. A good article on his fraudulent activities:

Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com

I see you have decided to use Into The Night's tactics of simply declaring logical fallacies while never defending your statements.

I disagree, I believe the above statement I made was a great defense of the statement I quoted. I also note that you didn't even try to defend Louis Pasteur. Do you agree that he was a fraud?

What I believe is irrelevant since it is your argument we are discussing.

As if I've only presented a single argument. -One- of my arguments is that Louis Pasteur engaged in a lot of fraudulent activities. If you were to agree with me that he did indeed engage in a lot of fraudulent activities, it'd put a serious dent in the notion that a lot of modern medicine isn't full of quackery. Just taking a brief look at the introduction to his wikipedia article shows just how much faith the current establishment holds of his "discoveries":

**
Louis Pasteur ForMemRS (/ˈluːi pæˈstɜːr/, French: [lwi pastœʁ]; 27 December 1822 – 28 September 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization, the last of which was named after him.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur

Your attempt to deflect by not addressing my poking gaping holes in your arguments is what? An admission you can't defend your position?

I addressed your issues, just not in the way you wanted me to address them.

If as you claim Loius Pasteur is a fraud then Koch must also be a fraud since Koch's work built on Pasteur.

Robert Koch certainly engaged in fraudulent activity. From Virus Mania:

**
The other shining light of modern medicine, German doctor Robert Koch (1843-1910) was also an enterprising swindler. At the “10th International Medical Congress” in Berlin in 1890, the microbe hunter “with the oversized ego”275 pronounced that he had developed a miracle substance against tuberculosis.276

And in the German Weekly Medical Journal (Deutsche Medizinische Wochenzeitschrift), Koch even claimed his tests on guinea pigs had proved that it was possible “to bring the disease completely to a halt without damaging the body in other ways.”277

The reaction of the world-at-large to this alleged miracle drug “Tuberkulin” was at first so overwhelming that in Berlin, Koch’s domain, sanatoria shot out of the ground like mushrooms.278

Sick people from all over the world turned the German capital into a sort of pilgrimage site.279 But soon enough, Tuberkulin was found to be a catastrophic failure. Long-term cures did not emerge, and instead one hearse after another drove up to the sanatoria. And newspapers such as the New Year’s edition of the satirical Der wahre Jakob (The Real McCoy) jeered: “Herr Professor Koch! Would you like to reveal a remedy for dizziness bacteria!”280
**

Source:
Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (p. 64). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

For those who like videos, Dr. Sam Bailey has a good one on the subject of Koch and his postulates here:

Koch’s Postulates: Germ School Dropout | drsambailey.com

If Koch is a fraud then you are demanding that we use a fraud to prove viruses exist.

There's evidence that Koch may have actually cribbed some of his postulate material from others. But regardless, it's not Koch's postulates that I'm interested in, but rather the criteria that the group of doctors referenced in the opening post have laid out and that I reference in Post #285.

 

[Scott]

I never claimed to have such evidence. Fraud implies that those doing the sequencing know that what they are claiming isn't true. I've never made that claim. But just because many people believe something is true doesn't make it so. Some of the originals in the germ theory vs. terrain theory were definitely frauds, however. Do you agree that Lous Pasteur was a fraud?

Since you have no evidence of fraud the tenets of logic and Occam's razor would indicate that thousands of people duplicating a process millions of times would be valid and true.

I have claimed that the alleged "science" of these sequences is faulty. A fraud implies that those doing the sequencing area aware that this science is faulty, which I have not claimed.

 

[Scott]

As the dominant paradigm, I believe it should be up to those who believe that biological viruses exist to provide compelling evidence that this is so, not the other way around.

That isn't the way science works.

I think it's only logical that any theory, for instance the theory that viruses exist, should have solid evidence to back it up. If a theory doesn't have such evidence, it becomes suspect by default.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I believe I remember you talking about Koch's postulates and humans. If you like, link me to that post and I'll check it out again. In any case, the team of doctors came up with their own criteria for looking for evidence of viruses. In the article referenced and linked to in the opening post, the signatury group of doctors outlined what I'll call their gold standard for detecting viruses:

**

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**

Gosh.. that looks almost exactly like Koch's postulates. As as already been stated Koch's postulates don't apply to humans, worms, wombats or viruses.

However, they acknowledge that virologists or other interested parties probably won't do these steps and offer to meet them halfway:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

STEP ONE

5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.

(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)


If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.
It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.
**

More nonsense that ignores that this has been done repeatedly for over a decade. Viruses have been isolated from nasal samples and found to have the same genetic sequence over a million times. Demanding that they do it again before they believe it is nonsense on their part. It would be like arguing you won't believe humans can build a home until they build an identical home on 5 different locations of your choosing. It is nothing but ignoring reality.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There's evidence that Koch may have actually cribbed some of his postulate material from others. But regardless, it's not Koch's postulates that I'm interested in, but rather the criteria that the group of doctors referenced in the opening post have laid out and that I reference in Post #285.

So you aren't interested in what the doctors are demanding because they are demanding Koch's postulates? Could you make yourself look any less informed?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I have claimed that the alleged "science" of these sequences is faulty. A fraud implies that those doing the sequencing area aware that this science is faulty, which I have not claimed.

Right.. You are claiming that what thousands of people have done millions of times that have always had the same result is somehow wrong. You just can't tell us how it is wrong. You have no evidence of them being wrong, you just are arguing they are because someone else said they are wrong.

I would say you are the only fraud we are seeing at this point. Clearly you are incapable of critical thinking that even a 5 year old can handle.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think it's only logical that any theory, for instance the theory that viruses exist, should have solid evidence to back it up. If a theory doesn't have such evidence, it becomes suspect by default.

It has solid evidence. There is a database that contains over 10 million times that viruses have been sequenced. You have not provided any evidence to show how those sequences could possibly be wrong. You have said the process used is correct when it comes to DNA from humans but somehow that same process becomes flawed with viruses. Can you explain your lack of thinking on this subject?

 

[Into the Night]

As if I've only presented a single argument. -One- of my arguments is that Louis Pasteur engaged in a lot of fraudulent activities. If you were to agree with me that he did indeed engage in a lot of fraudulent activities, it'd put a serious dent in the notion that a lot of modern medicine isn't full of quackery. Just taking a brief look at the introduction to his wikipedia article shows just how much faith the current establishment holds of his "discoveries":

Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I have claimed that the alleged "science" of these sequences is faulty. A fraud implies that those doing the sequencing area aware that this science is faulty, which I have not claimed.

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no 'faulty'. As long as ANY theory withstands tests designed to destroy it, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is falsified.
Ignoring a theory of science does not falsify it. Bulverism does not falsify it.

Attempted proof by bulverism.

 

[Into the Night]

It has solid evidence. There is a database that contains over 10 million times that viruses have been sequenced. You have not provided any evidence to show how those sequences could possibly be wrong. You have said the process used is correct when it comes to DNA from humans but somehow that same process becomes flawed with viruses. Can you explain your lack of thinking on this subject?

Irrelevance fallacy. No theory can be proved True, not even a theory of science.

Neither of you have referred to ANY theory of science. Neither of you are discussing science at all (other than trying to deny it).

Whether viruses exist or not is a failure of logic, not science. Viruses exist by definition. This word has existed since the 14th century. They simply are. Proof by identity.
The use of the word to refer to submicroscopic (at least optical ones!) infectious agents is again, just a definition. Viruses exist because they are defined to exist. They have been viewed on electron microscopes. To argue whether they exist or not is simply ridiculous.

 

[Into the Night]

It has solid evidence. There is a database that contains over 10 million times that viruses have been sequenced. You have not provided any evidence to show how those sequences could possibly be wrong. You have said the process used is correct when it comes to DNA from humans but somehow that same process becomes flawed with viruses. Can you explain your lack of thinking on this subject?

Irrelevance fallacy. No theory can be proved True, not even a theory of science.

Neither of you have referred to ANY theory of science. Neither of you are discussing science at all (other than trying to deny it).

Whether viruses exist or not is a failure of logic, not science. Viruses exist by definition. This word has existed since the 14th century. They simply are. Proof by identity.
The use of the word to refer to submicroscopic (at least optical ones!) infectious agents is again, just a definition. Viruses exist because they are defined to exist. They have been viewed on electron microscopes. To argue whether they exist or not is simply ridiculous.

 

[Walt]

Strawman, I never claimed I'd presented such evidence. I said "I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur"

Perhaps I should have limited myself to Louis Pasteur himself. A good article on his fraudulent activities:

Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com

Wait, you are now arguing against the germ theory? That was literally settled 150 years ago or so.

 

[Scott]

I believe I remember you talking about Koch's postulates and humans. If you like, link me to that post and I'll check it out again. In any case, the team of doctors came up with their own criteria for looking for evidence of viruses. In the article referenced and linked to in the opening post, the signatury group of doctors outlined what I'll call their gold standard for detecting viruses:

**

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**

Gosh.. that looks almost exactly like Koch's postulates. As as already been stated Koch's postulates don't apply to humans, worms, wombats or viruses.

So you say. I can't speak for humans, worms or wombats, but I strongly suspect that those who "decide" such things decided they don't "apply" to biological viruses because they couldn't find biological viruses this way. Furthermore, I believe they couldn't find them this way because they simply don't exist.

However, they acknowledge that virologists or other interested parties probably won't do these steps and offer to meet them halfway:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

STEP ONE

5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.

(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)


If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.
It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.
**

More nonsense that ignores that this has been done repeatedly for over a decade.

Show me proof of this then.

Viruses have been isolated from nasal samples

I don't believe that biological viruses have ever been isolated, but if you believe you have evidence that they have in fact been isolated, by all means present it.

 

[Scott]

There's evidence that Koch may have actually cribbed some of his postulate material from others. But regardless, it's not Koch's postulates that I'm interested in, but rather the criteria that the group of doctors referenced in the opening post have laid out and that I reference in Post #285.

So you aren't interested in what the doctors are demanding because they are demanding Koch's postulates?

You seem to be confusing evidence with Koch engaging in fraudulent activities with Koch's postulates, some of which may have been "borrowed" from others. I believe that the statement laid out by the group of doctors that lays out the evidence they'd need to see to be persuaded that biological viruses exist is a good starting point. If these experiments are ever done, I'll probably be the first to post about it here.

 

[Scott]

I have claimed that the alleged "science" of these sequences is faulty. A fraud implies that those doing the sequencing area aware that this science is faulty, which I have not claimed.

Right.. You are claiming that what thousands of people have done millions of times that have always had the same result is somehow wrong.

The issue is, what precisely are they sequencing if there's no solid evidence that they've ever isolated a biological virus? The group of doctors referenced in the opening post actually address this in their "Settling the Virus Debate Statement", right after they mention the steps that would be needed to be taken in order to provide the most compelling evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist. Bolding the part where sequencing is mentioned:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.
**

The statement then goes on with the steps that are easier to accomplish then what I've mentioned in the past as the "gold standard".