Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

They do more than that, but I hadn't yet found where when I'd written the above. I decided to do a deeper dive into the material the signatories of the statement referenced in the opening post have in regards to viruses. Ended up reading a 67 page essay on the subject by one of the signatories of the statement Dr. Mark Bailey. Glad I did, but I understand if you might not be inclined to read the whole thing, given your beliefs on the issue. It's here at any rate:

A farewell to virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com


If you do plan on reading some or all of it, I recommend downloading the pdf version.

In any case, I'll quote the abstract below...

Science is not a paper, book, magazine, or website.

Agreed.

The existence of a paper is not a proof.

I think it depends on what kind of paper we're talking about. I believe you agreed that there are mathematical proofs.

**
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfill its own requirements.

It doesn't have any requirements.

Dr. Mark Bailey clearly disagrees with you there.

It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing.

No, it isn't. It exists.

Present it then.

One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases.

Lie.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method,

Science is not a method or procedure.

He didn't say it was. He referred to the scientific method. Apparently, you're not familiar with the term. You may want to take a look at the following article from britannica.com:

scientific method | britannica.com

as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words

Dictionaries don't define any word.

Do you know of anyone in this forum that agrees with you on that? In any case, perhaps it's best we agree to disagree on that one.

in order to support their anti-scientific practices.

Science is not a practice.

Agreed, but he didn't say "anti-science practices", he said "anti-scientific practices". In case you're unfamiliar with the term scientific, here's The American Heritage Dictionary's definition via wordnik:

**
adjective Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/scientific

For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.

Try English. It works better.

Dr. Mark Bailey is speaking english, but apparently you got lost as to what he was talking about, perhaps because you were breaking down his sentences into snippets. I think it'd probably make more sense if you were to look at the previous 2 sentences before that along with the sentence you just quoted to get a better idea as to what he's referring to:

**
One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
**

A viral particle must fulfill defined physical and biological properties including being a replication- competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human.

Viruses do not replicate by themselves. They do cause disease.

Dr. Mark Bailey never claimed that these alleged viruses can replicate by themselves. He said that to "fulfill the defined physical and biological properties" of a virus, they must be "replication-competent". They must also cause disease.

However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations.

Lie. This particular variant actually exists. There are even pictures of it taken with electron microscopes.

No, they have pictures of vesicles of unknown composition and function. Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith get into this in another paper, The Covid-19 Fraud & War on Humanity. Quoting from it:

**
Published in The New England Journal of Medicine on 20 February 2020, Na Zhu et al.
describe their study of lower respiratory tract samples, including bronchoalveolar
lavage fluid (BALF), collected from four patients with pneumonia of unknown cause,
all of whom had visited the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan shortly before their
clinical presentation.40

Despite claiming isolation of the virus, it is clear that the authors do not mean
“isolation” in the dictionary and postulated sense but virology’s substituted antonymic
meaning and the substitution of diseased for non-diseased host cells to establish
causality between a purported virus and the patient’s illness.41 In this case, the
supernatant centrifuged from patient BALF “was inoculated on human epithelial cells
… resected from patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer”, although purportedly
pathogen-free.42 In any event, cancer cells would be present in such cells, and, as they
are wont to do, such cells produce an abundance of exosomes, which would be visible
by way of Transmission Electron Microscopy.43 Unlike Fan Wu et al. and Peng Zhou et
al., Na Zhu et al. did produce images of what they described as “2019-nCoV particles”
but without any verification of their biochemical composition from a purified
specimen.44 It is simply impossible to establish from the proffered images that the
particles are viruses (i.e., infectious and disease causing) or that they contained the
alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome.

Yet despite this double deception that haunts virology, virologists still cling to their
beliefs and their jobs. For as Na Zhu et al. put it: “Although our study does not fulfil
Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence of implicating 2019-nCoV in the
Wuhan outbreak.”45 The basis of this claim seems to be the authors placing
arrowheads on extracellular vesicles of unknown composition and christening them
“2019-nCoV”

Implication and unknown composition, however, was good enough for the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided the National Institute for Viral Disease
Control and Prevention, with which 13 of the 18 co-authors were affiliated, with a
2020 COVID-19-related grant under INV-019121 for US$71,700 “to support China CDC
to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 serological diagnostic reagents in China and
provide evidence for scientific use of reagents in clinical diagnosis and epidemiological
survey”.45
**

Source:
The Covid-19 Fraud & War on Humanity | drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.”

Covid19 is a real virus. it is the colloquial name for SARS-Cov2, part of the SARS/Covid series of viruses (about a few dozen have been discovered so far). NONE of them kill.

While it's true that people refer to the alleged Cov 2 virus as Covid 19, it's better to refer to it as Cov 2, for the simple reason that Covid 19 is supposed to be the symptoms caused by this alleged Cov 2 virus. In any case, I will say this- seeing as how I don't believe the Cov 2 virus exists at all, I think you can see how your position that it doesn't kill anyone is a lot closer to my position that it doesn't exist at all then the position of most who think that it's killed a great many people.

As an aside, a journalist friend of mine who briefly considered the possibility that viruses don't exist (in fact, it was her bringing up this possibility that started my path to believing this myself) co-wrote an interesting article back in July 2020 that I think you might find interesting:

“No one has died from the coronavirus” : Important revelations shared by Dr Stoian Alexov, President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association | Off Guardian

The existence of a virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions.

If one calls covid19 a pandemic, than the common cold is a pandemic. Big hairy deal.

Since I no longer believe in any biological viruses, the common cold would by necessity have to be caused by something else, just as Covid 19 cases would have to be caused by one or more other things. I believe that pollution and Electro Magnetic Frequencies, or EMFs for short, are likely candidates. There's actuallysome studies that found correlations between these things and Covid 19:

Coronavirus and Air Pollution | harvard.edu

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G | nih.gov

Similarly, there is evidence that there is a correlation between EMFs and the flu, but I don't know of any studies conducted to specifically test for a correlation. I did read a good book suggesting the connection however, this one:

The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life | Amazon.com

 

[Scott]

This essay contains three parts.

Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method.

Science is not a method or procedure.

Agreed, but there is a scientific method. Again, if you haven't checked it out yet, brittanica.com has an article on the term here:

scientific method | brittanica.com

The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence,

There is direct evidence. This statement is an outright lie.

By all means present it then.

and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments.

Science does not use indirect evidence.

It does actually:

**
Misconception: Scientists’ observations directly tell them how things work (i.e., knowledge is “read off” nature, not built).

Correction: Scientists build knowledge through a complex process that involves coming up with ideas about how things work and then seeing if observations back those explanations up. Read more about it.
**

Source:
Understanding Science 101 | berkeley.edu

Experiments and controls are not necessary in science.

I suspect you might benefit from taking a look at the following article:

What An Experimental Control Is And Why It’s So Important | sciencetrends.com

It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templating them against previous “virus” templates.

There is no such thing as a virus 'template'. Buzzword fallacy.

He's simply referring to the fact that the way virology works, the evidence for new alleged viruses comes from them having similarities to older alleged viruses. It's essentially a house of cards that comes falling down when one realizes that no alleged virus has ever been isolated. As Dr. Mark Bailey points out, he gets into this in more detail in part 2 of his essay.

Using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, the trail of “coronavirus” genomic templates going back to the 1980s reveals that none of these genetic sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any viral particle

There is no such thing as a 'viral particle'. Buzzword fallacy.

Ironically, I think Mark Bailey would agree with you seeing as he doesn't believe biological viruses exists, but virologists certainly believe in virus particles, if not viral particles. Brittanica.com has an article on virions, which it defines as whole virus particles here if you're interested:
https://www.britannica.com/science/virion

— the phylogenetic trees are fantasies. The misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction has propagated this aspect of virology’s fraud and created the ‘cases’ to maintain the illusion of a pandemic.

The fraud with covid19 has nothing to do with the virus itself. It has to do with manufacturing 'deaths' from a virus that simply does not kill, to play upon people's fear and implement tyranny. Nations around the world have done this, including the United States.

We disagree regarding the existence of the Cov 2 virus, but I agree that this alleged virus, real or not, didn't kill anyone. As to who in power knows or suspects this but pretends otherwise, that's something I'd rather not speculate on too much.

 

[Scott]

No, it defines a whole lot more words than that.

Wikipedia defines no word except 'Wikipedia'.

I suspect we may have to simply agree to disagree here.

Now, you may not -agree- with their definitions, and that's fine, but if you and I can't agree on the definition of a word, we have a problem.

Wikipedia does not define any word except 'Wikipedia'.

You already said that in your very last sentence, not sure why you're repeating it again.

Yes...you have a problem.

If I'm having a discussion with you and we can't agree on the definition of a word, you have a problem too.

This is why I suggested you find a well known source instead of apparently just defining the term yourself.

There is no single source.

There I agree. But if you were to find a well known source that supports your definition of science, I could perhaps be swayed to use your definition, at least when speaking with you. Failing that, I'll stick with Wikipedia's definition of the term.

I am not defining anything here.

You very clearly defined science as "a set of falsifiable theories" in Post #309 in this thread.

 

[Scott]

Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, which defines mathematics as "the science of numbers and their operations...", it would seem to be a branch of science.

False authority fallacy. Wikipedia does not define 'mathematics' nor 'science'.

I think I've probably done this before, but just in case I haven't- I'm pretty sure that what you call "false authority fallacy" is more commonly known as the "appeal to authority" fallacy. In this case, however, I just used Wikipedia because it's a fairly well known reference when it comes to the definitions of words. As to your second sentence, if you could find a single poster other than yourself in this forum that would agree that Wikipedia doesn't define the 2 words you just mentioned, I'd be be somewhat surprised.

Pretty sure most would disagree with you there. Wikipedia certainly does. From their entry on the term:

I really don't give a damn about Wikipedia.

I don't always agree with Wikipedia articles myself, but it is a well known reference, and usually comes up on the first page of search results. If there's another well known reference you'd prefer using, I'm amenable to considering it.

You cannot use it as a reference with me.

I can and I have. That doesn't mean I will continue doing so, especially if you give me an alternative fairly well known reference that you prefer.

Too many articles in it are incomplete, biased, or just plain wrong.

As mentioned previously, I actually agree with you that some of their articles have a fair amount of factual errors. In cases where I believe a Wikipedia article is factually innacurate, I tend to avoid it. But if a Wikipedia article looks good, I frequently use it.

**
A dictionary is a listing of lexemes from the lexicon of one or more specific languages, often arranged alphabetically (or by radical and stroke for ideographic languages), which may include information on definitions, usage, etymologies, pronunciations, translation, etc.[1][2][3] It is a lexicographical reference that shows inter-relationships among the data.[4]
**

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

False authority fallacy. No dictionary defines any word.

Again, I'd be surprised if you could find anyone else in this forum who'd agree with you there.

Perhaps, but it is also apparently a branch of science.

Mathematics is not a branch of science. Mathematics is a closed functional system.

Did a quick internet search, found that Wikipedia disagrees with you on this as well. From their article on branches of science:

**
The branches of science, also referred to as sciences, scientific fields or scientific disciplines, are commonly divided into three major groups:

Formal sciences: the study of formal systems, such as those under the branches of logic and mathematics, which use an a priori, as opposed to empirical, methodology.

Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including cosmological, geological, physical, chemical, and biological factors of the universe). Natural science can be divided into two main branches: physical science and life science (or biology).

Social sciences: the study of human behavior in its social and cultural aspects.[1]
**

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

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

So you say, but I have yet to see a well known source claim the same.

Science is not defined by vote.

Agreed, but what we're actually talking about here is the definition of words. If you can't find a well known source to back up your claim that "science is a set of falsifiable theories", I'll stick with the Wikipedia definition of science instead.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, quoting from Dr. Mark Bailey's abstract:

**
In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.”
**

People die every day for all sorts of reasons. Labelling some of those deaths to be caused by "Covid-19" does not mean that a virus had to have caused those deaths. Here's a snippet from Dr. Mark Bailey's essay that I think is quite apt in regards to this newly invented disease allegedly being caused by this alleged Cov 2 virus:


**
Despite the resources available to them, ESR apparently do not believe in the necessity to check for themselves whether SARS-CoV-2 can be shown to exist. On 19 July 2022, in response to an OIA request they stated that, “ESR has not performed any experiments to scientifically prove the existence of SARS-COV-2 virus and can therefore not provide you with any records.”70 On 17 August 2022 in response to another request, they admitted that, “ESR has not performed any experiments to scientifically prove that [the] SARS-COV-2 virus causes COVID-19 and can therefore not provide you with any records.”71 Nobody else has performed these required scientific experiments either.
**




Where are you getting this alleged statistic?

No variant of the SARS/Covid series of viruses kill.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed.
I think it depends on what kind of paper we're talking about. I believe you agreed that there are mathematical proofs.

A paper is not a proof.

Dr. Mark Bailey clearly disagrees with you there.

So?

Present it then.

No need. It's been presented by others.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

RQAA

He didn't say it was. He referred to the scientific method. Apparently, you're not familiar with the term. You may want to take a look at the following article from britannica.com:

Science is not a method or procedure. Britannica does not define any word. False authority fallacy.

Do you know of anyone in this forum that agrees with you on that? In any case, perhaps it's best we agree to disagree on that one.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

Agreed, but he didn't say "anti-science practices", he said "anti-scientific practices". In case you're unfamiliar with the term scientific, here's The American Heritage Dictionary's definition via wordnik:

**
adjective Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.
**

Semantics fallacy. Science is not a practice.

Dr. Mark Bailey is speaking english,

Nope. Too many meaningless buzzwords. I would flunk this paper just on the abstract for the reasons I stated.

but apparently you got lost as to what he was talking about, perhaps because you were breaking down his sentences into snippets.

I break down posts and respond to individual arguments. Fallacy fallacy.

I think it'd probably make more sense if you were to look at the previous 2 sentences before that along with the sentence you just quoted to get a better idea as to what he's referring to:

...deleted your remaining repetition...

Repetition fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. Redefinition fallacies. False authority fallacies.

A virus exists by definition. You don't get to just redefine science. No dictionary defines science. No website defines science. No encylopedia defines science.

 

[Into the Night]

While it's true that people refer to the alleged Cov 2 virus as Covid 19, it's better to refer to it as Cov 2, for the simple reason that Covid 19 is supposed to be the symptoms caused by this alleged Cov 2 virus.

Covid19 is not a symptom. Is a colloquial name. It's the same virus.

In any case, I will say this- seeing as how I don't believe the Cov 2 virus exists at all, I think you can see how your position that it doesn't kill anyone is a lot closer to my position that it doesn't exist at all then the position of most who think that it's killed a great many people.

No variant of the Covid/SARS series of viruses kill. Covid19 is the mildest variant so far discovered.

As an aside, a journalist friend of mine who briefly considered the possibility that viruses don't exist (in fact, it was her bringing up this possibility that started my path to believing this myself) co-wrote an interesting article back in July 2020 that I think you might find interesting:

I have no interest in reading any article that denies science.

Since I no longer believe in any biological viruses, the common cold would by necessity have to be caused by something else, just as Covid 19 cases would have to be caused by one or more other things. I believe that pollution and Electro Magnetic Frequencies, or EMFs for short, are likely candidates. There's actuallysome studies that found correlations between these things and Covid 19:

Since you discard virology, which is a branch of science, you discard science with it.

Similarly, there is evidence that there is a correlation between EMFs and the flu,

None.

but I don't know of any studies conducted to specifically test for a correlation.

Correlation is not causation. EMF does not cause any disease.

I did read a good book suggesting the connection however, this one:

So you believe in this claptrap also. Gotit.

 

[Scott]

No variant of the SARS/Covid series of viruses kill.

Well, we can certainly agree on that, even if we don't agree that the virus itself exists.

 

[Scott]

I think it depends on what kind of paper we're talking about. I believe you agreed that there are mathematical proofs.

A paper is not a proof.

Do you not agree that there are papers of mathematical proofs?

Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfill its own requirements.

It doesn't have any requirements.

Dr. Mark Bailey clearly disagrees with you there.

So?

First of all, Dr. Mark Bailey has quite a few credentials to his name. From the last page in his "farewell to virology" essay:
**
Dr Mark Bailey MB ChB, PGDipMSM, MHealSc (Otago)
Is a microbiology, medical industry and health researcher who worked in medical practice, including clinical trials, for two decades.
**

Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com

Do you have any credentials of this nature?

Secondly, he goes on to explain how virology has failed its own requirements immediately after that first sentence in his Farewell to Virology essay:

**
It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmittng between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
**

It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing.

No, it isn't. It exists.

Present it then.

No need. It's been presented by others.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases.

Lie.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

RQAA

Where have you allegedly answered this question before?

Science is not a method or procedure.

He didn't say it was. He referred to the scientific method. Apparently, you're not familiar with the term. You may want to take a look at the following article from britannica.com:

scientific method | britannica.com

Science is not a method or procedure.

Again, that's a straw man argument. Neither I nor Dr. Mark Bailey stated it was. Dr. Mark Bailey referred to the scientific method.

Britannica does not define any word.

I'd be surprised if anyone else here would agree with you on that.

Dictionaries don't define any word.

Do you know of anyone in this forum that agrees with you on that? In any case, perhaps it's best we agree to disagree on that one.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

Agreed, but we're not talking about science here, we're talking about dictionaries and whether or not they define words.

in order to support their anti-scientific practices.

Science is not a practice.

Agreed, but he didn't say "anti-science practices", he said "anti-scientific practices". In case you're unfamiliar with the term scientific, here's The American Heritage Dictionary's definition via wordnik:

**
adjective Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/scientific

Semantics fallacy. Science is not a practice.

I already agreed with you that science is not a practice. As I mentioned before, Dr. Mark Bailey was referring to the anti-scientific practices, not science per se.

Dr. Mark Bailey is speaking english,

Nope.

I suspect it may be best to simply agree to disagree on this point.

but apparently you got lost as to what he was talking about, perhaps because you were breaking down his sentences into snippets.

I break down posts and respond to individual arguments.

Agreed. I'm just saying that when you break things down so much, you may lose track of the fact that some sentences need the support of previous sentences to make sense.

 

[Scott]

While it's true that people refer to the alleged Cov 2 virus as Covid 19, it's better to refer to it as Cov 2, for the simple reason that Covid 19 is supposed to be the symptoms caused by this alleged Cov 2 virus.

Covid19 is not a symptom.

Agreed. It's the name of a disease allegedly caused by the Cov 2 virus. From Wikipedia:

**
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by a virus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19

As an aside, a journalist friend of mine who briefly considered the possibility that viruses don't exist (in fact, it was her bringing up this possibility that started my path to believing this myself) co-wrote an interesting article back in July 2020 that I think you might find interesting:

“No one has died from the coronavirus” : Important revelations shared by Dr Stoian Alexov, President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association | Off Guardian

I have no interest in reading any article that denies science.

Why do you believe that the article that my journalist friend co wrote denies science?

Similarly, there is evidence that there is a correlation between EMFs and the flu,

None.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

but I don't know of any studies conducted to specifically test for a correlation.

Correlation is not causation.

Agreed, but it can certainly suggest causation.

EMF does not cause any disease.

There's actually a fair amount of evidence that it does. Children's Health Defense has an article listing the evidence that EMFs can and have caused significant health impacts in people here:

Electromagnetic Radiation & Wireless - Health Impacts | Children's Health Defense

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The question of yours which I quoted, was "how are viruses sequenced if they don't exist?". I believe that the above quote from Dr. Mark Bailey's abstract addresses your question.

No. It doesn't address the question. It does not explain why the sequences are found when doing sequencing. Arguing you don't like the way the shorter sequences are assembled to create the complete genome of a virus does nothing to explain why the shorter sequences are found. She and you are avoiding my question, not answering it. There are no known human proteins that contain those sequences. Where did they come from? Why are they found?

Mark Bailey's essay was not designed to explain why any given disease occurs. It was designed to explain that there is no substantive evidence that viruses exist.

Once again, it simply avoids the questions that show that Bailey's argument is bullshit since it doesn't fit all the facts. If viruses don't exist then something must be causing those illnesses. Failure to explain what that is a major flaw in the argument that viruses don't exist. It is a perfect example of what conspiracy theories do. They fail to account for all the facts.

There you go again with the sequences. I already quoted Dr. Mark Bailey's response to the alleged sequencing of viruses above, I'm sure you can scroll back up to see it again if you like. If you'd like a more in depth explanation as to the sequencing fraud, you're welcome to read Dr. Mark Bailey's essay in its entirety.

ROFLMAO.. repeating your same bullshit over and over doesn't answer the question I asked. It only proves your only hope is to avoid answering the question.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Again, quoting from Dr. Mark Bailey's abstract:

**
In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.”
**

People die every day for all sorts of reasons. Labelling some of those deaths to be caused by "Covid-19" does not mean that a virus had to have caused those deaths. Here's a snippet from Dr. Mark Bailey's essay that I think is quite apt in regards to this newly invented disease allegedly being caused by this alleged Cov 2 virus:


**
Despite the resources available to them, ESR apparently do not believe in the necessity to check for themselves whether SARS-CoV-2 can be shown to exist. On 19 July 2022, in response to an OIA request they stated that, “ESR has not performed any experiments to scientifically prove the existence of SARS-COV-2 virus and can therefore not provide you with any records.”70 On 17 August 2022 in response to another request, they admitted that, “ESR has not performed any experiments to scientifically prove that [the] SARS-COV-2 virus causes COVID-19 and can therefore not provide you with any records.”71 Nobody else has performed these required scientific experiments either.
**

Claims without evidence are just claims. He asked one group if they conducted a specific experiment and then claimed no one had done it. Who or what is ESR?
I have shown you that at least 2 groups have done the de novo work to show the sequence from the particles found in people infected with the virus.

Correlation of the viral particles with the disease is very real.

Where are you getting this alleged statistic?

From death rates from the CDC.

 

[goat]

There are times when Richard has written some posts that I felt weren't responding to, but what I -like- about Richard is that he frequently does seem to put in a fair amount of time in his responses. A productive discussion requires both sides to put in a significant amount of effort in their posts. Failing that, the discussion tends to fizzle out.

From the Interweb

Seventeen years after the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) outbreak and seven years since the first Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers) case, there is still no coronavirus vaccine despite dozens of attempts to develop them.

Ask Dick and Into the Night why the SARS and Mers vaccines were pulled.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Well, we can certainly agree on that, even if we don't agree that the virus itself exists.

How did all those people die?

 

[Nordberg]

I agree with the rightys. It is a huge medical conspiracy and they should not take vaccines.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you not agree that there are papers of mathematical proofs?

Divisional error fallacy. Attempted proof by divisional.

First of all, Dr. Mark Bailey has quite a few credentials to his name. From the last page in his "farewell to virology" essay:

Science is not a credential, degree, university, academy, license, or any other sanctification. His essay denies science, just as you do.

Do you have any credentials of this nature?

Science is not a credential.

Secondly, he goes on to explain how virology has failed its own requirements immediately after that first sentence in his Farewell to Virology essay:

Repetition fallacy.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

A virus exists by definition. The branch of science called virology consists of many theories about the characteristics of viruses and why they have them. These are falsifiable theories. You cannot just discard them. I do not need to substantiate any theory of science. They simply exist, just as a virus does, by definition.

Where have you allegedly answered this question before?

See my previous posts.

Again, that's a straw man argument. Neither I nor Dr. Mark Bailey stated it was. Dr. Mark Bailey referred to the scientific method.

Science is not a method or a procedure.

I'd be surprised if anyone else here would agree with you on that.

Science does not use consensus.

Agreed, but we're not talking about science here, we're talking about dictionaries and whether or not they define words.

They do not. No dictionary defines any word. That is not their purpose.

I already agreed with you that science is not a practice. As I mentioned before, Dr. Mark Bailey was referring to the anti-scientific practices, not science per se.

Paradox. Irrational. Which is it, dude?

I suspect it may be best to simply agree to disagree on this point.

Your religion is your religion. You are attempting to prove your religion. That's what a fundamentalist does. You are attempting to redefine 'science' as your religion. You even tried to redefine 'mathematics' as 'science'. I cannot change your religion. I can, however, point out the ludicrous nature of it.

Agreed. I'm just saying that when you break things down so much, you may lose track of the fact that some sentences need the support of previous sentences to make sense.

Whining about breaking down a response to individual arguments and responding to them is just another strawman. It will get you nowhere. Semantics fallacies.

It is YOU wanting to redefine words. It is YOU trying to prove your religion. It is YOU denying and discarding science. It is YOU denying and discarding mathematics. It is YOU denying and discarding logic. Inversion fallacy. You don't get to redefine words willy-nilly. You don't get to redefine science as your religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. There is nothing more. You are routinely just discarding theories of science. You are discarding the concept of a virus, which exists by definition. The words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined in philosophy, which you also deny and discard.

The word 'virus' has existed since the 14th century. You cannot just make it go away. Since then, it has been narrowed somewhat, and recently, it has been applied to a computer cracking technique, but you cannot just make this word go away or any of it's meanings.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed. It's the name of a disease allegedly caused by the Cov 2 virus. From Wikipedia:

**
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by a virus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19

False authority fallacy. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference with me.

Why do you believe that the article that my journalist friend co wrote denies science?

Yes. RQAA.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Negative proof fallacy. I do not have to substantiate a negative. YOU have to provide the evidence.

Agreed, but it can certainly suggest causation.

Correlation is not causation. Negative proof fallacy.

There's actually a fair amount of evidence that it does.

Paradox. Irrational. Which is it, dude? You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Children's Health Defense has an article listing the evidence that EMFs can and have caused significant health impacts in people here:

False authority fallacy. You are locked in paradox. You must clear it or continue to be irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

Claims without evidence are just claims. He asked one group if they conducted a specific experiment and then claimed no one had done it. Who or what is ESR?
I have shown you that at least 2 groups have done the de novo work to show the sequence from the particles found in people infected with the virus.

Correlation of the viral particles with the disease is very real.


From death rates from the CDC.

Argument from randU fallacy. The CDC does not have that information, and covid19 does not kill. NO variant of the Covid/SARS series of viruses kill. You are quoting manufactured numbers. Attempted proof by randU. There is no such thing as a 'virus particle'. Buzzword fallacy. You fell into Phoenyx's trap of using this buzzword.

 

[Scott]

It fails to address any of the questions I have raised already
Why and how are viruses sequenced if they don't exist? (Viruses are sequenced the same way any genome is.)

The abstract that I quoted above actually gets into that:

**
A viral particle must fulfill defined physical and biological properties including being a replication- competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human. However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations. In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.” The existence of a virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions.
**

It doesn't address any of my questions.

The question of yours which I quoted, was "how are viruses sequenced if they don't exist?". I believe that the above quote from Dr. Mark Bailey's abstract addresses your question.

No. It doesn't address the question. It does not explain why the sequences are found when doing sequencing.

The issue is not whether or not sequences are found, but what exactly is being sequenced. I've thought of something else, which is that we're not actually talking about various premises that Mark Bailey makes in the quote from his abstract above. I think that's a mistake, as if we were to discuss those, I think we'd get to a better understanding of where we disagree. So I'm going to guess as to break down the above quote from Dr. Mark Bailey and ask you whether you agree or disagree with them- I'll make a guess as to whether you agree or disagree, but you are ofcourse the final arbiter on that count. Alright, here we go:

1- "A viral particle must fulfill defined physical and biological properties including being a replication- competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human." -I'm going to guess that you agree with this one.

2- "However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations." -Almost sure you disagree with that premise.

3- "In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.” " -Almost sure you disagree with this.

4- "The existence of a virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions." I'm pretty sure you disagree with this, but I'm not sure.

So, how'd I do?