Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's very hard if not impossible to prove that something -doesn't- exist, especially if that something isn't visible to the human eye. It's akin to trying to prove that a God that you can't see doesn't exist. Furthermore, the predominant belief is that viruses -do- exist, with billions being spent on the assumption that this is so. Therefore, it makes much more sense that those like yourself who assert that they exist be the side providing the evidence that this is so.

It actually should be easy to prove, you only need to show actual evidence that diseases are caused by something other than a virus. The diseases exist and people have symptoms. You only need to have a credible reason for those symptoms that can withstand even basic scrutiny. So far, you have presented nothing but denialism

I never stated that I knew that a conspiracy of any sort is involved here. If I was certain of this, I would have put this thread in the conspiracies and conspiracy theories forum here, as I did for the thread on 9/11.

You are presenting the classic arguments presented in any conspiracy theory. You have no evidence.

Ah, but I have never stated matter of factly, as you have, that viruses don't exist. I have stated that it is my -belief- and that of the group of doctors and other professionals that this is the case. This belief hinges on various things- that they have never been truly isolated, amoung other things, despite the fact that smaller particles such as proteins have been isolated. The doctors mentioend above have made paper wherein they provide a way for those who believe that viruses exist to prove their case. So far, as far as I know, no one has been able to prove their existence. You're welcome to try to do it yourself.

And they presented a way that is impossible to occur because they asked for things that can't be done with a virus. I already went over this with you. It would be like saying you don't believe humans exist unless they are kept in water for a week and survive.

I haven't seen you provide any evidence that a smallpox virus has been "observed" infecting people.

ROFLMAO. Standard denial for a conspiracy nut. Are you a conspiracy nut? You certainly act like one in your "beliefs" without evidence and your denial of over 200 years of history. Did you intend to use a straw man argument here? Because I said nothing about a virus being observed. For over 200 years it has been observed that people in close proximity to others infected with smallpox are likely to come down with smallpox. This occurs even if they are not in the same locality as where the first person was originally infected.

I believe so, yes.

Please provide historical evidence of one person infected with smallpox that has not been in contact with others infected.

I have never said I had evidence for my belief, other than that I have seen no evidence that viruses exist.

And there is the classic conspiracy nut argument. You have no evidence to dispute the evidence that says viruses do exist. You just don't believe. If you don't rely on evidence for your conclusions then we really have no way to discuss any subject. You are an idiot that just believes in bullshit and can't be convinced by evidence.

I haven't told you because I don't know. One doesn't have to have complete information in order to question the prevailing dogma. I'm sure there was plenty Aristarchus didn't know when he claimed that the earth rotated around the sun. That doesn't mean that he was wrong, despite religious dogma stating otherwise for around 1800 years:

https://www.astronomytrek.com/who-discovered-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/

Aristarchus had evidence for his conclusion. He didn't believe without evidence. You have admitted you have no evidence supporting what you believe. In fact all evidence points to your beliefs being unsupported by any actual science.

Agreed.

Since toxins have to have a source, it is strong evidence that your claim that smallpox is the result of toxins can't be true. Sources of toxins don't magically move from person to person.

That sounds reasonable.

Since you now agreed that poisonings are localized to the source, it proves that a disease that spreads worldwide and can be traced through contacts with other infected people can't be the result of a toxin.

That also sounds reasonable.

And yet no pattern similar to poisons occurs when the disease is said to be caused by a virus. Once again, proving your beliefs are not supported by any actual evidence.

Just because the CDC says that it is so doesn't mean that it is so.

The CDC says it based on over 200 years of historical knowledge of how the disease is spread. It was known that it was spread by contact in the 1700's.
https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets
The way the disease is spread hasn't changed since that time. You have presented no evidence to dispute 200 years of history.

I haven't seen any evidence that toxins are multiplying like organic beings if that's what you're asking me. I think we really need to go back to the controlled experiments suggested by the doctors in the "Settling the virus debate".

What controlled experiments? They are asking for bullshit. And you are right there believing their bullshit.

No, I've never suggested that toxins can infect anyone. The first definition that Wordnik gives for infection is: "The invasion of bodily tissue by pathogenic microorganisms that proliferate, resulting in tissue injury that can progress to disease." I think we can both agree that toxins are not pathogenic microorganisms.

Since toxins are not microorganisms they can only be the result of a specific source. That source doesn't move around when people move. That source doesn't travel thousands of miles on a plane to make someone that never was in contact with the source sick.

Not by themselves, no. But organisms can certainly make them multiply. Alcohol is toxic to the body, and is produced by organisms. Humans can also create or "multiply" toxins artificially by increasing coal plants and other polluting artifacts of industry.

But everything you must mentioned has a static source that doesn't travel with a sick person to make another person sick. The only way a person can get sick is to be at the source of the toxin.

Even the mainstream media acknowledges that pollution is linked to quite a few people each year:
Pollution linked to 9 million deaths worldwide each year | cbsnews.com

The pollution has clear sources.

Chinese people were using face masks long before Covid arrived, due to pollution. It's my firm belief that it's pollution and other toxins that are the true cause of Covid as well. Ofcourse, fully acknowledging the harm that pollution does would not be good for many business interests.

If Covid is the result of pollution, why was it not around before 2019? What universal source of this toxin suddenly only became available in 2019? There is none. Your argument defies science and logic.

I think you vastly understimate the range of toxins such as those produced in the burning of coal.

No. I don't. Toxins are more deadly the closer one is to the source. In the case of Covid, deaths occurred all over the world. How did the disease start one place and then spread to other places in a pattern that allowed tracing of the humans carrying a virus? The disease did not spread in a pattern than would occur with a source spreading pollution

Ah, but it was. It allegedly all started in Wuhan. Did you know that Wuhan had city protests over pollution levels shortly before Covid 19 was "discovered"? Here's an article from CNN on it:
China has made major progress on air pollution. Wuhan protests show there’s still a long way to go | CNN

Are you saying noone outside Wuhan was ill with Covid? People all over the world came down with the disease. The world is NOT a specific area.

 

[Nordberg]

This is a post by someone who wants to believe viruses do not exist. This is proof they do by a professional.https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...l-to-humans-are-proven-to-exist-idUSKBN23335V

 

[Nordberg]

This is a thread by someone who wants to believe viruses do not exist. This is proof they do by a professional.https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...l-to-humans-are-proven-to-exist-idUSKBN23335V

 

[Scott]

Sam Bailey is no longer a doctor.

I'm guessing you mean that she is no longer licensed to practice allopathic medicine? If so, could you present an article which presents evidence that this is true?

 

[Scott]

I'm stating my belief that they don't exist, yes.

They are regularly photographed with electron microscopes.

Microbes and cellular particles are regularly photographed with electron microscopes. I've seen no solid evidence that they are viruses.

They are made into crystals so every atom of their existence can be mapped.

I must admit, I hadn't heard that one before. If you can present evidence that a virus has ever truly been isolated, by all means do so.

Their genetic sequencing has been done billions of times.

I've seen no solid evidence that a virus has ever been isolated, let alone sequenced. You can't sequence a virus if you can't even isolate it. What is actually done is a bit complicated, but I found that the following journalist did a good job of explaining the flaws in the case of the Cov 2 virus:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

 

[AProudLefty]

If viruses don't exist, then what are in the vaccines?

 

[Scott]

Dr Sam Bailey in no longer a doctor.

Walt just said the same thing. I'm assuming you mean that her license to practice allopathic medicine was revoked? If so, can you present me with evidence that this happened?

She is a charlatan that posts stuff on the web in order to make money from fools.

Insulting Sam Bailey and those who believe in her does nothing to further your arguments.

 

[Scott]

It's very hard if not impossible to prove that something -doesn't- exist, especially if that something isn't visible to the human eye. It's akin to trying to prove that a God that you can't see doesn't exist. Furthermore, the predominant belief is that viruses -do- exist, with billions being spent on the assumption that this is so. Therefore, it makes much more sense that those like yourself who assert that they exist be the side providing the evidence that this is so.

It actually should be easy to prove, you only need to show actual evidence that diseases are caused by something other than a virus.

You already agreed that various diseases are caused by something other than a virus. That doesn't prove that all diseases aren't caused by a virus.

The diseases exist and people have symptoms.

That doesn't mean that diseases alleged to be caused by a biological virus are actually caused by a biological virus.

I never stated that I knew that a conspiracy of any sort is involved here. If I was certain of this, I would have put this thread in the conspiracies and conspiracy theories forum here, as I did for the thread on 9/11.

You are presenting the classic arguments presented in any conspiracy theory. You have no evidence.

At the risk of devating somewhat from the point of this thread, I think it'd be good to try to establish some type of agreement as to what the 2 words that make up "conspiracy theory" mean. I think we could perhaps agree on the law definition of conspiracy for our purposes here. I think the Wikitionary definition serves our purposes here:
**
The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.
**

Source:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy

As to theory, there are numerous definitions as can be seen below:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/theory

As you can see, there are definitions for theory that run the gamut from definitions such as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena", all the way to assumptions and conjecture.

I came up with a definition a while back that I think takes these various definitions into account:
A theory is an educated guess, as far as one's education on the subject goes. Thus, their are good theories and bad ones. It all depends on the evidence they have in their favour.

When we put the words conspiracy and theory together, we get to the point where we should be able to see that there can be both well evidenced conspiracy theories, as well as poorly evidence conspiracy theories. I personally tend to shy away from ones that have little if any evidence. Now, hopefully we can get back to the -actual- point of this thread, which is discussion in the evidence, or lack thereof, of biological viruses.

 

[Scott]

Ah, but I have never stated matter of factly, as you have, that viruses don't exist. I have stated that it is my -belief- and that of the group of doctors and other professionals that this is the case. This belief hinges on various things- that they have never been truly isolated, amoung other things, despite the fact that smaller particles such as proteins have been isolated. The doctors mentioend above have made paper wherein they provide a way for those who believe that viruses exist to prove their case. So far, as far as I know, no one has been able to prove their existence. You're welcome to try to do it yourself.

And they presented a way that is impossible to occur because they asked for things that can't be done with a virus.

I think the truth is rather that it can't be done because biological viruses don't exist.

I already went over this with you. It would be like saying you don't believe humans exist unless they are kept in water for a week and survive.

I think that's a poor analogy.

I haven't seen you provide any evidence that a smallpox virus has been "observed" infecting people.

ROFLMAO. Standard denial for a conspiracy nut.

Ah, here come the ad hominems. Well, you had a good run.

 

[Scott]

This is a post by someone who wants to believe viruses do not exist. This is proof they do by a professional.https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...l-to-humans-are-proven-to-exist-idUSKBN23335V

Your article claims that alleged biological viruses have been isolated. I have seen no evidence that this is true.

 

[Scott]

If viruses don't exist, then what are in the vaccines?

Not biological viruses, that's for sure .

 

[AProudLefty]

Not biological viruses, that's for sure .

We would have found that out already, eh?

 

[Scott]

If viruses don't exist, then what are in the vaccines?

Not biological viruses, that's for sure .

We would have found that out already, eh?

I was just building off what you said: -if- biological viruses don't exist, then they can't be in vaccines. The key issue here is whether or not they exist. The reason I made this thread was to try to get as much discussion going on that subject as possible.

Personally, I think one of my favourite article when it comes to a very specific alleged virus, Cov 2 (what some just call the Covid virus) is this one:

COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian


It's from a reporter who is the first to admit he's not an expert in genetics, but he dutifully looks at the evidence to try to figure things out anyway. I like that, because I'm also not an expert in genetics, so I found his article easy to follow.

 

[AProudLefty]

I was just building off what you said: -if- biological viruses don't exist, then they can't be in vaccines. The key issue here is whether or not they exist. The reason I made this thread was to try to get as much discussion going on that subject as possible.

Personally, I think one of my favourite article when it comes to a very specific alleged virus, Cov 2 (what some just call the Covid virus) is this one:

COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian


It's from a reporter who is the first to admit he's not an expert in genetics, but he dutifully looks at the evidence to try to figure things out anyway. I like that, because I'm also not an expert in genetics, so I found his article easy to follow.

If it is claimed that covid-19 virus doesn't exist, then it should be easy to find out what's in the vaccine, no?

 

[Scott]

If it is claimed that covid-19 virus doesn't exist, then it should be easy to find out what's in the vaccine, no?

Even the official narrative doesn't claim that the covid/Cov 2 virus is in covid vaccines:

Does the COVID Vaccine Contain the Virus? No and It Won't Make You ‘Shed' Spike Proteins Either | NBC Chicago

 

[AProudLefty]

Even the official narrative doesn't claim that the covid/Cov 2 virus is in covid vaccines:

Correct.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines differ from traditional vaccines in their use of mRNA, a relatively new technology. Instead of introducing a weakened or an inactivated germ into your body, these vaccines inject mRNA, the genetic material that our cells read to make proteins, into your upper arm muscle.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "mRNA stands for messenger ribonucleic acid and can most easily be described as instructions for how to make a protein or even just a piece of a protein."

 

[Scott]

Correct.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines differ from traditional vaccines in their use of mRNA, a relatively new technology. Instead of introducing a weakened or an inactivated germ into your body, these vaccines inject mRNA, the genetic material that our cells read to make proteins, into your upper arm muscle.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "mRNA stands for messenger ribonucleic acid and can most easily be described as instructions for how to make a protein or even just a piece of a protein."

The article also covers the Johnson and Johnson Covid vaccine:

**
the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a single-shot that uses an adenovirus.
**

Since I don't believe any biological virus exists, I think all 3 stories are false, but thought it was worth pointing out that none of the 3 Covid vaccines that are in use in the U.S. even claim to contain the Cov 2 virus.

 

[AProudLefty]

The article also covers the Johnson and Johnson Covid vaccine:

**
the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a single-shot that uses an adenovirus.
**

Since I don't believe any biological virus exists, I think all 3 stories are false, but thought it was worth pointing out that none of the 3 Covid vaccines that are in use in the U.S. even claim to contain the Cov 2 virus.

J&J’s shot uses the cold virus like a Trojan horse to carry the spike gene into the body, where cells make harmless copies of the protein to prime the immune system in case the real virus comes along.

You still are telling us what we already know. There is no live virus in the covid vaccine. It's a new technology.

So again, it should be simple to find out what's in the vaccine, right? I mean you guys are the ones disputing it.

 

[Scott]

J&J’s shot uses the cold virus like a Trojan horse to carry the spike gene into the body, where cells make harmless copies of the protein to prime the immune system in case the real virus comes along.

You still are telling us what we already know. There is no live virus in the covid vaccine. It's a new technology.

So again, it should be simple to find out what's in the vaccine, right? I mean you guys are the ones disputing it.

Can you explain what your question has to do with the subject of this thread? The subject of this thread being the evidence or lack thereof that biological viruses exist.

 

[AProudLefty]

Can you explain what your question has to do with the subject of this thread? The subject of this thread being the evidence or lack thereof that biological viruses exist.

It's quite simple. If they are lying about the covid virus and that it doesn't really exist, then they are lying about the vaccine.

Finding out what's in the vaccine would be an easy first step in proving that. It's just the same thing as finding out if a pill is a placebo.