Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

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.

As mentioned previously, we agree that no alleged cov2 virus has killed anyone, though for different reasons.

There is no such thing as a 'virus particle'. Buzzword fallacy. You fell into Phoenyx's trap of using this buzzword.

I actually agree with you that there is no such thing as a biological virus particle, but that's because I don't believe biological viruses exist. If one believes that viruses exist, however, then virus particles certainly exist. From britannica.com:

**
virion, an entire virus particle, consisting of an outer protein shell called a capsid and an inner core of nucleic acid (either ribonucleic or deoxyribonucleic acid—RNA or DNA).
**

Source:
virion | britannica.com

 

[Scott]

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.

Yes, that describes a virus reasonably well.

I'm glad we agree on the definition of a biological virus at any rate.

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.

This isn't a premise. It is a false conclusion.

The first definition displayed in Wordnik's American Heritage Dictionary defines a premise as follows:
"A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn."

I think the above statement from Dr. Mark Bailey fits the bill.

The virus is not a phantom construct. It is RNA that is found in cells. That RNA is not imaginary and is not a simulation. De Novo sequencing is not a simulation. It is taking real RNA that is not found in healthy cells but is found in the cells of people showing symptoms of a disease and assembling it based on standard mathematical principles.

Ok, so basically what you're doing here is stating what you believe, just as Dr. Mark Bailey outlined his own beliefs in his abstract. At this point, I think what we need to do is move on to the evidence. He organizes his evidence in his essay into 3 parts. Again from his abstract, here's the first page of the first part of his essay:

**
Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method. The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence, and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. The examples provided cover all major aspects of the virological fraud including alleged isolation, cytopathic effects, genomics, antibodies, and animal pathogenicity studies.
**

Again, there are a lot of claims here, but it's the essay itself that contains the evidence for these claims. Let's start with the first page of this part, and see if we can get a bit of discussion going on what it says:

**
SARS-COV-2 NOT FOUND

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. — Dr Thomas Cowan et al., The “Settling the Virus Debate” Statement, 2022.1​

As of 11 September 2022 and following extensive enquiries through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests coordinated by Christine Massey, not one of 209 mainly health or science institutions in over 35 countries have been able to provide direct evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.2 The institutions were asked to produce any documents demonstrating, “the purification of ‘SARS- CoV-2’ said to have caused disease in humans (via maceration, filtration, and use of an ultracentrifuge; also referred to at times by some people as ‘isolation’), directly from a diseased human...” On many occasions, following an admission that no such evidence is held, institutions such as the New Zealand Ministry of Health then suggest that, “there are several examples of the virus being isolated and cultured in a laboratory setting.”3 However, the examples referred to are universally tissue culture proxy experiments, in which the word ‘isolation’ has become detached from its understood meaning and it has not been demonstrated that any particle, imaged or imagined, has the properties of a disease-causing virus. In any case, it is a distraction from the wider issue exposed by the FOI requests, which is that particles claimed to be viruses can never be found in human subjects. Virology has made excuses for this missing evidence but even allowing for this embarrassing deficiency, it is running out of places to hide as its various methodologies are increasingly scrutinised by those outside the field. This essay outlines the many aspects of virology’s anti-science that have been employed to maintain the illusion that pathogenic viruses exist. The situation has become increasingly dangerous and since early 2020, the COVID-19 “pandemic" has been used as a Trojan horse to bring humanity to its knees.
**

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


If you could point out any disagreements you have with the above text and why, perhaps we could make some more progress.

 

[Scott]

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.

Speaking of circular reasoning, that is a rather good example of one. It starts from the premise that diseases are invented and then uses that premise to declare that any genetic sequences found are imaginary.

I agree that he starts with the premise that alleged viral diseases like Covid-19 are invented, but he does -not- declare that any genetic sequences found are imaginary.

Genetic sequences are not imagined in order to declare there is a virus. Genetic sequences are found and then meticulously examined, sequenced and compared to known sequences. The virus is the result of looking at the sequences, not the other way around.

Again, Dr. Mark Bailey never said that any genetic sequences were imagined. I suspect that perhaps quoting a bit more from his essay could go a long way to clarifying his position. From the second page of the first part of his essay, as well as a bit of the third:

**
DR SIOUXSIE WILES — VIROLOGY’S ‘ISOLATION’ ACOLYTE

The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as the “virus isolation technique”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses. — Dr Stefan Lanka, 2015.4​

The defence of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favoured microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles.5 Her employer, the University of Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that, “[it] has not done any work relating to the purification of any Covid-19 virus,”6 and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. This associate professor, who advised the country that, “the world is on fire,” in March 2020,7 was ordained New Zealander of the Year in 2021 for, “helping millions globally see past the fear and complexities of the pandemic...and helping to keep us safe.”8 In her November 2020 article, “Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformation rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.”9 Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates,10 which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates11 into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in a human or anywhere else.
**

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

 

[Scott]

Dr. Mark Bailey is a man. I'm guessing you're confusing him with his wife, Dr. Sam Bailey, who didn't write the article we're currently referring to. As to this there being no "known human proteins that contain these sequences", you'll have to get more specific as to the sequences you're referring to.

The database of over 6,000,000 sequence viruses.

Alleged sequences of viruses. Perhaps if we focus a bit more on Dr. Mark Bailey's essay, which focuses heavily on the alleged Cov 2 virus, we can get into the evidence that all these alleged viral sequences do not in fact come from viruses at all. Quoting from page 3 of the first part of Dr. Mark Bailey's essay:

**
Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health OrganizaEon (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard to SARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate [sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”12 The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive.13 The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere.14 Their monkey experiment was not only invalidated by its lack of controls and unnatural exposure route but like all virology publications, they failed to demonstrate a particle that met the definition of a virus. Wiles also appeared to be at odds with Na Zhu et al., one of the first teams that claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, because they conceded that, “although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV [later ‘SARS-CoV-2’] in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include...animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”15
**

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

 

[Scott]

Agreed. Dr. Mark Bailey has plenty of evidence here, however, so this wouldn't apply.

Clearly you didn't read Dr. Mark Bailey's entire paper. In a way, I understand, as you clearly disagree with his basic premises. ESR stands for New Zealand's Institute of Environmental Science and Research, which makes sense considering that Dr. Mark Bailey is based in New Zealand. I only quoted a snippet of his writing on New Zealand's ESR, it's actually part of a much larger tract. Since you expressed some interest in who ESR was, I figure you might be interested in the larger tract itself. The part I quoted was actually the very last paragraph of it, which I include at the end below.

Quoting:

**
VIROLOGY’S LACK OF CONTROLS MEANS IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PURSUIT

OIA requests have revealed that New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), who have claimed isolation and genomic sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 particle in the Antipodes, are also guilty of failing to perform any valid controls.60 In the tradition of Enders, they have not paused to check whether the CPEs they witnessed, or genomes they assembled via computer simulations, could also be created in valid control comparisons. That is, by performing experiments with other human-derived specimens, from both well subjects and unwell subjects who are said not to have the alleged disease COVID-19. Instead, ESR described their insufficient “negative control” in which, “the flask undergoes the same conditions as the flasks used for viral culture, however we use Infection media only.”

The central conductor in these anti-scientific pursuits is the WHO. It is very telling that in their 94- page “Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2” document, there is a mere four sentences discussing “control samples:”

6.4.2 Control samples

Negative control samples, such as buffer or water, should always be included in any sequencing run that contains multiple samples. They should be included at the earliest stage possible and should proceed with samples through all stages of the sequencing pipeline. This is extremely important to rule out contamination during a sequencing run that occurs in the laboratory or during bioinformatic processing. Positive control samples with known genetic sequences can be useful to validate newly adopted or adapted bioinformatic pipelines for consensus calling, but do not need to be included in every sequencing run.61​

However, neither of these controls are sufficient to validate the “genomes” that the virologists are producing through these techniques because they can only serve to calibrate the pipeline. As has become apparent, the WHO cannot point to one valid positive control experiment, yet on February 11, 2020 they named the new disease they had invented, “COVID-19” with the associated claim that it was caused by a novel coronavirus.62 They have provided the green light for anyone around the world to “find” SARS-CoV-2 in their backyards without the need for valid control experiments either. Yet, there is a clear necessity for comparative controls where similar patient samples, but without the alleged virus, are processed in the same way so that only one variable is being tested. Comparing the results of a sample alleged to contain the virus with one of the negative controls described by the WHO’s document above cannot validate the process as the latter samples do not contain the genetic soup that is part of the former. In any case, even on their own terms the negative control referred to by ESR in New Zealand is unable to provide validation of the methodology they are using to create these virus genomes, because as the WHO states, it is simply a precautionary check for contamination.

With all of the failures to culture postulated viruses, modern virology now favours direct metagenomics63 of crude samples, often with shotgun sequencing64 and subsequent artificial assembly of these genetic fragments to create new in silico65 “viruses” out of thin air. This invention then provides other virus hunters with predesigned PCR primer panels66 so that they can also discover the same sequences and claim it is the same virus. ESR were involved in a publication in which they proclaimed the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 in nine subjects through this methodology.67 They were asked by my colleague to provide, “all details of the control group that was used when comparing the results of sequencing,” but instead of answering the question, the ESR made an excuse about not getting involved in the “generation of new data,” and provided some links to SARS-CoV-2 sequencing protocols.68 If ESR were using such protocols, as detailed on the protocol.io site, then we can see that they are endorsing insufficient controls that are described as, “[a] negative control of nuclease-free water,” while an optional “positive control can also be included which may be a synthetic RNA constructs or high-titre clinical sample which can be diluted.”69 Once again, these types of controls can only serve as pipeline calibration techniques, not the validation or the clinical significance of any “genomes” they assemble.

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.
**

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

I don't see any evidence. I see denial of over 60 years of the study of viruses and the sequencing.
The claim that they don't use controls is idiotic and ignores the real world. If this was simply an example of them finding the same proteins over and over then there would not be so many different sequences that identify specific viruses.
Bailey makes some rather simple mistakes when it comes to understanding the process.
WHO recommends using negative control samples between samples to prevent cross contamination. Bailey fails to understand the meaning and uses the equivocation fallacy to use a different meaning of control to confuse you and others.
If you can't see the way Bailey uses "control" compared to the way the WHO uses it, then I can't help you. You will always be ignorant.

I suspect you just don't understand what Bailey's trying to convey. The WHO's protocols simply don't have the ability to detect whether the Cov 2 virus exists. I'll quote the part of Dr. Mark Bailey's essay that I think best gets into this:

**
As has become apparent, the WHO cannot point to one valid positive control experiment, yet on February 11, 2020 they named the new disease they had invented, “COVID-19” with the associated claim that it was caused by a novel coronavirus.62 They have provided the green light for anyone around the world to “find” SARS-CoV-2 in their backyards without the need for valid control experiments either. Yet, there is a clear necessity for comparative controls where similar patient samples, but without the alleged virus, are processed in the same way so that only one variable is being tested. Comparing the results of a sample alleged to contain the virus with one of the negative controls described by the WHO’s document above cannot validate the process as the latter samples do not contain the genetic soup that is part of the former. In any case, even on their own terms the negative control referred to by ESR in New Zealand is unable to provide validation of the methodology they are using to create these virus genomes, because as the WHO states, it is simply a precautionary check for contamination.
**

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

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm glad we agree on the definition of a biological virus at any rate.



The first definition displayed in Wordnik's American Heritage Dictionary defines a premise as follows:
"A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn."

I think the above statement from Dr. Mark Bailey fits the bill.



Ok, so basically what you're doing here is stating what you believe, just as Dr. Mark Bailey outlined his own beliefs in his abstract. At this point, I think what we need to do is move on to the evidence. He organizes his evidence in his essay into 3 parts. Again from his abstract, here's the first page of the first part of his essay:

**
Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method. The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence, and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. The examples provided cover all major aspects of the virological fraud including alleged isolation, cytopathic effects, genomics, antibodies, and animal pathogenicity studies.
**

Again, there are a lot of claims here, but it's the essay itself that contains the evidence for these claims. Let's start with the first page of this part, and see if we can get a bit of discussion going on what it says:

**
SARS-COV-2 NOT FOUND

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. — Dr Thomas Cowan et al., The “Settling the Virus Debate” Statement, 2022.1​

As of 11 September 2022 and following extensive enquiries through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests coordinated by Christine Massey, not one of 209 mainly health or science institutions in over 35 countries have been able to provide direct evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.2 The institutions were asked to produce any documents demonstrating, “the purification of ‘SARS- CoV-2’ said to have caused disease in humans (via maceration, filtration, and use of an ultracentrifuge; also referred to at times by some people as ‘isolation’), directly from a diseased human...” On many occasions, following an admission that no such evidence is held, institutions such as the New Zealand Ministry of Health then suggest that, “there are several examples of the virus being isolated and cultured in a laboratory setting.”3 However, the examples referred to are universally tissue culture proxy experiments, in which the word ‘isolation’ has become detached from its understood meaning and it has not been demonstrated that any particle, imaged or imagined, has the properties of a disease-causing virus. In any case, it is a distraction from the wider issue exposed by the FOI requests, which is that particles claimed to be viruses can never be found in human subjects. Virology has made excuses for this missing evidence but even allowing for this embarrassing deficiency, it is running out of places to hide as its various methodologies are increasingly scrutinised by those outside the field. This essay outlines the many aspects of virology’s anti-science that have been employed to maintain the illusion that pathogenic viruses exist. The situation has become increasingly dangerous and since early 2020, the COVID-19 “pandemic" has been used as a Trojan horse to bring humanity to its knees.
**

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


If you could point out any disagreements you have with the above text and why, perhaps we could make some more progress.

Viruses have been sequenced over 6,000,000 times. That is not a computer construct. That is actual sequencing that is done the same way every genetic sequence is done. If you deny that virus RNA has been sequenced then you can't argue that human DNA has been sequenced.
part one ignores science since he fails to include all data but simply cherry picks what he wants to try to make his argument. Where does he account for the 6,000,000 times that RNA has been sequenced that doesn't fit any human protein?

Demanding the same thing over and over when it has been explained that because something hasn't been isolated using that particular process doesn't prove an organism doesn't exist. Humans have never been purified using maceration, filtration and the use of a ultracentrifuge. Does that prove humans don't exist? The false logic used by Bailey is still false logic every time you present it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I agree that he starts with the premise that alleged viral diseases like Covid-19 are invented, but he does -not- declare that any genetic sequences found are imaginary.



Again, Dr. Mark Bailey never said that any genetic sequences were imagined. I suspect that perhaps quoting a bit more from his essay could go a long way to clarifying his position. From the second page of the first part of his essay, as well as a bit of the third:

**
DR SIOUXSIE WILES — VIROLOGY’S ‘ISOLATION’ ACOLYTE

The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as the “virus isolation technique”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses. — Dr Stefan Lanka, 2015.4​

The defence of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favoured microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles.5 Her employer, the University of Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that, “[it] has not done any work relating to the purification of any Covid-19 virus,”6 and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. This associate professor, who advised the country that, “the world is on fire,” in March 2020,7 was ordained New Zealander of the Year in 2021 for, “helping millions globally see past the fear and complexities of the pandemic...and helping to keep us safe.”8 In her November 2020 article, “Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformation rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.”9 Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates,10 which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates11 into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in a human or anywhere else.
**

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

It sure looks like he claims they are imaginary.
2- "However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations."

Nothing in the rest of the quote in any way admits that RNA has been sequenced over 6,000,000 times and the RNA attributed to viruses. There is no explanation for why that RNA exists. There is only the continued use of the false logic claiming that organisms can't exist if they aren't proven to exist by Koch's postulates.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Alleged sequences of viruses. Perhaps if we focus a bit more on Dr. Mark Bailey's essay, which focuses heavily on the alleged Cov 2 virus, we can get into the evidence that all these alleged viral sequences do not in fact come from viruses at all. Quoting from page 3 of the first part of Dr. Mark Bailey's essay:

**
Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health OrganizaEon (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard to SARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate [sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”12 The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive.13 The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere.14 Their monkey experiment was not only invalidated by its lack of controls and unnatural exposure route but like all virology publications, they failed to demonstrate a particle that met the definition of a virus. Wiles also appeared to be at odds with Na Zhu et al., one of the first teams that claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, because they conceded that, “although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV [later ‘SARS-CoV-2’] in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include...animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”15
**

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

YOu keep repeating the same bullshit without ever defending the false logic. It is still false logic every time you post it.
Do humans exist since they have never been isolated using Koch's postulates?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I suspect you just don't understand what Bailey's trying to convey. The WHO's protocols simply don't have the ability to detect whether the Cov 2 virus exists. I'll quote the part of Dr. Mark Bailey's essay that I think best gets into this:

**
As has become apparent, the WHO cannot point to one valid positive control experiment, yet on February 11, 2020 they named the new disease they had invented, “COVID-19” with the associated claim that it was caused by a novel coronavirus.62 They have provided the green light for anyone around the world to “find” SARS-CoV-2 in their backyards without the need for valid control experiments either. Yet, there is a clear necessity for comparative controls where similar patient samples, but without the alleged virus, are processed in the same way so that only one variable is being tested. Comparing the results of a sample alleged to contain the virus with one of the negative controls described by the WHO’s document above cannot validate the process as the latter samples do not contain the genetic soup that is part of the former. In any case, even on their own terms the negative control referred to by ESR in New Zealand is unable to provide validation of the methodology they are using to create these virus genomes, because as the WHO states, it is simply a precautionary check for contamination.
**

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

OMFG. The idiocy of that quote is beyond belief. The negative controls is WHO's direction that equipment should be cleaned between testing samples by using a negative control such as water to clear out anything from the previous sample. The quote is utter nonsense. It is a strawman. It is idiocy. What Bailey has achieved is simply hoodwinking the stupid by using the equivocation fallacy.

I suspect you don't understand the difference between fact and fiction. Some suspect you are a Russian troll only here to spread disinformation.

 

[Scott]

I don't think any vaccines for either of those were ever brought to market. An NBC News article from 2020 states that scientists were close to a coronavirus vaccines years ago:

Scientists were close to a coronavirus vaccine years ago. Then the money dried up | NBC News

Since I no longer believe that biological viruses exist, I don't pay too much attention to stories like this at this point.

The Sars and Mers vaccine were pulled because too many people in the first test study were dropping dead. That's why they never tested the covid vaccine on humans. The inventor of the mrna vaccine is all over the net saying how dangerous it is. Think of a computer virus, it's not alive but it will mess up your computer. A vaccine has to work the same way as snake bite anti-venom.

The mrna vaccine doesn't do that, it creates proteins that screw with our DNA.

If biological viruses aren't real, vaccines that allegedly prevent viral transmission would clearly have no benefits whatsoever.

 

[goat]

If biological viruses aren't real, vaccines that allegedly prevent viral transmission would clearly have no benefits whatsoever.

Viruses are real but they're not alive. That's why the computer virus is a perfect analogy. It has to be contained or it will continue to multiply. It sounds illogical but that's what viruses are. People can live with HIV because science has figured out how to contain it.

 

[Scott]

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

Divisional error fallacy. Attempted proof by divisional.

Is that a yes or a no?

RQAA

As can be seen above, I'd asked you a straightforward question that could have been answered with either a yes or a no and you responded with some cryptic remarks.

 

[Scott]

Science is not a credential, degree, university, academy, license, or any other sanctification.

I never said it was. I mentioned Dr. Mark Bailey's credentials because it speaks to his credibility.

Lie. Paradox. Irrational. Denial of self fallacy. Science is not credentials.

Another strawman argument. I never said that science is credentials. Credentials are useful for ascertaining a person's credibility. This is why I mentioned Dr. Mark Bailey's credentials.

Anyone can deny that anything "denies science". This is why it's important to have credentials of some sort to back up one's claims. Do you have any?

Science is not credentials.

Again, I never said that science was credentials. Credentials speak to a person's expertise and credibility on a given subject.

I never said it was. I was asking you if you hadn't any credentials similar to the credentials Dr. Mark Bailey has that would suggest you too are knowledgeable in [the] field of medicine.

Science is not credentials.

Yes, for the umpteenth time, I agree that science is not credentials.

Knowledge is not credentials.

Agreed, but if you have credentials in a given subject, it strongly suggests that you have a thorough knowledge of said subject.

 

[Scott]

You asked me a question, specifically, "So?". I was simply answering your question. There will be times when answering a question will lead to certain things being repeated if the answer to the question entails rehashing material that has already been covered. The only way to avoid these types of repetitions is either for the questioner to not ask questions that necessitate the repetition of certain points or for the answerer to withhold from answering the question either in whole or in part. A case in point is this very post, where I posted a lot of the same quoted material in this post as I did in the last, but this doing so not breaking it up so that the meaning of what I'm trying to say is clearer as a whole.

No. You never answered any question, including that one.

I strongly disagree with you on said question, and I suspect most people would strongly disagree with you there as well.

You immediately went off on some strawman about credentials. Science is not credentials. Attempted proof by credential.

Once again, I've never claimed that science is credentials. The purpose of credentials is to help people ascertain the credibility of a given person. I have also never implied that having credentials in a given subject means that whatever the credentialed individual person says must therefore be proven to be true.

 

[Scott]

The term virus exists as a word, certainly. I'm getting at the fact that there is no compelling evidence that biological viruses exists in the real world.

Paradox. Irrational.

Can you specify what parts of my statement you find paradoxical and/or irrational?

 

[Scott]

I can certainly agree that virology's central tenet, that biological viruses exist, is falsifiable, but in order for that to happen, people have to understand how it can be falsified. I also believe that the signatories of the article referenced in the opening post come up with a good way to ascertain whether biological viruses exist or not.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Paradox. irrational.

If you'd care to explain what you mean by your cryptic remarks, by all means.

 

[Scott]

I'm glad we agree on the definition of a biological virus at any rate.

The first definition displayed in Wordnik's American Heritage Dictionary defines a premise as follows:
"A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn."

I think the above statement from Dr. Mark Bailey fits the bill.

Ok, so basically what you're doing here is stating what you believe, just as Dr. Mark Bailey outlined his own beliefs in his abstract. At this point, I think what we need to do is move on to the evidence. He organizes his evidence in his essay into 3 parts. Again from his abstract, here's the first page of the first part of his essay:

**
Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method. The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence, and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. The examples provided cover all major aspects of the virological fraud including alleged isolation, cytopathic effects, genomics, antibodies, and animal pathogenicity studies.
**

Again, there are a lot of claims here, but it's the essay itself that contains the evidence for these claims. Let's start with the first page of this part, and see if we can get a bit of discussion going on what it says:

**
SARS-COV-2 NOT FOUND

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. — Dr Thomas Cowan et al., The “Settling the Virus Debate” Statement, 2022.1​

As of 11 September 2022 and following extensive enquiries through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests coordinated by Christine Massey, not one of 209 mainly health or science institutions in over 35 countries have been able to provide direct evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.2 The institutions were asked to produce any documents demonstrating, “the purification of ‘SARS- CoV-2’ said to have caused disease in humans (via maceration, filtration, and use of an ultracentrifuge; also referred to at times by some people as ‘isolation’), directly from a diseased human...” On many occasions, following an admission that no such evidence is held, institutions such as the New Zealand Ministry of Health then suggest that, “there are several examples of the virus being isolated and cultured in a laboratory setting.”3 However, the examples referred to are universally tissue culture proxy experiments, in which the word ‘isolation’ has become detached from its understood meaning and it has not been demonstrated that any particle, imaged or imagined, has the properties of a disease-causing virus. In any case, it is a distraction from the wider issue exposed by the FOI requests, which is that particles claimed to be viruses can never be found in human subjects. Virology has made excuses for this missing evidence but even allowing for this embarrassing deficiency, it is running out of places to hide as its various methodologies are increasingly scrutinised by those outside the field. This essay outlines the many aspects of virology’s anti-science that have been employed to maintain the illusion that pathogenic viruses exist. The situation has become increasingly dangerous and since early 2020, the COVID-19 “pandemic" has been used as a Trojan horse to bring humanity to its knees.
**

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


If you could point out any disagreements you have with the above text and why, perhaps we could make some more progress.

Viruses have been sequenced over 6,000,000 times.

You repeating that line over and over again isn't evidence that it's true. Conversely, I just quoted a large chunk of information that strongly suggests that the evidence that biological viruses exists has no scientific basis.

 

[Scott]

I agree that he starts with the premise that alleged viral diseases like Covid-19 are invented, but he does -not- declare that any genetic sequences found are imaginary.

Again, Dr. Mark Bailey never said that any genetic sequences were imagined. I suspect that perhaps quoting a bit more from his essay could go a long way to clarifying his position. From the second page of the first part of his essay, as well as a bit of the third:

**
DR SIOUXSIE WILES — VIROLOGY’S ‘ISOLATION’ ACOLYTE

The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as the “virus isolation technique”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses. — Dr Stefan Lanka, 2015.4​

The defence of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favoured microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles.5 Her employer, the University of Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that, “[it] has not done any work relating to the purification of any Covid-19 virus,”6 and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. This associate professor, who advised the country that, “the world is on fire,” in March 2020,7 was ordained New Zealander of the Year in 2021 for, “helping millions globally see past the fear and complexities of the pandemic...and helping to keep us safe.”8 In her November 2020 article, “Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformation rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.”9 Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates,10 which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates11 into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in a human or anywhere else.
**

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

It sure looks like he claims they are imaginary.
2- "However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations."

Yes, he certainly believes that biological viruses -themselves- are imaginary phantom constructs, but he never said that the sequences that are discovered are imaginary.

Nothing in the rest of the quote in any way admits that RNA has been sequenced over 6,000,000 times and the RNA attributed to viruses.

I've read Dr. Mark Bailey's entire 67 page article. He certainly acknowledges that various sequences have been attributed to viruses. His main point is that there is no scientific basis to presume that any of these sequences actually belong to any biological virus.

There is no explanation for why that RNA exists.

RNA is essential for life. From Wikipedia:

**
Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a polymeric molecule essential in various biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation and expression of genes. RNA and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) are nucleic acids. Along with lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates, nucleic acids constitute one of the four major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life.
**

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

Finding RNA doesn't mean that the RNA has to belong to any alleged biological virus.

 

[Scott]

Alleged sequences of viruses. Perhaps if we focus a bit more on Dr. Mark Bailey's essay, which focuses heavily on the alleged Cov 2 virus, we can get into the evidence that all these alleged viral sequences do not in fact come from viruses at all. Quoting from page 3 of the first part of Dr. Mark Bailey's essay:

**
Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health OrganizaEon (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard to SARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate [sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”12 The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive.13 The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere.14 Their monkey experiment was not only invalidated by its lack of controls and unnatural exposure route but like all virology publications, they failed to demonstrate a particle that met the definition of a virus. Wiles also appeared to be at odds with Na Zhu et al., one of the first teams that claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, because they conceded that, “although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV [later ‘SARS-CoV-2’] in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include...animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”15
**

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

YOu keep repeating the same bullshit without ever defending the false logic.

I don't believe I've ever posted the above passage from Dr. Mark Bailey's essay, but if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it. I'm trying to show you all the evidence that strongly suggests that biological viruses are a phantom construct, but if all you're going to do is say that it's bs without even -trying- to refute it, I doubt we'll make any progress here.

 

[Scott]

I suspect you just don't understand what Bailey's trying to convey. The WHO's protocols simply don't have the ability to detect whether the Cov 2 virus exists. I'll quote the part of Dr. Mark Bailey's essay that I think best gets into this:

**
As has become apparent, the WHO cannot point to one valid positive control experiment, yet on February 11, 2020 they named the new disease they had invented, “COVID-19” with the associated claim that it was caused by a novel coronavirus.62 They have provided the green light for anyone around the world to “find” SARS-CoV-2 in their backyards without the need for valid control experiments either. Yet, there is a clear necessity for comparative controls where similar patient samples, but without the alleged virus, are processed in the same way so that only one variable is being tested. Comparing the results of a sample alleged to contain the virus with one of the negative controls described by the WHO’s document above cannot validate the process as the latter samples do not contain the genetic soup that is part of the former. In any case, even on their own terms the negative control referred to by ESR in New Zealand is unable to provide validation of the methodology they are using to create these virus genomes, because as the WHO states, it is simply a precautionary check for contamination.
**

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

OMFG. The idiocy of that quote is beyond belief.

You're really beginning to make a habit of leading with insults again. I guess you don't really care that I tend to snip off a conversation after one of those. As I've said before, if you're going to engage in insults, it makes more sense to do it at the -end- of any refutations you might have. Doing it before anything else tends to get me to cut off any actual evidence you might wish to present.