Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

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.

The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not biological viruses are real. I think I've made it clear that, like the group of doctors referenced in the opening post, I no longer believe that they do. Do you have any refutation for their arguments?

 

[goat]

The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not biological viruses are real. I think I've made it clear that, like the group of doctors referenced in the opening post, I no longer believe that they do. Do you have any refutation for their arguments?

It's my understanding that viruses have been isolated and can be prevented from spreading from one host to another. Before HIV/AIDS was isolated, it was being spread through blood transfusions. Now they test the blood for viruses before the transfusion.

 

[Scott]

The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not biological viruses are real. I think I've made it clear that, like the group of doctors referenced in the opening post, I no longer believe that they do. Do you have any refutation for their arguments?

It's my understanding that viruses have been isolated and can be prevented from spreading from one host to another. Before HIV/AIDS was isolated, it was being spread through blood transfusions. Now they test the blood for viruses before the transfusion.

Actually, they test for genetic sequences, sequences that don't actually have to come from any alleged biological virus. Honestly, before Covid, I believed in viruses myself. It was only after it started researching it that a journalist friend of mine first introduced me to the fact that some were questioning the existence of not just the Cov 2 virus, but all viruses. At first, I was skeptical and I told her so. Ironically, she got back on the bandwagon that viruses are real, but I was eventually persuaded that they weren't.

As to the notion that HIV causes AIDS, there's plenty of evidence that this isn't the case. After a bit of searching on the internet, I found the following article that gets into a fair amount of this evidence:

Questioning the AIDS Virus, HIV, and AZT Controversy | shirleys-wellness-cafe.com

As to the evidence that there are no pathogenic viruses, at present my favourite essay on the subject is the following one from Dr. Mark Bailey:

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

Below are some articles the focus almost exclusively on the alleged Cov 2 virus.

This one was done by a journalist who started looking into it:

COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

Dr Stefan Lanka's article on the alleged Cov 2 virus is also very interesting in my view:

Misinterpretation VIRUS II (2) by Dr. Stefan Lanka – Beginning and End of the Corona Crisis | yummy.doctor

 

[goat]

Actually, they test for genetic sequences, sequences that don't actually have to come from any alleged biological virus. Honestly, before Covid, I believed in viruses myself. It was only after it started researching it that a journalist friend of mine first introduced me to the fact that some were questioning the existence of not just the Cov 2 virus, but all viruses. At first, I was skeptical and I told her so. Ironically, she got back on the bandwagon that viruses are real, but I was eventually persuaded that they weren't.

As to the notion that HIV causes AIDS, there's plenty of evidence that this isn't the case. After a bit of searching on the internet, I found the following article that gets into a fair amount of this evidence:

Questioning the AIDS Virus, HIV, and AZT Controversy | shirleys-wellness-cafe.com

As to the evidence that there are no pathogenic viruses, at present my favourite essay on the subject is the following one from Dr. Mark Bailey:

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

Below are some articles the focus almost exclusively on the alleged Cov 2 virus.

This one was done by a journalist who started looking into it:

COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

Dr Stefan Lanka's article on the alleged Cov 2 virus is also very interesting in my view:

Misinterpretation VIRUS II (2) by Dr. Stefan Lanka – Beginning and End of the Corona Crisis | yummy.doctor

Virologists have evidence that cov 2 is a virus that could only be made in a lab. They grafted Sars with another virus to make it more human friendly. Since they can speed up the process in which a virus jumps from animal to human, it becomes obvious that viruses are real. The proof that cov 2 was made in a lab is all over Youtube. Google may get you there but if not, DuckDuckGo will. Bret Weinstein comes to mind but there are many other biologists and virologists openly talking about the grafting.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

I have linked to the genome database multiple times.
It lists the sequences of those alleged viruses. You have given us no valid explanation for why those sequences exist. The most likely explanation is that viruses exist.

Your large chunk of information doesn't suggest anything other than you are a fool. Your 'evidence' doesn't explain why those RNA sequences exist. Your "evidence" doesn't explain how worms, humans, wombats exist since they have never been isolated using Koch's postulates.

The simple fact of the matter is is that organisms exist without being isolated using Koch's postulates. Since organisms can exist that can not be isolated using Koch's postulates any claim that an organism doesn't exist because it can't be isolated using Koch's postulates is not based on any logic or truth.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

You are not showing any evidence of the following.
An organism only exists if they are subject to isolation by Koch's postulates
The source of the RNA that is alleged to be from viruses.
Why each alleged virus when sequenced is unique and why those sequences only fit in one order.

The theory of viruses does provide a valid answer for each of those 3 things. Bailey does not address them.

 

[Into the Night]

As is clear from the nested quotes here, I went back quite a ways, only to find out that you started with an unsubstantiated assertion.

Contextomy fallacy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

I love it that you can't answer my questions or provide evidence because it proves you have no valid arguments. You only have your shitty little "I'm so mad at you I won't defend my position." arguments. Thanks for proving you are a fool. You seem to love doing it time and again. But then your continued attempts to use Bailey to and only Bailey proves you have done no research and are only here to troll.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, neither I nor Dr. Mark Bailey made that assertion. Surely you know what a straw man argument is?

Yes. You are making several of them right now. They are a fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

I wasn't referring to science here, I was referring to what people here would agree with in regards to whether or not Britannica defines words.

Lie. You were trying to redefine science. The Britannica does not define any word other than 'Britannica'.

Again, I suspect that no one else here would agree with you on that point. I'm also curious to know what you think their purpose is.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

What do you find paradoxical and/or irrational in what I said above?

RQAA.

No, I -was- attempting to persuade you that Dr. Mark Bailey was, in fact, speaking english in his essay. At this point, I think it's best to just agree to disagree on that point.

Discard of English. Cliche fallacy.

I was just trying to explain how you apparently missed a point by not seeing the proverbial forest due to focusing so much on the trees.

Cliche fallacy.

No, I've been trying to come to an agreement on the definition of words for our discussion, by referring to well known sources of such definitions, such as Wikipedia and dictionaries.
I'm beginning to consider the possibility that this may not be possible, due to the fact that you apparently don't even think these sources define words to begin with.

They don't. False authority fallacy. Semantics fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

A virus cannot multiply. There is no 'container'.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

No, you made a divisional error fallacy. You are STILL trying to push it.

 

[Into the Night]

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.



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



Yes, for the umpteenth time, I agree that science 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.

Lie. Denial of self argument. Irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

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

RQAA. Denying your paradox does NOT clear your paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

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

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Discard of science.

 

[Into the Night]

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



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.

Holy Link. Cut and paster. Science is not a 'sequencing'.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Lie. Denial of self argument. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Discard of science.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Kettle fallacy.
Attempted force of negative proof. Attempted proof by negation.

 

[Into the Night]

The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not biological viruses are real. I think I've made it clear that, like the group of doctors referenced in the opening post, I no longer believe that they do. Do you have any refutation for their arguments?

Negative proof fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

It's my understanding that viruses have been isolated and can be prevented from spreading from one host to another. Before HIV/AIDS was isolated, it was being spread through blood transfusions. Now they test the blood for viruses before the transfusion.

Such testing has been very effective in reducing transmission of fluid borne viruses (including HIV).