Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Into the Night]

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

Repetition fallacy. Cut and paster. No argument presented. Chanting. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[goat]

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

A virus multiplies rapidly once it finds a host.

 

[Scott]

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.

I used to believe this myself. That changed when I read the evidence that biological viruses don't exist.

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.

I'm sure you've seen my signature from Andre Gide- "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it." It's so easy to say that something is proven, but so very hard to actually prove anything. I personally settle for what is most likely. A while back, I came to the conclusion that the group of doctors referenced in the opening post's theory that viruses don't exist is by far the most likely.

 

[Scott]

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.

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.

Dr. Mark Bailey does in his essay. From the final part of it:

**
METAGENOMIC SEQUENCING — VIROLOGY’S FINAL GASP?

Is the reductionist ambition for molecular biology in danger of being thwarted by the volume of the data it produces, or even by the absorbing interest of its collection? — Sir John Maddox195​

The cost of sequencing has fallen dramatically since 2001, when it was over US$5000 per raw megabase (Mb), through to 2007 when it was around $500 per Mb, after which it dropped precipitously to $0.005 per Mb by mid-2021.196 Additionally, the emergence of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) around 2005 resulted in a massive reduction in the time required to sequence genomes. As stated in a 2017 Biology and Medicine paper,

the human genome, for example, consists of 3 billion bps [base pairs]...the sequencing of the human genome using the Sanger sequencing took almost 15 years, required the coopera6on of many laboratories around the world and costed approximately 100 million US dollars, whereas the sequencing by NGS sequencers using the 454 Genome Sequencer FLX took two months and for approximately one hundredth of the cost.197​

The same paper went on to state, "unfortunately, NGS are incapable [sic] to read the complete DNA sequence of the genome, they are limited to sequence small DNA fragments and generate millions of reads. This limit remains a negative point especially for genome assembly projects because it requires high computing resources."

It is pointed out that with regard to virology, a far bigger concern than "computing resources" is that a process that can be employed for sequencing genetic material of known provenance (e.g. human, bacterial, and fungal cells) has morphed into algorithmic assembly of genetic fragments of unknown provenance. This is the virus hunters' basis of identifying what they claim are viruses. Computing resources are no longer a problem for the virologists as they mine information from their completely anti-scientific "wet-lab pipeline" methodologies involving crude samples and feed these generated unfiltered reads into their theoretical "dry-lab pipeline" and its in silico models.

It would seem that the combination of massively reduced sequencing costs and shortened time frames have accelerated the descent of virology into further anti-science, for which humanity is paying a very dear price for non-existent viruses that are invented at will and used as excuses for spurious interventions and enslavement. An October 2019 publication in Critical Reviews in Microbiology claimed that, "mNGS [metagenomic NGS] performs well in identifying rare, novel, difficult-to-detect and co-infected pathogens directly from clinical samples.”198 However, "performs well" with regards to identifying novel “viral pathogens” is meaningless as they too have fallen into virology’s circular reasoning vortex. Most of the "novel pathogens" they listed in their paper were viruses derived from the purportedly advantageous “culture-independent" modern technique of mNGS. Once again however, if nobody can culture or physically isolate alleged viruses, how can various genetic sequences in environmental samples be claimed to come from them? As has been outlined, the declaration by Fan Wu et al. of a “new coronavirus” in Wuhan was based entirely on such proffered genetic sequences. Virology’s agempt to pass off this methodology as proof of virus particles has introduced an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is inconsistent with the scientific method.

The specialisation (and increasing automation) of the genomics process is leading to a situation where few people can appreciate the overall picture from the clinical assessment of a patient through to the generated nucleotide sequences on a computer screen. The virologists invalidate the ‘virus genome’ process from step one by never establishing that they have a particle that meets the definition of a virus. They certainly never demonstrate that the sequences they claim are ‘viral’ come from inside such an imagined particle. Instead they claim that such declarations can be made by consensus decisions, whether the sequences are labelled ‘non-human’ or ‘novel’ and by how much they happen to match ‘known viral’ sequences that were previously deposited on the genetic databanks. However, nature does not obey stories created by mankind.
**

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

 

[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.

You are not showing any evidence of the following.
An organism only exists if they are subject to isolation by Koch's postulates

I think you're looking at this backwards. Forget about Koch's postulates for a minute. The focus should be on what evidence there is that viruses exists. I believe that Dr. Mark Bailey's 67 page essay does a very good job of showing that there is no solid evidence that they exist.

 

[Scott]

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.

I love it that you can't answer my questions or provide evidence because it proves you have no valid arguments.

You want to believe that, go right ahead. I've told you multiple times that I tend to stop reading once insults start to fly. I think that by and large, I've kept my word. So if you want to stop the discussion between us on this subject, put the insults in your first sentence and you can watch how our conversations comes to a close.

 

[Scott]

Science is not a method or a procedure.

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

Yes.

How about you define what it means to you?

You are making several of them right now.

Feel free to list any straw man arguments you believe I've made 'right now'.

 

[Scott]

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.

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'.

Going back, it looks like I got a bit mixed up- we were originally talking about dictionaries here, though I know that elsewhere we talk about Britannica.com. In any case, I think that most people here would agree that both dictionaries and the Britannica encyclopedia define a great deal of words and that this has conversation has nothing to do with science.

 

[goat]

I used to believe this myself. That changed when I read the evidence that biological viruses don't exist.



I'm sure you've seen my signature from Andre Gide- "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it." It's so easy to say that something is proven, but so very hard to actually prove anything. I personally settle for what is most likely. A while back, I came to the conclusion that the group of doctors referenced in the opening post's theory that viruses don't exist is by far the most likely.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your OP starts out by claiming a virus cannot be isolated yet HIV is no longer spread through a blood transfusion. Viruses can be seen with a microscope. You have your virologists that you trust and I have mine. If they can graft one virus to another, I'd say they're real.

 

[Scott]

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.

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.

Another strawman, I never claimed to speak for everyone. Also, are you declining to comment on what you believe the purpose of dictionaries is?

 

[Scott]

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?

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

RQAA.

No, you didn't, as can clearly be seen from the nested quotes.

 

[Scott]

It is YOU wanting to redefine words.

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.

What do you believe the purpose of Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and dictionaries is?

 

[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.

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

Alright, I've once again gone back to the alleged source of this "divisional error fallacy". I even found an article on the fallacy of division. Quoting from it:

**
In critical thinking, we often come across statements that fall victim to the fallacy of division. This common logical fallacy refers to an attribution placed onto an entire class, assuming that each part has the same property as the whole. These can be physical objects, concepts, or groups of people.

By grouping elements of a whole together and assuming that every piece automatically has a certain attribute, we are often stating a false argument.
**

Source:
What Is the Fallacy of Division? | thoughtco.com

So, where exactly do you believe I made this fallacy of division?

 

[Scott]

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.

What do you believe I've lied about in the nested quote above?

 

[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?

RQAA.

You certainly didn't answer my question in the nested quotes above.

 

[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.

RQAA.

I'd just asked you to explain what you meant, so you couldn't have already done so.

 

[Scott]

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.

What do you believe I lied about?

 

[Scott]

I used to believe this myself. That changed when I read the evidence that biological viruses don't exist.

I'm sure you've seen my signature from Andre Gide- "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it." It's so easy to say that something is proven, but so very hard to actually prove anything. I personally settle for what is most likely. A while back, I came to the conclusion that the group of doctors referenced in the opening post's theory that viruses don't exist is by far the most likely.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

It may well come to that, but I see you wrote more than just that, so continuing...

Your OP starts out by claiming a virus cannot be isolated yet HIV is no longer spread through a blood transfusion.

Do you have any evidence that the alleged HIV virus was ever spread through blood transfusions?

Viruses can be seen with a microscope.

Microbes can be seen through electron microscopes. I've never seen any evidence that any of the microbes seen through them were viruses.

You have your virologists that you trust and I have mine.

No, I don't trust any virologists. The group of signatories to the statement referenced in the opening posts are doctors and other professionals, not virologists. Based on what one of them, Dr. Mark Bailey said, virology would appear to be the equivalent of scientology- it's based on false premises that are harmful to society.

If they can graft one virus to another, I'd say they're real.

I've yet to see that solid evidence for -any- biological virus, let alone this claim. I'd say that virology has many traits of bad religions- a bad religion can make up all sorts of claims and not need any solid evidence. I'd say the same applies here.

 

[goat]

It may well come to that, but I see you wrote more than just that, so continuing...



Do you have any evidence that the alleged HIV virus was ever spread through blood transfusions?



Microbes can be seen through electron microscopes. I've never seen any evidence that any of the microbes seen through them were viruses.



No, I don't trust any virologists. The group of signatories to the statement referenced in the opening posts are doctors and other professionals, not virologists. Based on what one of them, Dr. Mark Bailey said, virology would appear to be the equivalent of scientology- it's based on false premises that are harmful to society.



I've yet to see that solid evidence for -any- biological virus, let alone this claim. I'd say that virology has many traits of bad religions- a bad religion can make up all sorts of claims and not need any solid evidence. I'd say the same applies here.

All science is bought and paid for but there's a small percent of scientists who receive zero funding and have no agenda. Einstein was a patent clerk when he came up with Relativity. There are many problems with physics but we don't deny it's real.

Virology has been around for 130 years; like relativity it's not going away anytime soon. About 30 years ago I bought seeds that produce rotten tomatoes so I brought a few into the nursery where I bought the seeds, and they told me my tomato plant had a virus. It made sense to me because I know a lot about yeast.

 

[Into the Night]

You certainly didn't answer my question in the nested quotes above.

A paradox is not a question.