Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

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.

I certainly agree on physics and Einstein.

Virology has been around for 130 years; like relativity it's not going away anytime soon.

I think it's quite possible that as you say, virology won't be going away anytime soon. That doesn't mean that it's based on science though. Many religions have been around for a lot longer than 130 years, but that doesn't mean they're based on science either.

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.

I know a fair amount about yeast as well, but unlike viruses, they are a fungus and have definitely been isolated. From Wikipedia:

**
Yeasts are very common in the environment, and are often isolated from sugar-rich materials.
**

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

Try to see if you can see the same in regards to viruses. And yet, viruses like the alleged Cov 2 virus, which is supposedly all over the place, has yet to actually be truly isolated.

 

[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.

A paradox is not a question.

Agreed. It doesn't change the fact that you didn't answer my question.

 

[goat]

I certainly agree on physics and Einstein.



I think it's quite possible that as you say, virology won't be going away anytime soon. That doesn't mean that it's based on science though. Many religions have been around for a lot longer than 130 years, but that doesn't mean they're based on science either.



I know a fair amount about yeast as well, but unlike viruses, they are a fungus and have definitely been isolated. From Wikipedia:

**
Yeasts are very common in the environment, and are often isolated from sugar-rich materials.
**

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

Try to see if you can see the same in regards to viruses. And yet, viruses like the alleged Cov 2 virus, which is supposedly all over the place, has yet to actually be truly isolated.

The nursery where I brought my diseased tomatoes knew immediately it was a virus because it's somewhat common. That's why farming is not for a layperson. One of my favorite hobbies used to be making bonsais but I had to spend a lot of time sanitizing almost sterilizing my tools to prevent the spread of disease.

There are a lot of pathogens in nature that spread. Claiming one of them isn't real won't prevent the others from causing sickness and death.

 

[Scott]

The nursery where I brought my diseased tomatoes knew immediately it was a virus because it's somewhat common.

Most medical doctors believe that the flu virus and now the covid virus are fairly common too. In the past, it was common for doctors to be on tv saying that cigarettes were healthy. Just because people believe something is common doesn't mean it's true.

That's why farming is not for a layperson. One of my favorite hobbies used to be making bonsais but I had to spend a lot of time sanitizing almost sterilizing my tools to prevent the spread of disease.

There are a lot of pathogens in nature that spread. Claiming one of them isn't real won't prevent the others from causing sickness and death.

There is plenty of evidence that bacteria and fungi exist. While there's a lot to be said as to whether they're more the scapegoats then the culprits of diseases they are said to be the cause of, no one I know questions their existence. Viruses, on the other hand, started out as things that were only hypothesized and to date, there's never been any evidence that any alleged virus has been isolated.

Dr. Mark Bailey is not the only one to have pointed this out. I was just reading an article from Robert Young, that I thought was quite good. Quoting a bit from it, bolding the part I think is most important:

**
The use of electron microscopy and the biochemistry were very slowly returning to normal after 1945 and no one had realized that not one pathogenic virus had ever been isolated in humans or animals; thus, as of 1949 researchers started applying the same idea used for the (bacterio) phages, in order to replicate the human and animal “viruses.” John Franklin Enders, born in 1897 in the family of a rich financier, was active in various fraternities after having finished his studies, then he worked as a real estate agent and studied foreign languages for four years before turning to bacterial virology, which fascinated him. He then simply transferred the ideas and concepts that he learned in this area of research to the supposed pathogenic viruses in humans.

[snip]

During his experiments, Enders et al. sterilized the tissue cultures in order to exclude the possibility of bacteria killing the cells. What he didn’t take into consideration was that the sterilization and the treatment of the cell culture when preparing it for the alleged infection was exactly what was destroying and killing the cells. Instead, he interpreted the cytopathic effects as the existence and the action of a so-called polio virus, without ever having isolated a single virus and describing its biochemistry.
**

Source:
Dismantling The Viral Theory | drrobertyoung.com

 

[Into the Night]

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

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

What do you believe I lied about?

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

RQAA.

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

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

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.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

I've yet to see that solid evidence for -any- biological virus,

RQAA.

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.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Physics has no problems. Science is not funding or a government agency.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed. It doesn't change the fact that you didn't answer my question.

A paradox is not question. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Most medical doctors believe that the flu virus and now the covid virus are fairly common too. In the past, it was common for doctors to be on tv saying that cigarettes were healthy. Just because people believe something is common doesn't mean it's true.



There is plenty of evidence that bacteria and fungi exist. While there's a lot to be said as to whether they're more the scapegoats then the culprits of diseases they are said to be the cause of, no one I know questions their existence. Viruses, on the other hand, started out as things that were only hypothesized and to date, there's never been any evidence that any alleged virus has been isolated.

Dr. Mark Bailey is not the only one to have pointed this out. I was just reading an article from Robert Young, that I thought was quite good. Quoting a bit from it, bolding the part I think is most important:

**
The use of electron microscopy and the biochemistry were very slowly returning to normal after 1945 and no one had realized that not one pathogenic virus had ever been isolated in humans or animals; thus, as of 1949 researchers started applying the same idea used for the (bacterio) phages, in order to replicate the human and animal “viruses.” John Franklin Enders, born in 1897 in the family of a rich financier, was active in various fraternities after having finished his studies, then he worked as a real estate agent and studied foreign languages for four years before turning to bacterial virology, which fascinated him. He then simply transferred the ideas and concepts that he learned in this area of research to the supposed pathogenic viruses in humans.

[snip]

During his experiments, Enders et al. sterilized the tissue cultures in order to exclude the possibility of bacteria killing the cells. What he didn’t take into consideration was that the sterilization and the treatment of the cell culture when preparing it for the alleged infection was exactly what was destroying and killing the cells. Instead, he interpreted the cytopathic effects as the existence and the action of a so-called polio virus, without ever having isolated a single virus and describing its biochemistry.
**

Source:
Dismantling The Viral Theory | drrobertyoung.com

Repetition fallacy (chanting). Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Scott]

A paradox is not a question.

Agreed. It doesn't change the fact that you didn't answer my question.

A paradox is not question.

Repeating a strawman argument does you no favours.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

That only proves that if you believe that we have sequenced the human genome then you can't claim we haven't sequenced viruses since they both rely on the same process. They sequence millions of snippets and then use the ovelapping parts to assemble a whole. It doesn't take high computing sources with modern computers.

This doesn't address at all where the RNA comes from that is sequenced into virus genomes. It fails to address at all where that RNA comes from. All Bailey is doing is repeating his unsubstantiated claims and not answering the questions I asked.
What causes the diseases that are attributed to viruses?
Where does the RNA that is attributed to viruses come from?
Why does each virus have a unique sequence without overlaps with other viruses?

You are simply posting the same unsubstantiated bullshit over and over and ignoring how it doesn't address the real world.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

I have already asked the questions that point to viruses existing.

The evidence is the following and neither Bailey or you have presented any arguments to answer them.

Diseases with specific symptoms are attributed to viruses. Those diseases spread as if one person is infecting another person. The spread is such that it can only be attributed to an increase in infectious agent which means the infectious agent must by multiplying in some fashion. RNA that is identical can be obtained and sequenced from the people showing the symptoms of disease that is attributed to viruses. Different viruses result in sequences that are identical or slightly modified as if the RNA is evolving. Evolution requires some way for the RNA to replicate so that errors can be introduced.

Virus theory has an explanation for all those observed realities. Bailey doesn't address them at all.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

LOL. You can't defend your position so you use pretend anger to run away. It's obvious to anyone reading this.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Most medical doctors believe that the flu virus and now the covid virus are fairly common too. In the past, it was common for doctors to be on tv saying that cigarettes were healthy. Just because people believe something is common doesn't mean it's true.

Doctors were paid to have the opinion when it came to cigarettes. You will notice that it wasn't all doctors promoting that. It was just the ones making money promoting an opinion to the gullible on a media source. The Bailieys have more in common with those doctors promoting cigarettes than the scientists that don't get paid to promote their opinion on media. The Baileys are getting paid to promote their opinion. They haven't done any science and published it in scientific journals. Let me ask that question again. Why haven't they done what they ask others to do? Send nasal swabs to 20 labs and ask for the genetic results? I can tell you why. It's because they enjoy being paid by gullible fools that believe their claims that they refuse to conduct any science on.

 

[Scott]

Most medical doctors believe that the flu virus and now the covid virus are fairly common too. In the past, it was common for doctors to be on tv saying that cigarettes were healthy. Just because people believe something is common doesn't mean it's true.

Doctors were paid to have the opinion when it came to cigarettes. You will notice that it wasn't all doctors promoting that.

Not all doctors promote the mainstream narrative on Covid either. America's Frontline Doctors is a good example:
https://www.aflds.org/policy

Many of those who don't have been punished for it though. The good news is that some of them have started to fight back:
Doctors threatened for COVID-19 views gear up for possible SCOTUS fight over California misinformation law | Fox News

The Bailieys have more in common with those doctors promoting cigarettes than the scientists that don't get paid to promote their opinion on media. The Baileys are getting paid to promote their opinion.

No, subscribers pay to have access to their articles, there is no well healed anti pharma group giving them money. As already mentioned, questioning the mainstream covid narrative can get doctors in trouble, and Dr. Sam Bailey was no exception:

**
Dr. Sam is under investigation by the Medical Council, which is the licensing agency for medical doctors in New Zealand, due to her videos questioning Covid policy, including her statement that she would not take the vaccine.
**

Source:

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not all doctors promote the mainstream narrative on Covid either. America's Frontline Doctors is a good example:
https://www.aflds.org/policy

Many of those who don't have been punished for it though. The good news is that some of them have started to fight back:
Doctors threatened for COVID-19 views gear up for possible SCOTUS fight over California misinformation law | Fox News



No, subscribers pay to have access to their articles, there is no well healed anti pharma group giving them money. As already mentioned, questioning the mainstream covid narrative can get doctors in trouble, and Dr. Sam Bailey was no exception:

**
Dr. Sam is under investigation by the Medical Council, which is the licensing agency for medical doctors in New Zealand, due to her videos questioning Covid policy, including her statement that she would not take the vaccine.
**

Source:

LOL. So your argument is people that get paid large sums of money to post things on youtube are more likely to be honest than people that don't get paid to post on youtube.

If doctors can legally give advice that violate medical ethics and laws then it will be a huge blow to all those laws passed to outlaw abortion. The law of unintended consequences can never be overturned.

 

[Into the Night]

Repeating a strawman argument does you no favours.

Pivot fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

 

[goat]

Physics has no problems. Science is not funding or a government agency.

From Wikipepia

The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next is a 2006 book by the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin about the problems with string theory. The book strongly criticizes string theory and its prominence in contemporary theoretical physics, on the grounds that string theory has yet to come up with a single prediction that can be verified using any technology that is likely to be feasible within our lifetimes. Smolin also focuses on the difficulties faced by research in quantum gravity, and by current efforts to come up with a theory explaining all four fundamental interactions. The book is broadly concerned with the role of controversy and diversity of approaches in scientific processes and ethics.
-----------------------------------------

I guess you know more than a theoretical physicist. Garbage in garbage out.

 

[Scott]

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

That only proves that if you believe that we have sequenced the human genome then you can't claim we haven't sequenced viruses since they both rely on the same process.

They sequence millions of snippets and then use the ovelapping parts to assemble a whole.

Not true. The difference is that we have no problem "isolating" humans. There is no solid evidence that a virus has ever been isolated. If virologists don't know where the genetic snippets they're sequencing are coming from, the notion that they're coming from viruses is a hypothesis with no scientific basis.

What causes the diseases that are attributed to viruses?

That's a very broad question, but I believe the following essay gives the outlines of an answer:

The Terrain Theory vs. The Germ Theory | drrobertyoung.com

Where does the RNA that is attributed to viruses come from?

As you may know, all animals, plants, fungi, and many unicellular organisms, are eukaryotes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

Small RNA molecules are abundant in eukaryotic nucleus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_RNA_biology

Therefore, there are -plenty- of places where RNA can be found other than alleged viruses.

Why does each virus have a unique sequence without overlaps with other viruses?

Think of these alleged viruses as akin to building unique structures with lego blocks, with the legos in this case being the various building blocks one tends to find in living matter. Just because you can build unique structures with legos in computer models doesn't mean that said structure ever existed in the real world, let alone having the capability of being a parasitic being.