Into the Night
Verified User
Nah. I just can't change your religion.
I can point out the ridiculousness of it though.
A virus exists by definition.
Settling the Biological Virus Debate
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Nah. I just can't change your religion.
I can point out the ridiculousness of it though.
A virus exists by definition.
It's not me that is so cavalier as to not need evidence for my beliefs. This made me think of a quote from one of Frank Herbert's Dune books:
**
Religion is the emulation of the adult by the child. Religion is the encystment of past beliefs: mythology, which is guesswork, the assumptions of trust in the universe, those pronouncements which men have made in search of personal power, all of it mingled with shreds of enlightenment. And always the ultimate unspoken commandment is "Thou shall not question!" But we question. We break that commandment as a matter of course. The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of imagination to humankind's deepest sense of creativity.
**
You are correct. Unsubstantiated assertions don't help your position.
You have not substantiated what causes the diseases if not viruses.
You have not substantiated where the RNA comes from that is attributed to viruses
You have not substantiated why each virus has a unique RNA sequence.
You have made assertions that viruses don't exist and viruses do exist but remain in the body in an inert state until electromagnetism activates them. Those cannot both be true.
You have made an unsubstantiated assertion that de novo assembly of virus sequences is just guessing when it has nothing to do with guessing and is the exact same process used for all genomic sequencing.
You have made an unsubstantiated assertion that because Pastuer is guilty of some fraud then he must be guilty of fraud for all his claims. You have used the same false logic to try to discredit others.
The simple fact of the matter is is that the theory that viruses exist fits all the evidence and the claims they don't exist fail when it comes to trying to explain the evidence.
LOL. There is no mention that it applies to viruses either. Viruses were unknown at the time so it certainly wasn't created with viruses in mind.
It doesn't suggest it at all. All the other evidence points to viruses existing. Picking out one thing and claiming that is proof of non existence is false logic on your part. Bacteria is invisible to the naked eye. Does that mean everything visible to the naked eye doesn't exist?
You are simply attempting to take facts in isolation. That is a common used by conspiracy nuts. They cherry pick the data that supports their idiocy and ignore all the other facts. Then they switch back and forth between which facts they ignore depending on which argument they are making. You are giving us a fine example of that.
You want us to use Koch's postulates for viruses. You want us to ignore Koch's postulates. You argue viruses don't exist and then to argue they do exist when you have to come up with an explanation for how disease spreads.
Apparently you are not familiar with logic or history or fact or fiction. Science changes when the preponderance of facts no longer fit the theory.
The signatories of the statement have simply ignored many known facts and used equivocation and ignorance to advance their "theory." In science, nothing is ever really proven. Instead they use the theory that best fits the evidence. The best theory that fits the facts is that viruses exist. Claiming they don't exist without presenting an alternative theory that fits the facts better is nothing but bullshit. You seem to thrive on bullshit, eating it morning, noon and night and regurgitating it those times as well.
I think you meant to say the article is full of unsubstantiated allegations. And we know what we should do with unsubstantiated allegations.
Nice deflection, but it doesn't change the fact that you haven't substantiated the 3 assertions you made in your last post that I've quoted above.
Ignoring that science moves forward seems to be your shtick.
Koch's postulates are not logic. They are a way to identify certain microbes. They didn't work in all cases so as science does, it revised them. Not because they wanted to invent viruses but because something existed that couldn't be grown in a petri dish.
Until you come up with a better theory than viruses for the RNA sequences found, the illnesses they cause and the way the RNA replicates you are not providing us with anything but conspiracy theory bullshit.
If we follow your logic, since the current theory breaks down in a black hole then we should not believe any physics.
If we follow your logic since the original theory of gravity has been modified by Einstein's work then gravity can't exist.
Science simply applies the best answer they have to the facts.
The best answer to the facts of why RNA sequences are found, of how those RNA sequences multiply, of how sickness alleged to be caused by viruses occurs is that viruses do exist. You have not given us a better theory. You have only pointed out that you don't believe it. All you are doing is feeding us bullshit.
Science moving forward isn't a problem for me. Newton's original theory of gravity didn't predict black holes. Is that evidence that black holes don't exist? You seem to be arguing that it would be since you claim we have to apply old science in our modern world.
For those not familiar with the term substantiate in this context, here's the definition that applies from Merriam-Webster:
**
to establish by proof or competent evidence
**
Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantiate
I don't think I've ever claimed to have proof of evidence, so I'd be using the 'competent evidence' meaning.
I believe I've provided competent evidence that diseases attributed to viruses are in fact caused by environmental factors such as toxins [albeit in another thread post, this one: The Federal Government Is Tracking the Unvaccinated | Mercola.com, Post #43) and EMFs (Post #502).
RNA is everywhere life is. 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
The onus is on virologists to provide competent evidence that the RNA they find actually comes from any alleged virus.
In other words, you have no explanation for how disease spreads if viruses don't exist. I asked you for a credible explanation for how disease spreads of viruses do NOT exist. Your answer it so give us an alternate way if viruses DO exist.
Can we all agree you have no explanation for how disease spreads if viruses don't exist? That seems to be the only conclusion we can make.
Funny since the same processes are used for isolating and purifying viruses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_inactivation
Let me ask you. Can viruses be purified the same way as proteins? If you think proteins can be purified why do you claim viruses can't?
It is actually you who hasn't substantiated that any alleged "unique" RNA sequence comes from any alleged virus.
Dr. Mark Bailey gets into the deceptions involved in the alleged sequencing of viruses in his essay A Farewell to Virology-Expert Edition. Quoting from it:
**
METAGENOMIC SEQUENCING — VIROLOGY’S FINAL GASP?
[snip]
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 informaEon from their completely anti-scienEfic "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 parEcle 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.
The metagenomics process allows for the de novo invention of such viral sequences and has allowed virology’s merry-go-round to keep spinning into the 21st century. However, due to the inability of virology to fulfil its own postulates for the past century, its future is almost certainly going to be built entirely around this misuse, or at least misapplication, of metagenomics. One might hope that the recent failure of multiple organisations to prove they are performing valid control experiments indicates that viral pandemics are on their last legs scientifically. They can only be propagated for as long as this final fraud is hidden from the public. It could be expected in virology’s final gasp, metagenomics will continue to be deceptively sold as a ‘technological advancement’ conveniently claimed to have rendered the proper scientific proofs obsolete.
As has been outlined, the follies of such ‘technological advancement’ can usually be exposed with one simple question to check if is adhering to the scientific method. For example, in 2020, a Canadian team claimed that they were comparing various techniques for, “whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2,” from nasal swabs taken from two individuals alleged to have COVID-19.199 One of the authors was Dr Andrew McArthur, an associate professor of biochemistry and biomedical sciences at McMaster University, Canada. He was asked if they, “[tried] to extract RNA from healthy controls (healthy persons or PCR-negaEve samples) or from uninfected supernatant but virus-free,” to see if they could also assemble a “SARS-CoV-2 genome” through their methodology? McArthur responded that, “we did not have swabs from healthy controls but the study included negative controls for applicaEon/libraries, i.e. no sample RNA included.”200 Indeed, there was only one mention of a ‘control’ in the paper where it stated, “a negative control library with no input SARS-CoV-2 RNA extract was included using ARTIC amplification.” Once again, the lack of a valid control, being a human-derived sample sans the alleged “virus,” places this paper in the extensive archives of virology’s metagenomic nonsense. Ironically, their paper also claimed that, “COVID-19 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS- CoV-2), a novel coronavirus, which emerged in December 2019,” with the citation being the Peng Zhou et al. paper, the fraud of which was exposed earlier in this essay.
**
What is ridiculous is that they can't explain reality better than virus theory.
Your explanation for how disease spreads without viruses existing relies on viruses actually existing. That is ridiculous. If viruses exist to be manipulated by electromagnetism then they have to exist.
What is ridiculous about them is they rely on fallacies.
I have repeatedly pointed out the logical fallacy that if a process can't be used to identify all life then it is a fallacy to claim its failure to identify a virus proves they don't exist.
What is ridiculous about them is you can't defend them with any facts or logic.
When your explanation for how disease spreads includes viruses existing then you are not defending your position with facts or logic.
There are many more instances of you using logical fallacies and denying reality but I have answered this claim by you. When are you going to provide support for your claims that can withstand scrutiny?
Claiming you don't believe something but you are just posting it here would indicate you are a troll simply posting bullshit.
Since the very first sentence contains a falsehood, we can stop right there. The same process that is used to sequence viruses is used to sequence human, bacterial and fungal cells.
I have just provided you a link showing that viruses are isolated using the same methods used to isolate proteins. You can't claim proteins can be isolated but viruses can't.
The RNA sequences are unique. I have provided a link to the database that contains over 6,000,0000 of those sequences unique to the different viruses.
Since the sequences are unique and can't be reassembled in a different order to make the other viruses, it raises the question of where those sequences come from.
Viral theory says they come from unique viruses.
You have provided no logical source for those sequences. All you have provided is denial that they came from viruses.
Because some illness is caused by toxins doesn't prove all diseases are caused by toxins. In disease that is caused by toxins, the toxin can be identified and is found in the ill organism.
No such toxin is found in people with Covid, the flu or a cold. Instead RNA is found in large quantities that is not the sequence of any known source other than a virus.
Because RNA is everywhere doesn't mean it doesn't follow rules. It clearly does follow rules and is encoded by DNA or other RNA according to those rules. Specific proteins have a specific sequence and are produced by specific sequences of DNA or RNA. When sequences of RNA are found in large quantities the must have been produced in some way. I guess the RNA being everywhere life is proves that virus RNA is an organism.
Virologists have met that standard. All evidence points to viruses existing.
The best answer to the facts of why RNA sequences are found, of how those RNA sequences multiply, of how sickness alleged to be caused by viruses occurs is that viruses do exist. You have not given us a better theory. You have only pointed out that you don't believe it. Provide us with something other than denial. You can't do that.
Into the Night
Verified User
You're a liar. You do not question your religion. You're a fundamentalist. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Into the Night
Verified User
False authority fallacies. Straw man fallacies. Viruses exist by definition.
Man made god, god did not make man.
Into the Night
Verified User
YOU claim that your religion has no god.