I have no religion but was raised Catholic with all the propaganda that could be jammed down my throat. It worked well until I reached about 12. Then the absurdity and endless contradiction blew it apart. No religion usually means no god.
Settling the Biological Virus Debate
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
I have no religion but was raised Catholic with all the propaganda that could be jammed down my throat. It worked well until I reached about 12. Then the absurdity and endless contradiction blew it apart. No religion usually means no god.
No, I've made the assertion that biological viruses don't exist. Arthur Firstenberg, an author I've quoted, made the assertion that the flu virus exists but remains inert until electromagnetic frequencies, or EMFs, activate it and cause the flu. My own theory is that the the EMFs are doing it without the need for any inert biological virus.
I did make that assertion, although I think that Dr. Mark Bailey gives a better explanation of what's going on. I've quoted his explanation in Post #532.
No, I didn't make that assertion, though someone who engages in fraud on a regular basis is hardly someone to be trusted. For those who are unaware of Louis Pasteur's fraud in his research and the effect it had on the battle of the Germ and Terrain theories, I recommend the following articles:
Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day | westonaprice.org
Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com
I can't defend myself if you don't name the people I have supposedly maligned.
For those who would like to read a different point of view, I highly recommend Dr. Mark Bailey's essay, A Farewell to Virology- Expert Edition.
Are you disputing that these alleged biological viruses are microbes?
Irrelevant. Viruses are still microbes. The problem has nothing to do with the fact that alleged viruses weren't yet "discovered", but rather with the fact that these alleged viruses simply couldn't be shown to exist using Koch's postulates. Virologists, instead of logically concluding that microbes simply didn't exist, decided instead to water down the standards of evidence to the point that they could be "shown" to exist after all.
I strongly disagree with you there.
What evidence are you referring to?
Again, I have never claimed that I or anyone else has proven that biological viruses don't exist. What Mark Bailey and the other signatories in the statement referenced in the opening post have said is that to date, no one has shown compelling evidence that they exist. They have also provided a means for labs to try to test that they do in fact exist. So far, it appears no lab has attempted to do the tests they suggest.
No. In point of fact, your bringing up of bacteria is a good point- Bacteria frequently have shapes that are distinct from other microbes, but most importantly, they -have- been isolated and even cultured. No one is disputing the existence of bacteria as far as I know.
I guess you were past due to hit me with an ad hominem attack.
Not sure why you think your unsubstantiated assertions in that sentence are related to my point.
Such as?
No, I didn't. I found the article to be chalk full of -substantiated- allegations. If you find that any statement in the linked article is unsubstantiated, by all means, let us know.
An unsubstantiated assertion.
Agreed, but they are logical.
Their purpose was not to simply identify certain microbes, but also to determine whether or not certain microbes cause disease.
Virologists couldn't find that any alleged virus exists by using them, so they decided to water down their standards of evidence by ditching Koch's postulates. The irony is that even the WHO apparently wasn't aware of this. River's postulates were the first watering down, but River's postulates still require the isolation of the microbe in question, something which no one has ever shown was actually done in the case of biological viruses.
If you want to believe that, go right ahead. Personally, I'd prefer having some solid evidence that biological viruses exist before believing in them.
Biological life forms have plenty of RNA sequences. Finding RNA sequences only indicates the existence of life forms.
LOL. So your evidence is something that completely refutes your argument?
If flu existed before we used electricity why did it not become much more prevalent after electricity was being used so much? The problem you have is that people that live near power lines would have flu all the time if your hypothesis had any merit. Why does flu exist in areas that don't have electricity? Why was the flu in 1918-19 worse than flu today? Most of the country was still without electricity back then. Sun spot history shows that many years had more sun activity than those years. 1937 and 1947 were 50% more than those years and no major flu outbreak then. Once again, you promote something that doesn't meet reality.
Proving once again you can't tell fact from opinion.
What do you think was a substantial allegation in the link you posted?
The author even admits he has nothing substantial:
it is one of those cases where I have to humbly accept not knowing the definitive answer at this very second.
No, that wouldn't be my logic. I'm simply pointing out that the laws of physics must be missing something if they break down in black holes.
Again, that wouldn't be my logic at all.
I agree that -true- science does this.
Here is where we strongly disagree.
Again, this isn't true. I've pointed to evidence strongly suggesting that toxins and EMFs are the most likely true causes of diseases attributed to biological viruses.
It's not a problem for me either.
No.
I've never made such a claim.
I also see that you didn't actually respond in any meaningful way to the quote above regarding River's postulates.
It's pretty well substantiated. Viruses were unknown to science at the time of Koch. Science has discovered viruses since then.
You are denying that viruses exist.
That would be substantiated that you are ignoring that science moves forward.
Unless you want to claim you aren't denying viruses exist. You seem to argue the do exist at the same time you argue they don't exist.
Because something is logical doesn't mean it can be applied to all things.
Ducks have wings. Ducks can fly.
Planes have wings. Planes can fly.
That doesn't mean if a child has butterfly wings that they can fly.
At the time they were created, viruses were not known. Should we apply Newtonian physics instead of quantum physics to quarks since Newtonian physics is logical?
That isn't exactly true.
https://www.science.org/content/art...ected-people-coronavirus-here-s-what-happened
I am curious as to how nasal swabs were able to transfer the illness from one person to another if the transfer has never been shown.
And yet you believe in black holes?
There is a database of over 6,000,000 times that RNA has been sequenced and it doesn't fit the sequence of any RNA produced in animal cells.
Since RNA indicates a life form and the RNA doesn't come from the cell, where does it come from? You have just argued that it MUST come from a life form. The most likely life form at this time would be a virus.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are a member of:
The Church of No God.
The Church of Green.
The Church of Global Warming.
The Church of Covid.
The Church of the Ozone Hole.
The Church of Karl Marx.
ALL of them are fundamentalist style religions.
Apparently you didn't really digest what Mr. Firstenberg said. He believed that the alleged flu virus was essentially inert. If the alleged flu virus was inert, the same effect could happen without a virus at all. I quoted a passage from Mr. Firstenberg's book that dealt specifically with the flu virus, but there is a lot more of his book that talks of the negative health effects that EMFs have regardless of whether any alleged virus is present at all. And then there are the role of other environmental toxins as well. There have been studies suggesting that air pollution "worsened the effects" of Covid:
Coronavirus and Air Pollution | harvard.edu
Why air pollution is linked to severe cases of COVID-19 | stanford.edu
Does air pollution increase risk from COVID-19? Here's what we know | abcnews.go.com
If the Cov 2 virus doesn't exist, then it stands to reason that air pollution itself might be one of the causes of Covid 19. It's no secret that people in China were wearing masks long before Covid 19, due to the terrible quality of the air.
And Koch's postulates don't work for humans, viruses and wombats so they must be missing something. That is why they changed them just like why they will change the laws of physics at some point to identify what goes on in black holes.
And yet you want to throw away the only theory that explains the diseases, how they pass from one organism to another and why the RNA exists for something that can't begin to explain it.
You have not pointed to any strong evidence.
Your explanation doesn't explain why the RNA exists.
Your explanation doesn't explain why the RNA multiplies.
Your explanation doesn't explain why virus RNA sequences don't align with any other RNA found in healthy cells.
Your explanation doesn't explain why the disease spreads instead of being localized which is what would occur if it was a toxin.
Your explanation has not identified any toxins associated with viral diseases.
Your EMF explanation says that viruses DO exist which directly contradicts your claim they don't.
Until you can explain in total and without deflection how all of those occur your don't have any evidence at all. You run from one explanation to the next and don't try to tie them all together. The problem is that your explanations don't withstand even basic scrutiny. some of your explanations contradict other explanations. You only have bullshit you are regurgitating without being able to actually discuss the topic in an informed manner.
You don't have strong evidence. You can't show any evidence to answer
Another example of you running from one explanation to another when your explanations don't make any sense.
If one thing can worsen another is not proof that the first thing is the cause. your logical fallacies are getting tiring.
If the disease is caused by a toxin then name the toxin and explain the source of the specific RNA sequence. Until you can do both you are doing nothing but denying facts.
Nowhere in the quote does Bailey address the actual process of how de novo assembly works. He doesn't discuss the computer code. He doesn't discuss the overlapping segments. He doesn't tell us the length of the snippets. He doesn't list the companies that provide the hardware and software. He would appear to avoid an explanation of the actual process. All Bailey does it simply refer to it as an invention. The computer is an "invention." That doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Since Bailey gives no explanation of the process of de novo assembly, where does he give any explanation of why it doesn't work? Once again, we see you just throwing shit at the wall without understanding that you are the one that is covered in shit since you can't defend your position.
You'll note that that process is -not- called "virus purification", but rather "virus inactivation". It's for alleged viruses in general. They're not even -claiming- to isolate viruses in that process.
If biological viruses actually existed, yes. They're supposedly bigger than proteins after all. The only reason I can think of as to why they can't be is because they don't exist.
I strongly disagree that my explanation for alleged viral diseases relies on viruses existing, but feel free to show evidence to the contrary.
The same process, yes, but the problem is that unlike human, bacterial and fungal cells, which are of known provenance due to the ability to isolate those types of cells, since viruses have never been isolated, there is no solid evidence that genetic material they're sequencing comes from viruses.
I imagine you're referring to Post #531, which I rebutted in Post #558.