Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

It's quite simple. If they are lying about the covid virus and that it doesn't really exist, then they are lying about the vaccine.

Finding out what's in the vaccine would be an easy first step in proving that. It's just the same thing as finding out if a pill is a placebo.

I never said that anyone was lying about there being a covid virus. People believe things that aren't true all the time. History is replete with such examples. Some well known beliefs that we now generally agree are false was that the earth was flat or that slavery was ok.

 

[AProudLefty]

I never said that anyone was lying about there being a covid virus.

Then that means they didn't know what they were dealing with and just produced the vaccines based on the unknown with unknown effects? That's very interesting take.

People believe things that aren't true all the time. History is replete with such examples. Some well known beliefs that we now generally agree are false was that the earth was flat or that slavery was ok.

Straw men.

 

[Scott]

I never said that anyone was lying about there being a covid virus.

Then that means they didn't know what they were dealing with and just produced the vaccines based on the unknown with unknown effects? That's very interesting take.

I certainly believe it's -possible- that some of the top people in vaccine companies know or at least suspect that biological viruses aren't real, but I also think it's possible that they believe that viruses are in fact real. In order to understand how they could be fooled, you need to read articles such as the one I linked to in post #33.

People believe things that aren't true all the time. History is replete with such examples. Some well known beliefs that we now generally agree are false was that the earth was flat or that slavery was ok.

Straw men.

I believe you're suggesting that the statements I wrote above were somehow straw man arguments. Assuming this is the case, would you care to explain why you think this?

 

[AProudLefty]

I believe you're suggesting that the statements I wrote above were somehow straw man arguments. Assuming this is the case, would you care to explain why you think this?

Okay, setting aside the straw man accusation, I'll examine two of your strawman arguments.

"People believe things that aren't true all the time. History is replete with such examples. Some well known beliefs that we now generally agree are false was that the earth was flat or that slavery was ok."

The idea that people generally believe that the Earth was flat is a persistent myth. The Earth was well known to be round since Ancient Greece. So you inadvertently just blew your own argument out of the water.

And slavery is a moral issue, not a scientific issue.

 

[Scott]

Okay, setting aside the straw man accusation, I'll examine two of your strawman arguments.

"People believe things that aren't true all the time. History is replete with such examples. Some well known beliefs that we now generally agree are false was that the earth was flat or that slavery was ok."

The idea that people generally believe that the Earth was flat is a persistent myth. The Earth was well known to be round since Ancient Greece. So you inadvertently just blew your own argument out of the water.

I decided to do an internet search on the matter. You get partial points. From Wikipedia:

**
According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now.
**

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

So it would appear that while most scholars believed the earth was round, the public at large did tend to believe it was flat.

And slavery is a moral issue, not a scientific issue.

I was referring to truths, not whether a given stance was moral or scientific. For a long period of time, europeans believed that slavery was fine. Most people today would disagree with their notion. I firmly believe that, assuming humanity survives long enough, most if not all people will come to see biological viruses as a fallacy, just as most people see slavery as something that's not ok today.

 

[Lightbringer]

For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

I'll quote the first few paragraphs of the statement here:

**
July 14, 2022

Settling the Virus Debate

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

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. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative.

This is something that wasn't really on my radar until about a year ago. I'm not a doctor but this sounds interesting. I don't see what the harm is in having the debate.

 

[Scott]

This is something that wasn't really on my radar until about a year ago. I'm not a doctor but this sounds interesting. I don't see what the harm is in having the debate.

It took me a while to believe it myself, perhaps a year or so. It's just so mind bogglingly different from what I've come to believe for most of my life. It was actually a journalist friend of mine who first suggested that biological viruses might not be real. She later came to reverse course and once again believe that biological viruses were real, but I kept on thinking about the idea, and the doctors who believe that they're not real. The more I've read and listened to these doctors talk, the more persuaded I've become. My personal favourite comment on the matter is from a small snippet from a 1 and a half hour video podcast on the subject of whether biological viruses are real. One of the doctors mentioned the fact that proteins, which are smaller than viruses, have been isolated and purified, and yet somehow, the claim is that this isn't possible with viruses. I can't see how that would make sense if biological viruses are in fact real.

The video podcast in question is here:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/interviews/baileys-cowan-respond-to-kevin-mckernan/

I wish I knew what part of the video where this is mentioned, but I think that the entire video is very educational.

 

[AProudLefty]

So it would appear that while most scholars believed the earth was round, the public at large did tend to believe it was flat.

Not many believed that nor did they cared. They only cared about day to day survival. Intellectuals and scholars knew the Earth was round. It was easily discoverable.

I was referring to truths, not whether a given stance was moral or scientific. For a long period of time, europeans believed that slavery was fine. Most people today would disagree with their notion. I firmly believe that, assuming humanity survives long enough, most if not all people will come to see biological viruses as a fallacy, just as most people see slavery as something that's not ok today.

Again, slavery is a moral issue. If you find a scientific root for people accepting slavery as being moral, you'd have an argument.

Now back to the biological viruses, they have been studied for over 100 years. The vaccines were developed that eradicated them. Such as smallpox and Polio.

If those viruses didn't exist, those vaccines wouldn't have worked, would they?

 

[AProudLefty]

This is something that wasn't really on my radar until about a year ago. I'm not a doctor but this sounds interesting. I don't see what the harm is in having the debate.

Yeah it's an age old debate about Germ theory vs Terrain theory.

With Terrain theory, it isn't the viruses or pathogens that are the cause of those diseases and symptoms.

 

[Scott]

So it would appear that while most scholars believed the earth was round, the public at large did tend to believe it was flat.

Not many believed that nor did they cared. They only cared about day to day survival.

I haven't seen any evidence that "not many" regular people believed that, but perhaps we can agree that it's not the most important matter and certainly isn't the main subject of this thread.

I was referring to truths, not whether a given stance was moral or scientific. For a long period of time, europeans believed that slavery was fine. Most people today would disagree with their notion. I firmly believe that, assuming humanity survives long enough, most if not all people will come to see biological viruses as a fallacy, just as most people see slavery as something that's not ok today.

Again, slavery is a moral issue.

That doesn't change the fact that thinking that slavery was ok was a logical failing of many people not so long ago. Since then, most people have come to see the truth.

Now back to the biological viruses, they have been studied for over 100 years.

Various people have claimed that they exist over the years. But simply claiming that something is true doesn't make it so.

The vaccines were developed that eradicated them. Such as smallpox and Polio.

Some articles you may find interesting:
Even the “Smallpox Vaccine Success Story” appears to be a total fabrication! | stateofthenation.co

Polio Vaccine Causing Polio Outbreaks in Africa, WHO Admits | Children's Health Defense

 

[Scott]

This is something that wasn't really on my radar until about a year ago. I'm not a doctor but this sounds interesting. I don't see what the harm is in having the debate.

Yeah it's an age old debate about Germ theory vs Terrain theory.

With Terrain theory, it isn't the viruses or pathogens that are the cause of those diseases and symptoms.

Partial points. The group of doctors who don't believe that the biological viruses exist are adherents of Terrain theory, but that's only one branch of Terrain theorists. Some who believe in terrain theory do believe that viruses exist, but that their effects aren't nearly as strong as mainstream Germ theory proponents believe. For an example of an adherent that believes in Terrain theory but also believes in biological viruses, here's an article with that stance:

Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day | westonaprice.org

 

[AProudLefty]

I haven't seen any evidence that "not many" regular people believed that, but perhaps we can agree that it's not the most important matter and certainly isn't the main subject of this thread.



That doesn't change the fact that thinking that slavery was ok was a logical failing of many people not so long ago. Since then, most people have come to see the truth.



Various people have claimed that they exist over the years. But simply claiming that something is true doesn't make it so.



Some articles you may find interesting:
Even the “Smallpox Vaccine Success Story” appears to be a total fabrication! | stateofthenation.co

Polio Vaccine Causing Polio Outbreaks in Africa, WHO Admits | Children's Health Defense

I am going to ask you this question: if it isn't the viruses that cause those diseases with symptoms, then what are the sources? And how were those diseases spread not just locally but national wide and globally?

This is your opportunity to use science to present your evidence of those diseases being caused by internal and/or external factors other than pathogens.

 

[Lightbringer]

I am going to ask you this question: if it isn't the viruses that cause those diseases with symptoms, then what are the sources? And how were those diseases spread not just locally but national wide and globally?

This is your opportunity to use science to present your evidence of those diseases being caused by internal and/or external factors other than pathogens.

How was a disease spread globally in 1918?

 

[AProudLefty]

How was a disease spread globally in 1918?

That's an good question, actually. How?

According to the Terrain theory, it shouldn't have.

 

[Lightbringer]

That's an good question, actually. How?

According to the Terrain theory, it shouldn't have.

According to both it shouldn't have. And why is our government still warning us about covid? That should have ended a few months ago at the latest.

 

[AProudLefty]

According to both it shouldn't have.

Explain what you mean by that. The Spanish flu is highly contagious and people get infected by it by contact.

And why is our government still warning us about covid? That should have ended a few months ago at the latest.

What is wrong with CDC cautioning us about covid? It's your choice to be vaccinated or not. They've been cautioning us about seasonal flu. What's the difference?

 

[Lightbringer]

Explain what you mean by that. The Spanish flu is highly contagious and people get infected by it by contact.



What is wrong with CDC cautioning us about covid? It's your choice to be vaccinated or not. They've been cautioning us about seasonal flu. What's the difference?

The government got caught paying media outlets to spread propaganda. Safe and effective. That's what's wrong.

 

[AProudLefty]

The government got caught paying media outlets to spread propaganda. Safe and effective. That's what's wrong.

Even if you're right, it's still your choice. You do not have to be vaccinated.

Now, as I have asked the OP and I will ask you, if the covid vaccines have harmful side effects, it should be easily proven by just doing a rigorous analysis of those vaccines. What's in them? So far nobody has ever shown what inside those vaccines that are harmful for everyone.

 

[Lightbringer]

Even if you're right, it's still your choice. You do not have to be vaccinated.

Now, as I have asked the OP and I will ask you, if the covid vaccines have harmful side effects, it should be easily proven by just doing a rigorous analysis of those vaccines. What's in them? So far nobody has ever shown what inside those vaccines.

What do you mean "even if I'm right?"

That was a major story for two days...until it wasn't.

Is your memory bad? Or do you just not want to remember?

 

[AProudLefty]

What do you mean "even if I'm right?"

That was a major story for two days...until it wasn't.

Is your memory bad? Or do you just not want to remember?

I remember the propaganda against the covid virus and vaccines. Perhaps you're talking about something else?