Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Into the Night]

I was referring to Electro Magnetic Fields or EMFs for short. There's plenty of evidence that they can have negative health impacts for humans and other life forms. Children's Health Defense published an article a few days ago with evidence of this in the case of 5G towers:

5G Towers Can Make Healthy People Sick, Two Case Reports Show | Children's Health Defense

They have NO affect on the human body. 5G is a protocol, not a frequency.

Approximately 300Ghz is the resonant frequency of water. This is the frequency used by microwave ovens. Nothing above or below that frequency affects the human body at all (at least until you get to infrared light).
Cell phone towers do not use 300Ghz.

Weather radar does, so don't stand in front of a high power weather radar antenna. It cooks just like a microwave.

Electrical fields do not affect the human body at all.
Magnetic fields do not affect the human body at all.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Your two Canadian 'physicians' and Ken Tapping are denying science.

Certain frequencies of light do affect human tissue. Microwaves at 300Ghz is one. Infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light is another. X rays and above is another. The rest of the spectrum has no effect.
The Sun emits a wide range of frequencies, and the atmosphere filters out the harmful ones (except a small amount of UVb).

Electromagnetic fields are not electrical fields and they are not magnetic fields. You keep switching context, dude.

NO frequency of light causes influenza.

 

[Scott]

1- I've already provided alternative theories for allegedly viral diseases many times. In short, they are environmental/terrain theories, mainly toxins, EMFs and malnutrition.

2- You've provided no solid evidence that any allegedly viral diseases are contagious.

3- RNA exists in many cells, no need for these alleged biological viruses to explain RNA fragments in tissue samples.

No, You have provided only your religious chanting.
A virus exists by definition.

Says the guy who keeps on saying "A virus exists by definition".

 

[Scott]

I question things all the time.

Lie.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion right off the bat, one that's rather insulting to boot. I think I'll stop reading this post at this point.

Oh, it's substantiated...by your own posts!

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Scott]

I was referring to Electro Magnetic Fields or EMFs for short. There's plenty of evidence that they can have negative health impacts for humans and other life forms. Children's Health Defense published an article a few days ago with evidence of this in the case of 5G towers:

5G Towers Can Make Healthy People Sick, Two Case Reports Show | Children's Health Defense

They have NO affect on the human body.

Did you read the article I linked to?

5G is a protocol, not a frequency.

The article was referencing 5G Towers, not the 5G technology standard itself. For those in the audience who may not be familiar with the term, I think referencing Wikipedia's definition of 5G to avoid confusion is in order:
**
In telecommunications, 5G is the fifth-generation technology standard for broadband cellular networks, which cellular phone companies began deploying worldwide in 2019, and is the planned successor to the 4G networks which provide connectivity to most current cellphones.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G

Approximately 300Ghz is the resonant frequency of water. This is the frequency used by microwave ovens. Nothing above or below that frequency affects the human body at all (at least until you get to infrared light).

Plenty of studies have found otherwise. You might wish to look at the article I linked to that references 2 such studies if you haven't already.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I strongly disagree that my explanation for alleged viral diseases relies on viruses existing, but feel free to show evidence to the contrary.

So you have no explanation. You only have denial. Until your explanation can give a reasonable response to all of these at the same time, you are only a denier.

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

You didn't rebut anything. You simply denied what was in the link by claiming the title didn't include "purification" or "isolation."
Your attempt to ignore that they call it purification is noted.

Membrane chromatography is increasingly popular for virus purification and removal.

Here are other samples of how a virus is isolated.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/virus-purification

Chromatography has been widely used for capture, concentration, and purification of viruses using three different arrangements of the stationary phase: packed beds, membrane adsorbers, and monoliths.

https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/Virus-Purification-Methods.aspx
https://www.epigentek.com/catalog/methods-of-virus-Purification-n-41.html
https://www.beckman.com/resources/reading-material/case-studies/virus-purification-fundamentals

Here is a US patent for a process to purify viruses
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016156613A1/en

There is a database with over 6,000,000 times that viruses have been sequenced and there is no other explanation for where that RNA came from.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

For starters, there's no solid evidence that these RNA sequences come from viruses at all and from what I can see, no solid evidence that all the genetic fragments that are assembled even come from the same biological entities. It seems that the last time I put up Dr. Mark Bailey's explanation for what's actually going on when virologists "sequence" viruses, you stopped at the first sentence, but that sentence alone makes that clear, so I'll just quote it again:

**
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.
**

For anyone interested in the longer version, it's in Post #532.

I have asked you repeatedly and you still have not answered. If the RNA didn't come from a virus then tell us what else has the sequence so we can see where it came from. Your failure to provide any alterantive source that contains the genetic sequence shows it is you that has no solid evidence. You can't meet even the most basic requirements to show your theory has any basis in fact. You only have denial.

You have not pointed to any strong evidence. Until your idiotic theory can answer all the following better than virus theory virus theory will be the best explanation.
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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I never claimed I had proof, but I have certainly provided solid evidence that environmental factors such as toxins and EMFs can cause diseases attributed to various viruses. Another factor which I may not have mentioned is malnutrition.

Your only argument that EMFs cause the disease is that the viruses exist and EMFs activate the viruses. That is not solid evidence of viruses not existing.

In this day and age, there are many different toxins, EMFs and forms of malnourishment, which can make it difficult if not impossible to pinpoint the exact cause of a given disease or set of diseases. That being said, good efforts have been made to do this.



It's hard to find evidence for a toxin/EMF/malnutrition causing a problem if you don't look for those factors as potential causes, don't you think? These days, the go to thing to look for are microbes. That being said, some have found evidence that some alleged viral diseases were in fact caused by environmetntal factors. Quoting from the post you were replying to:

**
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).
**

Making up shit doesn't make your argument any stronger. Science does not instantly go to microbes. They start with the facts. For instance, the fish kills in Ohio have not been attributed to microbes. So your claim that microbes are the go to is false.
You have provided zero competent evidence of diseases attributed to viruses being cause by environmental factors.
Competent evidence would include the disease name, the virus name, the toxin name, the science showing the virus is not in those afflicted, evidence the toxin is in those afflicted. You have provided none of that. You have provided a statement by someone that did ZERO evidence gathering.

You mean sequences of unknown provenance that is matched up to other sequences of unknown provenance.



There isn't even any solid evidence that viruses exist.

Your denial is noted.

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, the evidence I took from Arthur Firstenberg's book was that EMFs can cause disease such as the flu. He believed that biological viruses were activated by the EMFs and played a minor part in causing the disease. Having seen no solid evidence of biological viruses, I think it makes more sense to do away with viruses entirely here and simply attribute the sole cause of the flu to EMFs.

It's funny that the "evidence" you took is something that doesn't exist at all in his book. You didn't take any evidence from his book. You made fantastical leaps with zero evidence.

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You seem to be under the impression that all EMFs are the same. In point of fact, different EMFs affect people differently. Furthermore, different people have different tolerances to EMFs as well. That being said, there is certainly evidence that being near power lines can effect one's health negatively:

Living near Power Lines | newhealthadvisor.org



Harmful EMFs don't just come from power lines. Radio frequencies, particularly for cell phone communication, are a major one. Nowadays, there are a lot of satellites beaming down EMFs as well. Finally, as mentioned in my last post, even the sun produces a significant amount of harmful EMFs that tend to effect people in its peaks every 11 years.



Based on what I read from Arthur Firstenberg's book, it would appear that it was heavily related with the increased use of radio waves around the time of World War I. I think Arthur Firstenberg's Chapter 8 in his Invisible Rainbow book gives a good starting point to how it all began....

I am not under the impression that all EMFs are the same. I pointed out that the flu has existed in historical writings since ancient Egypt.What power lines were in ancient Egypt? You have failed to address why flu existed before power lines and hasn't gotten worse as the EMFs we live with have multiplied.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think the "Story at a glance" part of the article sums up the substantial allegations made:
**
Story at-a-glance:

”
**

More garbage from you that still fails to address this....

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Based on what I've read, it would appear that the notion of viruses started just a few years after Koch had published his postulates in 1890 with the alleged tobacco mosaic virus:
**
In 1892, the Russian biologist Dmitri Ivanovsky used this filter to study what is now known as the tobacco mosaic virus: crushed leaf extracts from infected tobacco plants remained infectious even after filtration to remove bacteria. Ivanovsky suggested the infection might be caused by a toxin produced by bacteria, but he did not pursue the idea.[3] At the time it was thought that all infectious agents could be retained by filters and grown on a nutrient medium—this was part of the germ theory of disease.[4]

In 1898, the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck repeated the experiments and became convinced that the filtered solution contained a new form of infectious agent.[5] He observed that the agent multiplied only in cells that were dividing, but as his experiments did not show that it was made of particles, he called it a contagium vivum fluidum (soluble living germ) and reintroduced the word virus.
**

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

I believe that Dmitri Ivanovsky was much closer to the mark- I don't know the specifics, but I highly suspect that it's toxins that are the true cause of smallpox.

So based on your limited reading which doesn't include any actual science that has been conducted you have reached your limited conclusion that doesn't include any actual science. No surprise there.

You have not pointed to any strong evidence for why and how your conclusion can provide the following:
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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I find the evidence that black holes exist to be highly credible.



No, you have a database of a bunch of RNA snippets of unknown provenance that virologists claim are from these alleged viruses. I've yet to see any evidence that any alleged biological virus has ever been isolated. Without true isolation, it's impossible to know the true provenance of these RNA snippets.



No, the most likely life forms are from all the RNA life forms out there- I'm guessing most if not all of the found RNA snippets are coming from cells. From Wikipedia:

**
Some RNA molecules play an active role within cells by catalyzing biological reactions, controlling gene expression, or sensing and communicating responses to cellular signals. One of these active processes is protein synthesis, a universal function in which RNA molecules direct the synthesis of proteins on ribosomes. This process uses transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to deliver amino acids to the ribosome, where ribosomal RNA (rRNA) then links amino acids together to form coded proteins.
**

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

I have a database of over 6,000,000 RNA sequences that does not match the RNA sequence found in tRNA, rRNA or any other RNA found in a healthy cell. Your explanation fails since it doesn't explain why the sequences found in viruses don't match tRNA or rRNA.
rRNA doesn't code. Viruses do code.
tRNA does code but is shorter than viruses and there are only about 100 found across all cellular species.

Your guessing is just guessing. I have actual science on my side.
tRNA is only 70-85 nucleotides long. It can't be mistaken for viruses that are 6,000 nucleotides long. tRNA are found in all cells. Viruses are not found in all cells.

 

[Scott]

I strongly disagree that my explanation for alleged viral diseases relies on viruses existing, but feel free to show evidence to the contrary.

So you have no explanation. You only have denial. Until your explanation can give a reasonable response to all of these at the same time, you are only a denier.

What you are saying is paradoxical. First, you say I have no explanation. Then, you say "Until your explanation...". Didn't you just claim that I don't have an explanation? You can't have it both ways. In any case, I do indeed have alternative theoretical explanations as to the causes of alleged viral diseases.

I believe all the factors for diseases are environmental, with the top 3 factors being pollutants/toxins, harmful EMFs and malnutrition.

 

[Scott]

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.

You didn't rebut anything. You simply denied what was in the link by claiming the title didn't include "purification" or "isolation." Your attempt to ignore that they call it purification is noted.

Membrane chromatography is increasingly popular for virus purification and removal.

I didn't deny what was in the link, I just noted that the title didn't include "virus purification". I didn't notice that they did include those words in the body of the article. In any case, anyone can -say- that they are 'purifying' a virus, but without solid evidence that they've ever actually isolated a virus, it's just words without evidence. I did a search on your article, it did not include the words "isolate" or "isolation", so they don't even claim to do these things.

Here are other samples of how a virus is isolated.

As I just mentioned, your first "sample" didn't even claim to isolate a virus. Moving on to your first link...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/virus-purification

That link does indeed claim to have isolated various viruses, but doesn't provide compelling evidence that this has actually been done. They mention isolated or isolation 4 times. I think the 4th time is the most revealing:

**
Advances in vector design and the various commercially available baculovirus expression systems permit simple, recombinant virus production, with some systems negating the requirement of virus isolation and purification.
**

It seems that here they are perhaps at their most honest, as they recognize that what is going in is not really virus isolation or purification and they're just giving themselves license at this point to do away with both because they think they're not really required to show solid evidence that biological viruses actually exist.

There is a database with over 6,000,000 times that viruses have been sequenced and there is no other explanation for where that RNA came from.

There is- as mentioned previously, RNA is found in a lot of cells.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I didn't deny what was in the link, I just noted that the title didn't include "virus purification". I didn't notice that they did include those words in the body of the article. In any case, anyone can -say- that they are 'purifying' a virus, but without solid evidence that they've ever actually isolated a virus, it's just words without evidence. I did a search on your article, it did not include the words "isolate" or "isolation", so they don't even claim to do these things.



As I just mentioned, your first "sample" didn't even claim to isolate a virus. Moving on to your first link...



That link does indeed claim to have isolated various viruses, but doesn't provide compelling evidence that this has actually been done. They mention isolated or isolation 4 times. I think the 4th time is the most revealing:

**
Advances in vector design and the various commercially available baculovirus expression systems permit simple, recombinant virus production, with some systems negating the requirement of virus isolation and purification.
**

It seems that here they are perhaps at their most honest, as they recognize that what is going in is not really virus isolation or purification and they're just giving themselves license at this point to do away with both because they think they're not really required to show solid evidence that biological viruses actually exist.

Denial is a long river for you.
Oh.. look, the process has changed so they no longer have to isolate and purify. That is not proof that nothing has been isolated. It only proves you are a troll.

There is- as mentioned previously, RNA is found in a lot of cells.

There is RNA in a lot of cells that doesn't match any RNA from viruses. Since the RNA in cells doesn't match the RNA found in viruses where does the virus RNA come from?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What you are saying is paradoxical. First, you say I have no explanation. Then, you say "Until your explanation...". Didn't you just claim that I don't have an explanation? You can't have it both ways. In any case, I do indeed have alternative theoretical explanations as to the causes of alleged viral diseases.

I believe all the factors for diseases are environmental, with the top 3 factors being pollutants/toxins, harmful EMFs and malnutrition.

You are not dead. Until you die... Not paradoxical at all.
Until you do something is not proof that you did or didn't do it in the past. If you are falling into using Into the Night's tactics then you have lost all touch with reality.

Let me remind you what you can't do and will never be able to do since you are only a denier that has nothing but denial.
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.

 

[Into the Night]

Says the guy who keeps on saying "A virus exists by definition".

That's right.

 

[Into the Night]

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

Denying your own posts isn't going to work. Anyone can go read them.

 

[Into the Night]

Did you read the article I linked to?

The article was referencing 5G Towers, not the 5G technology standard itself. For those in the audience who may not be familiar with the term, I think referencing Wikipedia's definition of 5G to avoid confusion is in order:
**
In telecommunications, 5G is the fifth-generation technology standard for broadband cellular networks, which cellular phone companies began deploying worldwide in 2019, and is the planned successor to the 4G networks which provide connectivity to most current cellphones.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G



Plenty of studies have found otherwise. You might wish to look at the article I linked to that references 2 such studies if you haven't already.

5G is a protocol, genius. It is not a tower.