Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Into the Night]

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.

Define 'pollutant'. Define 'harmful EMFs'. Define 'malnutrition'. You obviously don't know what 'disease' means.

Your inability to speak English is really getting in your way.

 

[Scott]

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.

In the case of the Cov 2 virus, I already did this, though in fairness, it was posted after the post you were responding to. I did it in Post #576.

I even bolded the section that contains the most relevant part in relation to your question: "there remained a high match for known human RNA sequences".

 

[Scott]

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.

Once again, you are confusing Arthur Firstenberg's beliefs with my own. I found that Mr. Firstenberg's evidence that man made EMFs played a decisive role in the flu beginning in 1889, but I didn't agree with his assertion that these EMFs activated a flu virus, but rather that the EMFs alone were responsible for the flu. For anyone interested in Arthur Firstenberg's evidence that EMFs have always played an important role in the flu, I recommend taking a look at my post #502.

 

[Scott]

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.

Arthur Firstenberg makes the case that that's exactly what happened. From his book The Invisible Rainbow:

**
Influenza Is an Electrical Disease

Suddenly and inexplicably, influenza, whose descriptions had remained consistent for thousands of years, changed its character in 1889. Flu had last seized most of England in November 1847, over half a century earlier. The last flu epidemic in the United States had raged in the winter of 1874–1875. Since ancient times, influenza had been known as a capricious, unpredictable disease, a wild animal that came from nowhere, terrorized whole populations at once without warning and without a schedule, and disappeared as suddenly and mysteriously as it had arrived, not to be seen again for years or decades. It behaved unlike any other illness, was thought not to be contagious, and received its name because its comings and goings were said to be governed by the “influence” of the stars.

View attachment 24605

But in 1889 influenza was tamed. From that year forward it would be present always, in every part of the world. It would vanish mysteriously as before, but it could be counted on to return, at more or less the same time, the following year. And it has never been absent since.

[snip]

In 2001, Canadian astronomer Ken Tapping, together with two British Columbia physicians, were the latest scientists to confirm, yet again, that for at least the last three centuries influenza pandemics have been most likely to occur during peaks of solar magnetic activity—that is, at the height of each eleven-year sun cycle.

Such a trend is not the only aspect of this disease that has long puzzled virologists. In 1992, one of the world’s authorities on the epidemiology of influenza, R. Edgar Hope-Simpson, published a book in which he reviewed the essential known facts and pointed out that they did not support a mode of transmission by direct human-to-human contact. Hope-Simpson had been perplexed by influenza for a long time, in fact ever since he had treated its victims as a young general practitioner in Dorset, England, during the 1932–1933 epidemic—the very epidemic during which the virus that is associated with the disease in humans was first isolated. But during his 71-year career Hope-Simpson’s questions were never answered. “The sudden explosion of information about the nature of the virus and its antigenic reactions in the human host,” he wrote in 1992, had only “added to the features calling for explanation.”3
**

Source:
Firstenberg, Arthur; Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow (pp. 80-82). Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

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.

I literally quoted his book in the post you're responding to as can be seen in the nested quote above. I believe the most important premise in his quote, which is that that EMFs play a decisive role in causing the flu. I simply disagree with his notion that they activated an alleged flu virus, but rather that they caused the disease without the aid of any such virus.

 

[Scott]

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.

Well, that's good to know.

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.

Arthur Firstenberg does address the fact that the flu was present long before man made EMFs were introduced. He also provides evidence that the flu has in fact gotten a lot worse since man made EMFs were introduced. I suspect you'd know that if you'd actually read what I quoted in the post you were responding to. Anyway, once more:

**
Influenza Is an Electrical Disease

Suddenly and inexplicably, influenza, whose descriptions had remained consistent for thousands of years, changed its character in 1889. Flu had last seized most of England in November 1847, over half a century earlier. The last flu epidemic in the United States had raged in the winter of 1874–1875. Since ancient times, influenza had been known as a capricious, unpredictable disease, a wild animal that came from nowhere, terrorized whole populations at once without warning and without a schedule, and disappeared as suddenly and mysteriously as it had arrived, not to be seen again for years or decades. It behaved unlike any other illness, was thought not to be contagious, and received its name because its comings and goings were said to be governed by the “influence” of the stars.

View attachment 24605

But in 1889 influenza was tamed. From that year forward it would be present always, in every part of the world. It would vanish mysteriously as before, but it could be counted on to return, at more or less the same time, the following year. And it has never been absent since.

[snip]

In 2001, Canadian astronomer Ken Tapping, together with two British Columbia physicians, were the latest scientists to confirm, yet again, that for at least the last three centuries influenza pandemics have been most likely to occur during peaks of solar magnetic activity—that is, at the height of each eleven-year sun cycle.

Such a trend is not the only aspect of this disease that has long puzzled virologists. In 1992, one of the world’s authorities on the epidemiology of influenza, R. Edgar Hope-Simpson, published a book in which he reviewed the essential known facts and pointed out that they did not support a mode of transmission by direct human-to-human contact. Hope-Simpson had been perplexed by influenza for a long time, in fact ever since he had treated its victims as a young general practitioner in Dorset, England, during the 1932–1933 epidemic—the very epidemic during which the virus that is associated with the disease in humans was first isolated. But during his 71-year career Hope-Simpson’s questions were never answered. “The sudden explosion of information about the nature of the virus and its antigenic reactions in the human host,” he wrote in 1992, had only “added to the features calling for explanation.”3
**

Source:
Firstenberg, Arthur; Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow (pp. 80-82). Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

[Scott]

What do you think was a substantial allegation in the link you posted?

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

•We are told that the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case.

•There are scientists who believe that polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.

•At the time of its popularity, DDT was considered not only “safe and effective” but also good for the prevention of polio.

•However, the opposite could be true, and DDT could have been a major contributing factor to the “polio epidemic.”
**

More garbage from you [snip]

You ask me a question, I answer it, and then you insult me for doing so -.- If you're not interested in an answer, don't ask the question. Anyway, for anyone interested in the linked article in question, it's here:

A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

 

[Scott]

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 [snip]

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion. If you have any -substantiated- objection to what I posted above, by all means speak up.

 

[Scott]

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.

You can claim whatever you like. I've found that Dr. Mark Bailey's essay A Farewell to Virology provides an excellent refutation of virology as a whole. In terms of a specific alleged viral RNA genome, namely the Cov 2 virus, I rebutted the notion that its alleged RNA was unique in post #602.

 

[Scott]

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.

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

Denial is a long river for you.

Very funny .

Oh.. look, the process has changed so they no longer have to isolate and purify.

From what I've read, I believe the truth is that virologists have never been able to isolate or purify these alleged biological viruses. Saying they no longer have to do so is certainly a convenient way of not having to face this reality.

That is not proof that nothing has been isolated.

I agree that it's not proof that no biological virus has been isolated. Similarly, I've seen no proof that unicorns don't exist. The important thing here is that I've seen no solid evidence that either biological viruses or unicorns exist.

It only proves you are a troll.

Here we go with the ad hominem attacks again -.-

 

[Scott]

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.

You had said that I had no explanation and right after that you acknowledged that I did, in fact, have an explanation. I either have one or I don't, there's no middle ground here.

 

[Scott]

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".

That's right.

I imagine I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony here.

 

[Scott]

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

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

They can read yours as well. It's clear that even Saunders isn't always a fan of some of the things you say.

 

[Scott]

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.

As I quoted above, Wikipedia defines 5G as a technology standard. I've read of the 5G protocol stack as well, here:
5G Protocol Stack | 5G Layer 1, 5G Layer 2, 5G Layer 3 | rfwireless-world.com

The article I referenced was talking about the health effects of 5G Towers and their effect on human health. For anyone who's interested, the article is here:

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

 

[Scott]

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

Define 'pollutant'.

*something that pollutes*

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant

Define 'harmful EMFs'.

The Jury's clearly still out on which EMFs should be included in that list, but efforts are certainly being made to get a clearer picture. Ionizing EMFs have been known to cause significant harm for a while now. As to non ionizing EMFs, I'll quote from a Children's Health Defense article that I think offers a little clarification:

**
Did you know New Hampshire is the first government in the U.S. to conduct a formal investigation of wireless risks and issue a groundbreaking report of harm along with safer ways to use today’s technology?

They discovered thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies that link wireless radiation to our growing rates of insomnia, headaches, fatigue, anxiety, depression and more. In the long-term, the U.S. National Toxicology Program has found cell phone radiation causes cancer and DNA damage. It is also a leading cause of our disappearing pollinators. This invisible radiation is constantly pulsed from all things wireless, unless we learn to use technology safely and responsibly.
**

Full article:
EMF/RF Free Monthly Educational Webinars, CeCe Doucette: “Wireless Technology Risks and Safer Solutions” | Children's Health Defense

Define 'malnutrition'.

From Wikipedia:
**
Malnutrition or nutritional deficiency occurs when an organism gets too few or too many nutrients, resulting in health problems.[11]
**

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

You obviously don't know what 'disease' means.

I think that the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the term is good:
**
An abnormal condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, inflammation, environmental factors, or genetic defect, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs, symptoms, or both.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/disease

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In the case of the Cov 2 virus, I already did this, though in fairness, it was posted after the post you were responding to. I did it in Post #576.

I even bolded the section that contains the most relevant part in relation to your question: "there remained a high match for known human RNA sequences".

No evidence of that at all in that post. Unsubstantiated allegations seem to be all you have.
Since tRNA is only 70-85 nucleotides long, how can a snippet that is 150 nucleotides long be tRNA? Your argument starts to fall apart pretty quickly when we look at the process and the length of snippets that are sequenced.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Once again, you are confusing Arthur Firstenberg's beliefs with my own. I found that Mr. Firstenberg's evidence that man made EMFs played a decisive role in the flu beginning in 1889, but I didn't agree with his assertion that these EMFs activated a flu virus, but rather that the EMFs alone were responsible for the flu. For anyone interested in Arthur Firstenberg's evidence that EMFs have always played an important role in the flu, I recommend taking a look at my post #502.

If you are not using Firstenberg as a source for your beliefs then why are you quoting him? If you don't believe what Firstenberg expouses then why are you quoting him?
The only reason that you seem to be quoting Firstenberg is to try to find support for your argument that has no support since even Firstenberg doesn't support your argument.
Once again we see that all you have is bullshit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I literally quoted his book in the post you're responding to as can be seen in the nested quote above. I believe the most important premise in his quote, which is that that EMFs play a decisive role in causing the flu. I simply disagree with his notion that they activated an alleged flu virus, but rather that they caused the disease without the aid of any such virus.

EMFs play a decisive role according to Firstenberg because they activate viruses that exist in the body. Firstenberg doesn't supply any support for your argument. He refutes your argument. Your argument is not supported by Firstenberg. Your argument is false according to Firstenberg.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Well, that's good to know.



Arthur Firstenberg does address the fact that the flu was present long before man made EMFs were introduced. He also provides evidence that the flu has in fact gotten a lot worse since man made EMFs were introduced. I suspect you'd know that if you'd actually read what I quoted in the post you were responding to. Anyway, once more:

**
Influenza Is an Electrical Disease

Suddenly and inexplicably, influenza, whose descriptions had remained consistent for thousands of years, changed its character in 1889. Flu had last seized most of England in November 1847, over half a century earlier. The last flu epidemic in the United States had raged in the winter of 1874–1875. Since ancient times, influenza had been known as a capricious, unpredictable disease, a wild animal that came from nowhere, terrorized whole populations at once without warning and without a schedule, and disappeared as suddenly and mysteriously as it had arrived, not to be seen again for years or decades. It behaved unlike any other illness, was thought not to be contagious, and received its name because its comings and goings were said to be governed by the “influence” of the stars.

View attachment 24605

But in 1889 influenza was tamed. From that year forward it would be present always, in every part of the world. It would vanish mysteriously as before, but it could be counted on to return, at more or less the same time, the following year. And it has never been absent since.

[snip]

In 2001, Canadian astronomer Ken Tapping, together with two British Columbia physicians, were the latest scientists to confirm, yet again, that for at least the last three centuries influenza pandemics have been most likely to occur during peaks of solar magnetic activity—that is, at the height of each eleven-year sun cycle.

Such a trend is not the only aspect of this disease that has long puzzled virologists. In 1992, one of the world’s authorities on the epidemiology of influenza, R. Edgar Hope-Simpson, published a book in which he reviewed the essential known facts and pointed out that they did not support a mode of transmission by direct human-to-human contact. Hope-Simpson had been perplexed by influenza for a long time, in fact ever since he had treated its victims as a young general practitioner in Dorset, England, during the 1932–1933 epidemic—the very epidemic during which the virus that is associated with the disease in humans was first isolated. But during his 71-year career Hope-Simpson’s questions were never answered. “The sudden explosion of information about the nature of the virus and its antigenic reactions in the human host,” he wrote in 1992, had only “added to the features calling for explanation.”3
**

Source:
Firstenberg, Arthur; Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow (pp. 80-82). Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

EMFs play a decisive role according to Firstenberg because they activate viruses that exist in the body. Firstenberg doesn't supply any support for your argument. He refutes your argument. Your argument is not supported by Firstenberg. Your argument is false according to Firstenberg.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You ask me a question, I answer it, and then you insult me for doing so -.- If you're not interested in an answer, don't ask the question. Anyway, for anyone interested in the linked article in question, it's here:

A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

If DDT causes polio, then why was Polio discovered in the 1700's? DDT wasn't manufactured until the 1940's.
A disease can't be caused by something that doesn't exist, can it?

At this point your arguments are ridiculous. Calling them garbage is an insult to garbage.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion. If you have any -substantiated- objection to what I posted above, by all means speak up.

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]

You completely ignore what you read. Since that time, viruses have been shown to exist and can not be grown in a nutrient medium. Viruses can be retained by filters as I provided evidence of.