Settling the Biological Virus Debate

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".

No evidence of that at all in that post.

I just quoted part of the evidence above. Hint- it's in quotes.

Since tRNA is only 70-85 nucleotides long, how can a snippet that is 150 nucleotides long be tRNA?

I don't mention tRNA in post #576, where is this coming from? I'm guessing this has something to do with the following quote from Mark Bailey that I do mention in post #576:

**
They then proceeded to shotgun sequence the brew, starting with random fragmentation of the genetic material into short lengths averaging 150 nucleotides and conversion of the RNA to DNA using a reverse transcriptase enzyme.
**

Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com
 
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?

You seem to have a hard time with the concept that one can believe -some- of a person's beliefs, while disagreeing with others. There's actually a word for this, electicism. From Wikipedia:

**
Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases.

[snip]

It can sometimes seem inelegant or lacking in simplicity, and eclectics are sometimes criticized for lack of consistency in their thinking. It is, however, common in many fields of study. For example, most psychologists accept certain aspects of behaviorism, but do not attempt to use the theory to explain all aspects of human behavior.
**

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

That is certainly -part- of his theory, but it's not all of it. The other part is his belief that EMFs play a crucial role in the flu. That's the part I agree with.
 
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.

Now you're just repeating yourself. My response is the same as in post #643. Hopefully at some point you'll acknowledge the agreements I have with Mr. Fistenberg and not just the disagreement.
 
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

If DDT causes polio, then why was Polio discovered in the 1700's? DDT wasn't manufactured until the 1940's.

I suspect you didn't even read the "story at a glance" portion of Children Health Defense's article, even though I quoted it in its entirety several posts ago for you. Quoting the relevant portion below:

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

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

Surely we can agree that toxic substances have been around long before the 1940s.
 
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.

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.

No, you just drew a false conclusion.

Since that time, viruses have been shown to exist

They have been -claimed- to exist, but the evidence that they actually exist is flimsy at best.
 
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.

It seems you and Bailey have no answer for the facts.

Platitudes don't help further a discussion.

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.

In post #627 I focused on one alleged virus, Cov 2, wherein Dr. Mark Bailey claimed that "there remained a high match for known human RNA sequences."

This is further along then this post of yours that I'm currently responding to, and I see you have yet to respond to it, so I'll see if you do.
 
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.

Obviously you didn't read the links I posted that include science showing how viruses can be isolated and purified.

I actually did, and even pointed out that claims that any biological virus has been isolated/purified is not the same thing as providing evidence that this has actually happened.
 
You seem to have a hard time with the concept that one can believe -some- of a person's beliefs, while disagreeing with others. There's actually a word for this, electicism. From Wikipedia:

**
Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases.

[snip]

It can sometimes seem inelegant or lacking in simplicity, and eclectics are sometimes criticized for lack of consistency in their thinking. It is, however, common in many fields of study. For example, most psychologists accept certain aspects of behaviorism, but do not attempt to use the theory to explain all aspects of human behavior.
**

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

If only we were discussing psychology, philosophy, architecture, or martial arts. But we aren't discussing those esoteric topics. We are discussing hard science. Using a theory that says viruses exist when you argue that they don't exist isn't being eclectic, it is being a troll.
 
That is certainly -part- of his theory, but it's not all of it. The other part is his belief that EMFs play a crucial role in the flu. That's the part I agree with.

His belief is that EMFs activate viruses. You are claiming viruses don't even exist. He never once argues that EMFs cause the disease. He argues that the virus exist in the small quantities in the human body and that the virus itself is affected by the EMFs and starts to multiply and the multiplying virus makes the person sick. It isn't the human body that is being affected by the EMFs.

It seems the only part of his theory you agree with is that EMFs exist.
 
Now you're just repeating yourself. My response is the same as in post #643. Hopefully at some point you'll acknowledge the agreements I have with Mr. Fistenberg and not just the disagreement.
Firstenbert says viruses exist. Firstenberg says viruses are affected by EMFs. Firstenberg says the viruses multiply when affected by EMFs
You claim viruses don't exist. You claim viruses can't multiply.
The only agreement seems to be that EMFs exist.
 
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.

English is hard if you can't tell present tense from future tense.

Indeed. Might want to work on that.

But that is a lovely attempt at deflection. It seems you can't give us an explanation so have decided to argue the English language.

I gave you an explanation way back in Post #594. It's at the top of the nested quotes above, but I'll pinpoint the exact sentence for you:
"I believe all the factors for diseases are environmental, with the top 3 factors being pollutants/toxins, harmful EMFs and malnutrition."
 
Which protein go you think contains the following genetic sequence?

gactctgtgg aagaggccct atcggaggca cgtgaacacc tcaaaaatgg cacttgtggt

For those who don't know, this is the alleged starting sequence for the original Sars coronavirus. The complete alleged sequence appears to be here:

https://www.cdc.gov/sars/lab/downloads/nucleoseq.pdf

For those who may not be aware, Dr. Mark Bailey has pointed out the inherent flaws in any alleged viral sequence in the following essay:

A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com
 
Again, there is no soild evidence that a biological virus has ever been isolated, which means there is no solid evidence that they exist. Exosomes appear to be hard to isolate, but it also appears that it may have been done. Their Wikipedia page does include a section on their isolation, unlike Wikipedia's page on viruses, which does not. Why do you suppose that is? In any case, here's the section in question for exosomes:

**
Isolation

The isolation and detection of exosomes has proven to be complicated.[5][60] Due to the complexity of body fluids, physical separation of exosomes from cells and similar-sized particles is challenging. Isolation of exosomes using differential ultracentrifugation results in co-isolation of protein and other contaminants and incomplete separation of vesicles from lipoproteins.[61] Combining ultracentrifugation with micro-filtration or a gradient can improve purity.[62][63] Single step isolation of extracellular vesicles by size-exclusion chromatography has been demonstrated to provide greater efficiency for recovering intact vesicles over centrifugation,[64] although a size-based technique alone will not be able to distinguish exosomes from other vesicle types. To isolate a pure population of exosomes a combination of techniques is necessary, based on both physical (e.g. size, density) and biochemical parameters (e.g. presence/absence of certain proteins involved in their biogenesis).[61][65] The use of reference materials such as trackable recombinant EV will assist in mitigating technical variation introduced during sample preparation and analysis.[66][67] Novel selective isolation methodology has been using a combination of immunoaffinity chromatography and asymmetric-flow field-flow fractionation to reduce the contamination from lipoproteins and other proteins when isolating from blood plasma.[68][69]

Often, functional as well as antigenic assays are applied to derive useful information from multiple exosomes. Well-known examples of assays to detect proteins in total populations of exosomes are mass spectrometry and Western blot. However, a limitation of these methods is that contaminants may be present that affect the information obtained from such assays. Preferably, information is derived from single exosomes. Relevant properties of exosomes to detect include size, density, morphology, composition, and zeta potential.[70]

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosome_(vesicle)

So, you have decided to just pretend I never gave you the process by which viruses have been purified?

You gave me a link wherein there was a -claim- that viruses could be purified using a certain method.

Ultracentrifugation is the same process that can be used to isolate viruses. You can't claim that exosomes have been isolated and then claim that viruses have not.

Let's focus on a specific alleged virus that got me to look into all this stuff to begin with, the Cov 2 virus. From Dr. Mark Bailey's A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), with the world ultracentrifuge bolded:

**
As of 11 September 2022 and following extensive enquiries through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests coordinated by Christine Massey, not one of 209 mainly health or science institutions in over 35 countries have been able to provide direct evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.2 The institutions were asked to produce any documents demonstrating, “the purification of ‘SARS- CoV-2’ said to have caused disease in humans (via maceration, filtration, and use of an ultracentrifuge; also referred to at times by some people as ‘isolation’), directly from a diseased human...” On many occasions, following an admission that no such evidence is held, institutions such as the New Zealand Ministry of Health then suggest that, “there are several examples of the virus being isolated and cultured in a laboratory setting.”3 However, the examples referred to are universally tissue culture proxy experiments, in which the word ‘isolation’ has become detached from its understood meaning and it has not been demonstrated that any particle, imaged or imagined, has the properties of a disease-causing virus. In any case, it is a distraction from the wider issue exposed by the FOI requests, which is that particles claimed to be viruses can never be found in human subjects. Virology has made excuses for this missing evidence but even allowing for this embarrassing deficiency, it is running out of places to hide as its various methodologies are increasingly scrutinised by those outside the field.
**
 
Again, there is no soild evidence that a biological virus has ever been isolated, which means there is no solid evidence that they exist. Exosomes appear to be hard to isolate, but it also appears that it may have been done. Their Wikipedia page does include a section on their isolation, unlike Wikipedia's page on viruses, which does not. Why do you suppose that is? In any case, here's the section in question for exosomes:

**
Isolation

The isolation and detection of exosomes has proven to be complicated.[5][60] Due to the complexity of body fluids, physical separation of exosomes from cells and similar-sized particles is challenging. Isolation of exosomes using differential ultracentrifugation results in co-isolation of protein and other contaminants and incomplete separation of vesicles from lipoproteins.[61] Combining ultracentrifugation with micro-filtration or a gradient can improve purity.[62][63] Single step isolation of extracellular vesicles by size-exclusion chromatography has been demonstrated to provide greater efficiency for recovering intact vesicles over centrifugation,[64] although a size-based technique alone will not be able to distinguish exosomes from other vesicle types. To isolate a pure population of exosomes a combination of techniques is necessary, based on both physical (e.g. size, density) and biochemical parameters (e.g. presence/absence of certain proteins involved in their biogenesis).[61][65] The use of reference materials such as trackable recombinant EV will assist in mitigating technical variation introduced during sample preparation and analysis.[66][67] Novel selective isolation methodology has been using a combination of immunoaffinity chromatography and asymmetric-flow field-flow fractionation to reduce the contamination from lipoproteins and other proteins when isolating from blood plasma.[68][69]

Often, functional as well as antigenic assays are applied to derive useful information from multiple exosomes. Well-known examples of assays to detect proteins in total populations of exosomes are mass spectrometry and Western blot. However, a limitation of these methods is that contaminants may be present that affect the information obtained from such assays. Preferably, information is derived from single exosomes. Relevant properties of exosomes to detect include size, density, morphology, composition, and zeta potential.[70]

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosome_(vesicle)

So, you have decided to just pretend I never gave you the process by which viruses have been purified?
Ultracentrifugation is the same process that can be used to isolate viruses. You can't claim that exosomes have been isolated and then claim that viruses have not.

so you believe exosomes exist?

I currently don't know anyone who doesn't believe that exosomes exist, though many had not heard of them until I brought them up.
 
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

False authority fallacies. Wikipedia did not create the 5G protocol.

I never said they did.

You cannot use this reference with me.

I can and I did. If you have information that contradicts their definition, by all means present it.

Cell phone towers do not emit a harmful frequency.

The 2 case reports that Suzanne Burdick cites in her article show otherwise. Quoting from said article:

**
Both reports show that non-ionizing radiation from 5G — well below levels allowed by authorities — can cause health problems in individuals who had no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS).

The two reports appear to be the first studies in the world on the health effects in humans from exposure to 5G, according to the authors.

The case reports’ lead author, Dr. Lennart Hardell — a world-leading scientist on cancer risks from radiation — said the two reports are “groundbreaking” because they serve as the “first warning of a health hazard.”

“This may be the case for 5G and these results must be taken seriously,” he said.

“People shouldn’t have to leave their homes because of 5G,” said Hardell, an oncologist and epidemiologist with the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation who has authored more than 100 papers on non-ionizing radiation.

**

Source:
5G Towers Can Make Healthy People Sick, Two Case Reports Show | Children's Health Defense
 
I never said they did.



I can and I did. If you have information that contradicts their definition, by all means present it.



The 2 case reports that Suzanne Burdick cites in her article show otherwise. Quoting from said article:

**
Both reports show that non-ionizing radiation from 5G — well below levels allowed by authorities — can cause health problems in individuals who had no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS).

The two reports appear to be the first studies in the world on the health effects in humans from exposure to 5G, according to the authors.

The case reports’ lead author, Dr. Lennart Hardell — a world-leading scientist on cancer risks from radiation — said the two reports are “groundbreaking” because they serve as the “first warning of a health hazard.”

“This may be the case for 5G and these results must be taken seriously,” he said.

“People shouldn’t have to leave their homes because of 5G,” said Hardell, an oncologist and epidemiologist with the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation who has authored more than 100 papers on non-ionizing radiation.

**

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

5G is a protocol. Not a cell tower nor radiation. Cell phones do not use any frequency that affects the human body.
 
Platitudes don't help further a discussion.
Running away from the facts doesn't further the discussion either.

In post #627 I focused on one alleged virus, Cov 2, wherein Dr. Mark Bailey claimed that "there remained a high match for known human RNA sequences."

This is further along then this post of yours that I'm currently responding to, and I see you have yet to respond to it, so I'll see if you do.

Don't you just love unsubstantiated allegations? Which RNA sequences is he claiming match other sequences? He makes claims that can't be confirmed since he doesn't give any details.
How can sequences that are 150 nucleotides be mistaken for tRNA which is only 85 nucleotides long?
Tell us how any thinking person can claim a sequence that is 150 nucleotides long is simply an 85 nucleotides long sequence because they share some of the same very short sequences.
Because RNA has only 4 different nucleotides, math tells us that we will often have sequences that are 4-8 long that match sequences in other RNA of different types. But when we get to sequences of 20 or more the math says that the odds are reduced of similar sequences being found.

But the interesting thing is when I take even a sequence of 6 from a virus, I find no matches for most of those sequences in tRNA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/LT598516.1
http://trna.bioinf.uni-leipzig.de/DataOutput/Search

That raises a question of how honest Bailey is and what matches he is referring to. Tell us which sequences are a close match. Until you can do so, I have to assume my research is better than Bailey's and he is lying and you are gullible.
 
Back
Top