Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Have viruses been grown in a tissue culture? Yes or no?

Again, no.

Let's keep this simple.

Provide one scientific paper published in an actual scientific journal that has been peer reviewed that shows that the Nobel Prize was falsely awarded in 1954.
That paper should show that the process used by Enders can not be duplicated.

Ah.. what the hell. Let's stick to your standards. Provide a quote from a paper showing that Enders' process is flawed and doesn't work.

Are you willing to live up to your own standards?

Your failure to dispute this is a rather large hole in your belief system.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

[snip]

Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science.

**
“The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, Popper says, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.

There is a corresponding difference that Popper sees in the form of the claims made by sciences and pseudo-sciences: Scientific claims are falsifiable -- that is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true -- while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false. Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not.”
**

Source:
Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science | Scientific American



Source:
Unfalsifiable | substack.com

The article your first link goes to shows you are not conducting science.
pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.
Clearly you have only been looking for things that confirm your claim that viruses don't exist and not looking for anything that disputes that claim. You are doing psuedo-science.


Scientific claims are falsifiable -- that is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true -- while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes.
Case in point would be your argument that polio is caused by DDT poisoning. You imagine that DDT causes polio but have made no attempt to falsify your claim.

Let's falsify the claim of DDT causing polio. If DDT causes polio then parts of the world that use DDT should see large polio outbreaks.
DDT is currently used widely in Africa to control malaria by killing mosquitos https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ddt-use-to-combat-malaria/
https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/dr00034101/
In 2009, there were 416 cases of polio in Africa. By 2015 there were almost none. By 2020 Africa was declared polio free.

If we look at Nigeria we can see the increase in cases of Polio that peaks in 2006. Nigeria was the epicenter of Polio in Africa with the most cases in that time period.

DDT use was ended in Africa in 1996. It was reauthorized by WHO in 2006. Nigeria didn't start using it until 2013. Nigeria had used it after WW2 as in the 40's and 50's. Nigeria didn't use it after the 1960's.
https://allafrica.com/stories/201307180429.html

If DDT was the cause of polio. Shouldn't we have seen a spike in polio after 2013? Since there was no DDT used prior to 2013 shouldn't we have seen no cases of polio.
At this point, your argument that DDT causes polio has been falsified and the evidence points to it not being true.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Virology allows for:

“Viruses” to be found within the sick and also within the healthy.

Theoretical antibodies to be found in the “infected” and not found in the “infected,” while being either a sign of “protection” or a sign of chronic disease.

The presence of the “virus” within the cell culture determined by both the observation of the cytopathogenic effect as well as the lack of the observation of this efffect.

The same particles seen in EM images claimed to be either pathogenic “viruses” or non-pathogenic “virus-like” particles.

View attachment 24861

It is clear that there is no way to be able to falsify the “viral” hypothesis when contradictory concepts are ultimately allowed to coexist in order to explain away inconvenient findings. The “viral” theory is then reworked to allow for the incorporation of the contradictory findings to further confirm and support the unfalsifiable premise. Germ theory and virology are a circular system devoid of logic and reason that have been deceiving humanity for the last two centuries. Isn't it far past time to demand that they show how their hypotheses and theories are falsifiable?
**

Source:
Unfalsifiable | substack.com

That has to be some of the stupidest arguments you have posted yet.

“Viruses” to be found within the sick and also within the healthy.

Let's assume that viruses can never be found in anyone that is healthy. If viruses make someone sick, then a healthy person must get the virus prior to getting sick. If a healthy person can never have the virus then a healthy person can never get sick since they can never have the virus. At this point we see how ridiculous this argument is since it has created a paradox.

Let's look at it another way.
Poison can be found in both the sick and the healthy. Can this be true?
If someone ingests arsenic can they be both healthy and have poison in them? Not only is that true. It MUST be true. There must be a reaction before they are no longer healthy.
Then there are also levels of poison that must exist before a reaction occurs.
Since we have established that poison can be in a person that is still healthy we have shown the statement to be false. It also proves that Mike's first statement is false.

Not everything is falsifiable. Refusing to look for ways to falsify something is psuedo-science. Congratulations to Mike on his psuedo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hmm.. So now you are arguing that viruses can be purified and isolated? It's just they can't be done in large quantities?

Let's examine this with the falsification method.
You claimed that viruses can't be purified or isolated.
That would mean viruses can never be purified of isolated.
You then post an article where viruses are purified and isolated but the claim is they can't be done in enough quantities to infect another.

So.. if you were doing actual science, your first statement would now be falsified and should be discarded. If you are doing psuedo-science then you will simply keep your original statement and claim that viruses can't be purified in isolated even though you presented an article stating they could be.

 

[Scott]

Have viruses been grown in a tissue culture? Yes or no?

Again, no.

Let's keep this simple.

Provide one scientific paper published in an actual scientific journal that has been peer reviewed that shows that the Nobel Prize was falsely awarded in 1954.
That paper should show that the process used by Enders can not be duplicated.

Ah.. what the hell. Let's stick to your standards. Provide a quote from a paper showing that Enders' process is flawed and doesn't work.

Are you willing to live up to your own standards?

I've thought of my response a bit. I think you should note that I never claimed I have -proof- that any alleged virus hasn't been grown in culture. It's patently clear that the group of doctors that I reference in the opening post clearly don't think it's been done and have suggested a method to test whether viruses exist or not. So far, no one has been able to pass their test to my knowledge. If you hear of someone who you believe has in fact passed their test, by all means let me know.

 

[Scott]

[snip]

Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science.

**
“The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, Popper says, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.

There is a corresponding difference that Popper sees in the form of the claims made by sciences and pseudo-sciences: Scientific claims are falsifiable -- that is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true -- while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false. Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not.”
**

Source:
Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science | Scientific American

Source:
Unfalsifiable | substack.com

The article your first link goes to shows you are not conducting science.
pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.
Clearly you have only been looking for things that confirm your claim that viruses don't exist and not looking for anything that disputes that claim. You are doing psuedo-science.

On the contrary. The opening post of this thread references an article from a group of doctors that propose a clear test to determine whether or not viruses are real. If their test is passed, they would acknowledge that viruses do in fact exist. I have heard of no test that virologists have agreed to wherein they would acknowledge that viruses don't exist, however.

 

[Scott]

Scientific claims are falsifiable -- that is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true -- while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes.

Case in point would be your argument that polio is caused by DDT poisoning. You imagine that DDT causes polio but have made no attempt to falsify your claim.

You're looking at this all wrong. The standard narrative is that polio is caused by a virus. What I've done is present a substantial amount of evidence that this isn't the case and that the real cause are toxins such as DDT, other pesticides as well as other toxic substances. I'm essentially taking on the role that regular scientists -should- be taking, that is, to see if they can falsify the claim that polio is caused by an alleged virus. There is also no need for me to look for contrary evidence here- that's your role and you've certainly played the part.

Let's falsify the claim of DDT causing polio. If DDT causes polio then parts of the world that use DDT should see large polio outbreaks.
DDT is currently used widely in Africa to control malaria by killing mosquitos https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ddt-use-to-combat-malaria/
https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/dr00034101/
In 2009, there were 416 cases of polio in Africa. By 2015 there were almost none. By 2020 Africa was declared polio free.

Assuming you're right, things have definitely changed since then. From an article published last month:

Africa battles out-of-control polio outbreaks | science.org

If we look at Nigeria we can see the increase in cases of Polio that peaks in 2006. Nigeria was the epicenter of Polio in Africa with the most cases in that time period.

DDT use was ended in Africa in 1996. It was reauthorized by WHO in 2006. Nigeria didn't start using it until 2013. Nigeria had used it after WW2 as in the 40's and 50's. Nigeria didn't use it after the 1960's.
https://allafrica.com/stories/201307180429.html

If DDT was the cause of polio. Shouldn't we have seen a spike in polio after 2013? Since there was no DDT used prior to 2013 shouldn't we have seen no cases of polio.
At this point, your argument that DDT causes polio has been falsified and the evidence points to it not being true.

First of all, you have mistakenly assumed that I think that DDT is the -only- cause of polio. I have never claimed that.

From an artilce I've quoted before on this site:

**
Poliomyelitis-like symptoms caused by poisoning

In 1951, Dr. Ralph R. Scobey published an article in Archives of Pediatrics, titled “Is the public health law responsible for the poliomyelitis mystery?”

In the article, Scobey investigated the evidence showing the contagiousness (or not) of poliomyelitis — and talked about how the research into complex causes of the disease had been decapitated once the “official” opinion was declared. Among other things, he stated the following:

“Unlimited poliomyelitis research ceased abruptly when this disease was legally made a communicable disease. However, definite progress toward a solution to the problem was being made before the public health law made poliomyelitis a germ or virus disease. For example, it was reported by toxicologists and bacteriologists that poliomyelitis could be produced both by organic and inorganic poisons as well as by bacterial toxins.

“The relationship of this disease to beriberi was also being given consideration. However, these investigations lost support when a germ or virus came to be considered by some to be the full and final answer to the problem. Funds for poliomyelitis research were from then on designated for the investigation of the infectious theory only.

“There are today many investigators who have strong evidence contradicting the infectious theory. Vitamin and mineral deficiency, poison, allergy and other theories are being presented to explain the mystery, but these men, because of the public health law and the limited ability to obtain funds or cooperation from any source cannot work freely on the problem of [the] cause of poliomyelitis.

“At one time or another the classical dietary deficiency diseases, beriberi and pellagra, and even sunstroke, have been considered to be communicable infectious diseases. If by law any one, or all of these diseases, had been made a reportable communicable disease, it is obvious that today it would legally be a germ disease and a search for the causative germ might still be in progress.

“If beriberi and pellagra had been made reportable communicable diseases, it is conceivable that the epochal studies on vitamins by Funk and subsequent workers could have been ignored in the search for the infectious agent as the etiological factor in these diseases. The progress of medicine would have been seriously retarded.

“The time is long past due for careful reappraisal of the poliomyelitis problem and for many capable workers with various opinions regarding the cause of the disease to be given the opportunity to work and the funds with which to work. The implications of the public health law that poliomyelitis is an infectious communicable disease must be reconsidered if progress is to be made.”
**

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

Polio vaccines themselves have been linked to polio. Children's Health Defense thinks it's because of alleged "attenuated" viruses, but I suspect it's because of the toxins in the vaccines themselves:
Polio: Why Vaccines Are to Blame for Rising Number of Cases | Children's Health Defense


I also think it's a matter of diagnosis vs. reality. I wonder if you knew the following:

**
During the 1930s with economic depression and then war, few new major outbreaks of poliomyelitis were noted. However, immediately after the end of World War II, notably, the polio drama exploded in dimension. Beginning 1945, every summer more and more children across America were diagnosed with poliomyelitis and hospitalized. Less than 1% of the cases were actually tested via blood or urine tests. Some 99% were diagnosed by merely the presence of symptoms such as acute pain in extremities, fever, upset stomach, diarrhea.
**

Source:
Toxicology vs. Virology: Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud | williamengdahl.com

 

[Scott]

Virology allows for:

“Viruses” to be found within the sick and also within the healthy.

Theoretical antibodies to be found in the “infected” and not found in the “infected,” while being either a sign of “protection” or a sign of chronic disease.

The presence of the “virus” within the cell culture determined by both the observation of the cytopathogenic effect as well as the lack of the observation of this efffect.

The same particles seen in EM images claimed to be either pathogenic “viruses” or non-pathogenic “virus-like” particles.

View attachment 24861

It is clear that there is no way to be able to falsify the “viral” hypothesis when contradictory concepts are ultimately allowed to coexist in order to explain away inconvenient findings. The “viral” theory is then reworked to allow for the incorporation of the contradictory findings to further confirm and support the unfalsifiable premise. Germ theory and virology are a circular system devoid of logic and reason that have been deceiving humanity for the last two centuries. Isn't it far past time to demand that they show how their hypotheses and theories are falsifiable?
**

Source:
Unfalsifiable | substack.com

That has to be some of the stupidest arguments you have posted yet.

I take the time to quote a long tract from an article that I found interesting and these are the first words in your post? It's these types of insulting comments that tends to cut productive discussions short. Is that what you want?

 

[Scott]

Mike stone just published another article on viruses that I thought was interesting. Quoting the introduction and the conclusion...

**
[snip]

Virology allows for:

“Viruses” to be found within the sick and also within the healthy.

[snip]

Source:
Unfalsifiable | substack.com

Let's assume that viruses can never be found in anyone that is healthy. If viruses make someone sick, then a healthy person must get the virus prior to getting sick. If a healthy person can never have the virus then a healthy person can never get sick since they can never have the virus. At this point we see how ridiculous this argument is since it has created a paradox.

Let's look at it another way.
Poison can be found in both the sick and the healthy. Can this be true?
If someone ingests arsenic can they be both healthy and have poison in them? Not only is that true. It MUST be true. There must be a reaction before they are no longer healthy.
Then there are also levels of poison that must exist before a reaction occurs.
Since we have established that poison can be in a person that is still healthy we have shown the statement to be false. It also proves that Mike's first statement is false.

I think Mike's statement that you quoted above was too ambiguous. In fairness to Mike, he made that statement as part of his -conclusion-. In the body of his article, he points to a lot of points regarding a healthy people and microbes that I think give a better idea as to what he was trying to convey. There's one particular passage that I think is particularly revealing, and also shows up John Franklin Enders, one of the 3 people to win the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Quoting:

**
What is the Cytopathic Effect?

“When a virus invades a host cell, its structure changes. This is known as the cytopathic effect. This condition occurs when the infecting cell causes the lysis of the host cell or when the cell dies due to its inability to reproduce. A virus causing morphological changes in the host cell is known as cytopathogenic.”​

https://byjus.com/biology/cytopathic-effect/

However, there is a bit of a problem with using this effect as evidence of a “virus.” For starters, CPE is not specific to “viruses” whatsoever as there are many other factors which are admitted to cause this exact same effect. These include:

•Bacteria

•Parasites

•Amoebas

•Chemical Contaminants

•Age of the Cell

•Incubation Temperature

•Length of Incubation

•Antibiotics/Antifungals

•Environmental stress

This means that the presence of a “virus” is not necessary in order to explain the observance of CPE. Enders should have known that his experiment was fraudulent when he also observed CPE in his control cultures that did not have any “infectious virus” present. If Enders had any doubt, he would have seen that various researchers in the years following his publication came up with the exact same CPE in their own healthy control cultures, thus shutting the door on CPE being caused by “viruses.” Alas, Enders and the rest of the virology community ignored logic along with these contradictory findings and maintained that this effect was the defining characteristic of the presence of a “virus.”


**

Source:
Unfalsifiable | mikestone.substack.com

 

[Scott]

Hmm.. So now you are arguing that viruses can be purified and isolated?

No, I've never argued any such thing. How can you do anything with something that doesn't exist?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've thought of my response a bit. I think you should note that I never claimed I have -proof- that any alleged virus hasn't been grown in culture. It's patently clear that the group of doctors that I reference in the opening post clearly don't think it's been done and have suggested a method to test whether viruses exist or not. So far, no one has been able to pass their test to my knowledge. If you hear of someone who you believe has in fact passed their test, by all means let me know.

All you are promoting is psuedo-science.

If the hypothesis or theory stands tall in face of the experiments attempting to disprove it, this gives the researcher stronger conviction that their hypothesis and/or theory is correct.

What experiments have actually been done to disprove virus theory? Denial is not science. It is psuedo-science. You have to do actual experiments, not just complain that you don't like the results.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I take the time to quote a long tract from an article that I found interesting and these are the first words in your post? It's these types of insulting comments that tends to cut productive discussions short. Is that what you want?

And then you completely ignore how the stupid argument was taken apart.

You continue to prove that you are not conducting science but only promoting psuedo-science.
pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.
Show us how a poison can exist in someone that isn't sick but a virus can't exist in someone unless they are sick. The first claim by the idiot you quoted is easily falsified. Your refusal to look at that proves you are promoting psuedo-science.https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-the-line-between-science-and-pseudo-science/

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think Mike's statement that you quoted above was too ambiguous. In fairness to Mike, he made that statement as part of his -conclusion-. In the body of his article, he points to a lot of points regarding a healthy people and microbes that I think give a better idea as to what he was trying to convey. There's one particular passage that I think is particularly revealing, and also shows up John Franklin Enders, one of the 3 people to win the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Quoting:

**
What is the Cytopathic Effect?

“When a virus invades a host cell, its structure changes. This is known as the cytopathic effect. This condition occurs when the infecting cell causes the lysis of the host cell or when the cell dies due to its inability to reproduce. A virus causing morphological changes in the host cell is known as cytopathogenic.”​

https://byjus.com/biology/cytopathic-effect/

However, there is a bit of a problem with using this effect as evidence of a “virus.” For starters, CPE is not specific to “viruses” whatsoever as there are many other factors which are admitted to cause this exact same effect. These include:

•Bacteria

•Parasites

•Amoebas

•Chemical Contaminants

•Age of the Cell

•Incubation Temperature

•Length of Incubation

•Antibiotics/Antifungals

•Environmental stress

This means that the presence of a “virus” is not necessary in order to explain the observance of CPE. Enders should have known that his experiment was fraudulent when he also observed CPE in his control cultures that did not have any “infectious virus” present. If Enders had any doubt, he would have seen that various researchers in the years following his publication came up with the exact same CPE in their own healthy control cultures, thus shutting the door on CPE being caused by “viruses.” Alas, Enders and the rest of the virology community ignored logic along with these contradictory findings and maintained that this effect was the defining characteristic of the presence of a “virus.”

View attachment 24871
**

Source:
Unfalsifiable | mikestone.substack.com

One small problem with that psuedo-science.
Science requires experimentation to refute. Simply making unsupported statements don't refute science.

pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims

What falsifiable claim is MikeStone making?
Enders didn't rely solely on the CPE to prove that the virus was growing in the culture. Pretending that was all he did is psuedo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I've never argued any such thing. How can you do anything with something that doesn't exist?

Psuedo-science when you use evidence of viruses being purified while you are arguing that they haven't been purified.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-the-line-between-science-and-pseudo-science/

 

[Scott]

Let's keep this simple.

Provide one scientific paper published in an actual scientific journal that has been peer reviewed that shows that the Nobel Prize was falsely awarded in 1954.
That paper should show that the process used by Enders can not be duplicated.

Ah.. what the hell. Let's stick to your standards. Provide a quote from a paper showing that Enders' process is flawed and doesn't work.

Are you willing to live up to your own standards?

Your failure to dispute this is a rather large hole in your belief system.

I've thought of my response a bit. I think you should note that I never claimed I have -proof- that any alleged virus hasn't been grown in culture. It's patently clear that the group of doctors that I reference in the opening post clearly don't think it's been done and have suggested a method to test whether viruses exist or not. So far, no one has been able to pass their test to my knowledge. If you hear of someone who you believe has in fact passed their test, by all means let me know.

All you are promoting is psuedo-science.

There you go again, starting with your conclusion.

 

[Scott]

I take the time to quote a long tract from an article that I found interesting and these are the first words in your post? It's these types of insulting comments that tends to cut productive discussions short. Is that what you want?

And then you completely ignore how the stupid argument was taken apart.

You really need to work on the way you treat your ideological opponents. It's only logical that the more insults you send their way, the less inclined they'll be to reading everything you have to say. I keep on suggesting that you at least put the insults at the -end- of your post, but instead you tend to put them at the beginning, which tends to get people you're sending this invective towards to stop reading early on.

 

[Scott]

I think Mike's statement that you quoted above was too ambiguous. In fairness to Mike, he made that statement as part of his -conclusion-. In the body of his article, he points to a lot of points regarding a healthy people and microbes that I think give a better idea as to what he was trying to convey. There's one particular passage that I think is particularly revealing, and also shows up John Franklin Enders, one of the 3 people to win the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Quoting:

**
What is the Cytopathic Effect?

“When a virus invades a host cell, its structure changes. This is known as the cytopathic effect. This condition occurs when the infecting cell causes the lysis of the host cell or when the cell dies due to its inability to reproduce. A virus causing morphological changes in the host cell is known as cytopathogenic.”​

https://byjus.com/biology/cytopathic-effect/

However, there is a bit of a problem with using this effect as evidence of a “virus.” For starters, CPE is not specific to “viruses” whatsoever as there are many other factors which are admitted to cause this exact same effect. These include:

•Bacteria

•Parasites

•Amoebas

•Chemical Contaminants

•Age of the Cell

•Incubation Temperature

•Length of Incubation

•Antibiotics/Antifungals

•Environmental stress

This means that the presence of a “virus” is not necessary in order to explain the observance of CPE. Enders should have known that his experiment was fraudulent when he also observed CPE in his control cultures that did not have any “infectious virus” present. If Enders had any doubt, he would have seen that various researchers in the years following his publication came up with the exact same CPE in their own healthy control cultures, thus shutting the door on CPE being caused by “viruses.” Alas, Enders and the rest of the virology community ignored logic along with these contradictory findings and maintained that this effect was the defining characteristic of the presence of a “virus.”

View attachment 24871
**

Source:
Unfalsifiable | mikestone.substack.com

One small problem with that psuedo-science.

Again, starting with your conclusion. Really not the way to go if you're actually trying to persuade your opponent. But I'll let it pass this time.

Science requires experimentation to refute.

Science is a methodology. While I suppose someone could try to refute the soundness of the scientific methodology, I doubt that's what you're getting at. You're probably referring to theories alleged to be scientific, in this case the theory of virology.

Simply making unsupported statements don't refute science.

Agreed. You're frequently a good case in point. In the case of Mike Stone's article, I believe he makes a lot of supported statements that contradict the virology theory.

pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims

What falsifiable claim is MikeStone making?

Enders didn't rely solely on the CPE to prove that the virus was growing in the culture. Pretending that was all he did is psuedo-science.

Firstly, Enders didn't prove anything. Secondly, Enders' assumption that the CPE had to be coming from his alleged virus wasn't his only flaw. Mike Stone points out various others:

**
Beyond the non-specificity of the CPE, there are other reasons that the cell culture experiment is not a valid scientific experiment. These include:

1. There is no observation of a natural phenomenon and thus, no valid dependent variable.

2. There is no valid independent variable as there are no purified and isolated “viral” particles confirmed prior to the experiment.

3. There is no actual valid hypothesis to test against.

However, even if we were to accept the cell culture as a valid scientific experiment for the proof of the presence of a “virus,” and even if the CPE, which is the basis for the presence of any “virus” within the fluids, was not known to be caused by other factors, this experiment is still mired in falsifiability. This is due to the concept of the non-cytopathogenic “virus.” As the name implies, these are “viruses” that either produce very little or no CPE when cultured. In other words, not all “viruses” are associated with CPE. This caveat allows for virologists to still claim that the cell culture was successful for detecting the presence of a “virus” even when the effect that is supposed to be the result of the “virus” is not observed. On top of that major escape clause, it is allowed for a “virus's” CPE to be different from that seen within the same “viral” family and the CPE pattern may change depending on the type of cell used for culturing [snip]
**

Source:
Unfalsifiable | mikestone.substack.com

 

[Scott]

Hmm.. So now you are arguing that viruses can be purified and isolated?

No, I've never argued any such thing. How can you do anything with something that doesn't exist?

Psuedo-science when you use evidence of viruses being purified while you are arguing that they haven't been purified.

I already told you I never argued that viruses could be either purified or isolated. You must have gotten confused.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You really need to work on the way you treat your ideological opponents. It's only logical that the more insults you send their way, the less inclined they'll be to reading everything you have to say. I keep on suggesting that you at least put the insults at the -end- of your post, but instead you tend to put them at the beginning, which tends to get people you're sending this invective towards to stop reading early on.

LOL. Once again you refuse to address the problems with your argument that I pointed out. Your deflection is the only response it seems.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Again, starting with your conclusion. Really not the way to go if you're actually trying to persuade your opponent. But I'll let it pass this time.



Science is a methodology. While I suppose someone could try to refute the soundness of the scientific methodology, I doubt that's what you're getting at. You're probably referring to theories alleged to be scientific, in this case the theory of virology.

Since Science is a methodology. Tell us when the Baileys actually used that methodology. Simply denying the science conducted by others is not following the scientific methodology.
Falsification means you have to have experiments or observations that disprove something. Claiming it COULD be something else is not science or using the scientific methodology.

Mike stone has conducted ZERO science. He is simply promoting psuedo-science. Feel free to show his statements are not psuedo-sceince by pointing to the hypothesis he has tested that is falsifiable. Mike Stone clearly is starting with his conclusion and then only using what supports his conclusion without actually conducting any science.

Enders does have a falsifiable hypothesis.
Polio vaccine can be grown in tissue and the vaccine grown in the tissue can be used to infect another creature. Denying that hypothesis isn't science.
When you take the polio virus and attempt to grow it, use what is grown in the tissue to infect another and you can't do so, then you can claim you have refuted the hypothesis.

When did I say Enders proved anything? Your attempt to make claims about what I said is clearly an attempt on your part to lie to the reader. Science relies on the preponderance of evidence to make a claim. The preponderance of evidence is that Enders grew virus, injected others with that virus and they then got sick. Feel free to show that didn't happen if you want to claim you are using science.