Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

You have used sources that say viruses do exist to try to show viruses don't exist.
Science doesn't get to ignore evidence. Pseudo-science does ignore evidence.
Pseudo-science cherry picks what they want and ignores the rest. You cherry pick from your sources and ignore the rest. You are doing pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

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.

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

You might consider focusing more on your arguments rather than simply insulting your opponent's arguments. It's not my fault that the first sentence you wrote in post #872 is the one I quoted, it's yours.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You might consider focusing more on your arguments rather than simply insulting your opponent's arguments. It's not my fault that the first sentence you wrote in post #872 is the one I quoted, it's yours.

I see you have now resorted to attacking me personally instead of providing support for your opinions. Your post would be an example of an ad hominem argument. You are avoiding the topic. What I did was say your argument was shit and then went on to explain why it was shit. You failed to address any of the reasons why your argument was shit.



But here... let me reiterate some of the arguments that you have never disputed in any fashion.

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.



Another argument you have not refuted..

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.




And another

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.



And even more...
Here is how to isolate a virus -
https://openstax.org/books/microbiology/pages/6-3-isolation-culture-and-identification-of-viruses
It's a much simpler explanation than the one you ignored earlier in this thread.
Viruses can be isolated. They have been isolated. Your claims are not valid.

Here is a picture of isolated viruses.

You have no explanation for what is in this picture. It is virus. It has been isolated and photographed in an electron microscope.



Here is another picture of viruses. Tell us what it is if not a virus.

and more you haven't refuted...
Meanwhile we have the following evidence that you refuse to address at all. I know I am curious as to why you refuse to address it.
Viruses have been isolated and grown in tissue cultures.
Viruses grown in tissue cultures have infected people.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Scott]

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 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.

I've never mentioned the Bailey's doing a peer reviewed paper. However, I think the general principles of science and his demonstration of virology's anti scientific methods were illustrated quite well in Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology":

https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've never mentioned the Bailey's doing a peer reviewed paper. However, I think the general principles of science and his demonstration of virology's anti scientific methods were illustrated quite well in Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology":

https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

Let's make this simple - What falsifiable hypothesis are the Bailey's presenting? What experiments have they conducted to test this hypothesis if you think it exists?

(There. That is the first thing in my post before I make any other comments on the weakness of their arguments.)
You think a lot of things that have nothing to do with actual science.

Thanks for Mike Stone's link to science vs pseudo-science we can see you are doing nothing but promoting pseudo-science.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-the-line-between-science-and-pseudo-science/
pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.

Now I will repeat this:
Let's make this simple - What falsifiable hypothesis are the Bailey's presenting? What experiments have they conducted to test this hypothesis if you think it exists?

 

[Scott]

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

You have used sources that say viruses do exist to try to show viruses don't exist.

I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that I found that Arther Firstenberg's research on the non contagiousness of the flu to be interesting, as well as his evidence that electricity plays a role in this disease. I still don't quite understand why you think that my agreement with him on these points necessitates that I must also agree with him that viruses exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that I found that Arther Firstenberg's research on the non contagiousness of the flu to be interesting, as well as his evidence that electricity plays a role in this disease. I still don't quite understand why you think that my agreement with him on these points necessitates that I must also agree with him that viruses exist.

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

By only relying on part of his argument you are doing pseudo-science. Cherry picking some parts and discounting the rest to confirm your opinion is not science.


pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes.

Even though his argument relies on viruses existing, you imagine an outcome where the result is the same if they don't exist. You are doing pseudo-science by imagining an outcome that is not cited in the paper.
You are doing pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

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

You might consider focusing more on your arguments rather than simply insulting your opponent's arguments. It's not my fault that the first sentence you wrote in post #872 is the one I quoted, it's yours.

I see you have now resorted to attacking me personally instead of providing support for your opinions.

Pointing out your penchant for insulting your opponent and/or your opponent's arguments rather than actually addressing the points made is not a personal attack, it's pointing out that -you- are engaging in personal attacks.

But here... let me reiterate some of the arguments that you have never disputed in any fashion.

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.

I did actually address this before. I even know why you brought up this point to begin with.

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.

It's also a straw man argument.

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.

Quote this alleged first statement of Mike.

Another argument you have not refuted..

Let's examine this with the falsification method.
You claimed that viruses can't be purified or isolated.

I don't believe viruses exist. If they don't exist, they clearly can't be purified or isolated. However, I believe that attempts have been made to purify and isolate them. I've never seen any such attempt result in the actual purification or isolation of a virus.

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.

How about you link to the article I posted that you believes makes the claim that viruses have been purified and isolated.

And another

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.

It's hard to find papers that contradict established virology orthodoxy due to the gatekeeping that established medical journals do, but I -did- present you with an article from Mike Stone showing various flaws in Enders' work. The article in question is here:
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/unfalsifiable

And even more...
Here is how to isolate a virus -
https://openstax.org/books/microbiology/pages/6-3-isolation-culture-and-identification-of-viruses

Virologists claiming that they can isolate viruses doesn't actually make it so. Former Dr. Mark Bailey explains at the beginning of his abstract for his essay "A farewell to virology":
**
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmittng between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
**

Source:
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

Here is a picture of isolated viruses.

You have no explanation for what is in this picture. It is virus. It has been isolated and photographed in an electron microscope.

I certainly don't claim to know what microbes are in that picture. However, taking a picture of microbes does not mean that those microbes must therefore be viruses of any kind. And I've already addressed the alleged claims of virus "isolation".

Here is another picture of viruses. Tell us what it is if not a virus.

Pretty sure that's not even an electron microscope picture, but rather a computer graphic artists' depiction of what they think the alleged Cov 2 virus looks like.

 

[Scott]

I've never mentioned the Bailey's doing a peer reviewed paper. However, I think the general principles of science and his demonstration of virology's anti scientific methods were illustrated quite well in Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology":

https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

Let's make this simple - What falsifiable hypothesis are the Bailey's presenting?

Take a look at the opening post of this thread, specifically at the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement linked there.

 

[Scott]

I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that I found that Arther Firstenberg's research on the non contagiousness of the flu to be interesting, as well as his evidence that electricity plays a role in this disease. I still don't quite understand why you think that my agreement with him on these points necessitates that I must also agree with him that viruses exist.

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

By only relying on part of his argument you are doing pseudo-science.

Pseudo-science is when you refuse to allow any way to falsify your theory. That's no the case when it comes to the group of doctors that no longer believe in viruses, and this is quite clear from the first post of this thread. However, it -is- the case of virologists. In terms of Arther Firstenberg, I looked at the evidence he uncovered that contrary to established wisdom, the flu is not contagious and that the primary cause of the flu is electrical fields and frequencies, not any alleged virus. The fact that he still believes in viruses doesn't change the fact that the evidence he uncovers actually suggests that the primary cause of the flu is not actually viruses.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pointing out your penchant for insulting your opponent and/or your opponent's arguments rather than actually addressing the points made is not a personal attack, it's pointing out that -you- are engaging in personal attacks.



I did actually address this before. I even know why you brought up this point to begin with.



It's also a straw man argument.



Quote this alleged first statement of Mike.

Here is what I am arguing against.

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


Virology allows for:

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



Source:
Unfalsifiable | substack.com

The theory seems to be that a virus can't be found in a healthy and a sick person. You and Mike Stone are arguing that somehow this proves that viruses don't exist. That statement is easily falsified and I have done so by showing that a substance, such as a poison, not only can exist in a healthy and a sick person but the substance MUST be able to exist in a healthy person and a sick person otherwise the person could never get ill and could never recover from their illness.
Accusing me of a strawman shows you are not presenting actual arguments. It shows you are doing nothing but pseudo-science. The attempt to falsify virus theory has been falsified showing that your argument is not based on science.

To further falsify the claim that something can't exist within the sick and the healthy, we need only look at bacteria. Bacteria can make a person sick but bacteria are also necessary for a person to be healthy in that humans have a biome both on them and in them that contain beneficial bacteria. If you accept that bacteria exist then you have to accept that something can exist that is found within the sick and within the healthy.

Now that we have shown that Mike Stone is the one conducting pseudo-science, are you willing to not use him as a source or will you prove to us that you are the one that is presenting pseudo-science?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I don't believe viruses exist. If they don't exist, they clearly can't be purified or isolated. However, I believe that attempts have been made to purify and isolate them. I've never seen any such attempt result in the actual purification or isolation of a virus.

That statement is an example of pseudo-science. You make a claim and then reject any and all evidence that would falsify your statement. It is nothing but circular logic. You don't believe that viruses exist so therefor they can't be purified. Since viruses can't be purified they can't exist.
A logical fallacy on your part that is clearly evident to anyone that has a scintilla of intelligence.

Science needs to make a claim that can be falsified. Pseudo-science simply looks for confirmation. Circular reasoning is confirmation without doing any testing or observation. You are doing nothing but pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's hard to find papers that contradict established virology orthodoxy due to the gatekeeping that established medical journals do, but I -did- present you with an article from Mike Stone showing various flaws in Enders' work. The article in question is here:
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/unfalsifiable
.

Science looks for evidence that can falsify a theory. Here, you just argue that you can't falsify it because there is a conspiracy to hide the evidence. The only thing that is evidence of is that you are doing nothing but conducting pseudo-science.
I have already pointed out the first flaw in Mike Stone's work. You just denied that the flaw exists because you are looking for confirmation of your pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Virologists claiming that they can isolate viruses doesn't actually make it so. Former Dr. Mark Bailey explains at the beginning of his abstract for his essay "A farewell to virology":
**
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmittng between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
**

Source:
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/



.

Interesting. Someone making a claim doesn't make it so but when Sam Bailey makes a claim it is so. That seems to be an example of pseudo-science where you only believe what confirms your bias.

Science looks at all the evidence and conducts observations and experiments. There is a ton of evidence of viruses being isolated and genetically sequenced. Sam Bailey, et al, only have claims without any evidence and without ever conducting any experiments.

But let's dig a little deeper into their demand that there is only one way to identify a virus. If it was science, then the hypothesis would be, "The only way to identify a virus is to conduct these specific steps." My first question is, how do we falsify that hypothesis? We show that viruses can be identified without conducting those steps. If you refuse to allow the hypothesis to be falsified then you are not conducting science. You are only conducting pseudo-science. I think at this point we have shown that Sam Bailey is not conducting any science and is trying to avoid science at every turn.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Here is a picture of isolated viruses.

You have no explanation for what is in this picture. It is virus. It has been isolated and photographed in an electron microscope.

I certainly don't claim to know what microbes are in that picture. However, taking a picture of microbes does not mean that those microbes must therefore be viruses of any kind. And I've already addressed the alleged claims of virus "isolation".

Falsification would require that you show that the picture is not a picture of viruses. Claiming you don't know what they are is not falsification, it is denial. Denial is simply another form of looking for confirmation. You simply deny something exists but don't have try to falsify it in any way. The easiest way to falsify this picture of Polio viruses is to tell us what other object is in the picture and present evidence of how you reached that conclusion. DNA evidence would be good. Since you can't falsify in any way that the picture is not a virus, we can make no other conclusion but you are conducting pseudo-science. You clearly aren't conducting any science.

Here is another picture of viruses. Tell us what it is if not a virus.

Pretty sure that's not even an electron microscope picture, but rather a computer graphic artists' depiction of what they think the alleged Cov 2 virus looks like.

Simply another denial on your part without any attempt to actually falsify. Nothing from you but pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pseudo-science is when you refuse to allow any way to falsify your theory. That's no the case when it comes to the group of doctors that no longer believe in viruses, and this is quite clear from the first post of this thread. However, it -is- the case of virologists. In terms of Arther Firstenberg, I looked at the evidence he uncovered that contrary to established wisdom, the flu is not contagious and that the primary cause of the flu is electrical fields and frequencies, not any alleged virus. The fact that he still believes in viruses doesn't change the fact that the evidence he uncovers actually suggests that the primary cause of the flu is not actually viruses.

Doctors not believing in viruses is not falsification. Falsification requires experiments be conducted. Observations be recorded.

When it comes to Firstenberg, the "evidence" he uncovers is that electromagnetic radiation activates viruses. The virus is the cause. EMR is simply the stimulus that causes the viruses to work. While you may think your denial of his "evidence" is cute, it only proves you are only conducting pseudo-science since you are only accepting the parts of his argument that confirm your theory and throwing out any science that doesn't confirm it. Falsification requires you accept science that disputes your theory and then discard your theory.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Take a look at the opening post of this thread, specifically at the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement linked there.

I have looked at the opening post. That is why I am asking you to tell us what falsifiable hypothesis is being presented by the Baileys. I can find nothing that meets the scientific standards of falsification in their posts. I only see denial and confirmation bias.

Let me ask again..

Let's make this simple - What falsifiable hypothesis are the Bailey's presenting?

Tell us what it is. Show us they are not simply promoting pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Let's recap....

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

the scientist realizes that her best hypotheses and theories are always tentative -- some piece of future evidence could conceivably show them false -- while the pseudo-scientist is sure as sure as can be that her theories have been proven true.

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.

What test can be conducted to show the Bailey's claim that only one method can be used to show viruses exist is true?

 

[Scott]

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.

Quote this alleged first statement of Mike.

Here is what I am arguing against.

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

The theory seems to be that a virus can't be found in a healthy and a sick person.

No, my theory is that viruses don't exist. You simply cherry picked a single statement out of many that Mike Stone made. I think the point he was trying to make was that perfectly healthy people can be diagnosed with having a virus with no more evidence that something like a PCR test.

You and Mike Stone are arguing that somehow this proves that viruses don't exist.

I'm certainly not making that claim. As to Mike Stone, he's listed this point as one of many points suggesting that viruses don't exist, but I've never seen him claim he has proof that they don't exist.

That statement is easily falsified and I have done so by showing that a substance, such as a poison, not only can exist in a healthy and a sick person but the substance MUST be able to exist in a healthy person and a sick person otherwise the person could never get ill and could never recover from their illness.

I think we can agree that the issue in regards to poisons is quantity and toxicity of the poison, as well as the health of the individual who has ingested the poison.

To further falsify the claim that something can't exist within the sick and the healthy, we need only look at bacteria. Bacteria can make a person sick but bacteria are also necessary for a person to be healthy in that humans have a biome both on them and in them that contain beneficial bacteria. If you accept that bacteria exist then you have to accept that something can exist that is found within the sick and within the healthy.

Terrain theory suggests that bacteria only become a problem if the body is already severely strained by one or more factors, such as stress or toxins. For more on the difference between Germ and Terrain theory:
The Terrain Theory vs. The Germ Theory | drrobertyoung.com

 

[Scott]

I don't believe viruses exist. If they don't exist, they clearly can't be purified or isolated. However, I believe that attempts have been made to purify and isolate them. I've never seen any such attempt result in the actual purification or isolation of a virus.

That statement is an example of pseudo-science.

I actually made quite a few statements in the paragraph you quoted. I don't believe any of them are "pseudo-science", but you're welcome to try to prove otherwise.

You make a claim and then reject any and all evidence that would falsify your statement.

Vague statements like this don't further the discussion.

It is nothing but circular logic. You don't believe that viruses exist so therefor they can't be purified.

You really have to look at my statements more careful. "If" conjunctions are important. I stated very clearly that -if- viruses don't exist, they clearly can't be purified or isolated. I also believe that attempts have been made to truly purify and isolate alleged viral particles, but that all such attempts have failed to either isolate or purify any such alleged particles.

Science needs to make a claim that can be falsified.

Agreed. And what I believe Mike Stone has made quite clear is that virology has essentially made their theories unfalsifiable if one uses their twisted logic. In contrast, the doctors I referenced in the opening post made a very simple method wherein their belief that viruses don't exist could be falsified.