Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

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.

Agreed. Unfortunately, virology appears to be a pseudoscience, as they appear to have gone out of their way to ignore evidence that suggests their theory is false.

Here, you just argue that you can't falsify it because there is a conspiracy to hide the evidence.

I never made such a claim. I said that it's hard if not impossible to find papers in medical journals because of the gatekeeping they do. There's certainly evidence that they gatekeep to avoid facing evidence that affects their pet theories. Here's an article from 2006 that delves into this a bit:
For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap | New York Times

 

[Scott]

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.

First of all, it's Sam Bailey's husband Mark Bailey who's making the claim that virology has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. Secondly, no, a claim in and of itself is certainly not enough to prove anything, regardless of who's making it. However, I have read enough of Mark Bailey's work to believe that his claims here are valid. I didn't just read the abstract of his essay, I read the entire essay as well. Have you?

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.

From what I've seen, the group of doctors referenced in the opening post present the only credible method of falsifying their theory that viruses don't exist. But if you think there's another way, by all means present it.

 

[Scott]

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.

Agreed. Conversely, simply taking a picture of microbes isn't evidence that they are biological viruses.

Claiming you don't know what they are is not falsification, it is denial.

Absolute balderdash. Claiming I don't know what they are is simply claiming I don't know what they are.

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.

I've seen similar pictures, along with some sort of caption saying it's a computer simulation of what Cov 2 viruses should look like. There are plenty such pictures. Here's a few:

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/...rs-cov-2-73435593-d878-4438-a2ac-a74561df2848

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/science/medical/coronavirus-sars-cov-2-violet-scene

But hey, if you can provide any evidence that your graphic is actually an electron microscrope image rather than just a computer generated graphic, by all means, present it. It still wouldn't be evidence that it's a virus, but at least it'd be evidence that it was an actual electron microscope image.

 

[Scott]

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.

Agreed. The doctors I referenced in the opening post came up with a method that would either provide evidence that biological viruses actually exist or that they don't. So far, I have heard of no labs that have tried to carry out these experiments.

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.

His theory is that without EMR, the alleged flu virus would be harmless. To me, that means that the true cause would be the EMR, not the alleged virus.

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.

What "science"? The fact that he believes in viruses doesn't mean that there's solid evidence for his belief. I believe his evidence that EMR plays an integral role in the flu disease is solid though.

Falsification requires you accept science that disputes your theory and then discard your theory.

Sure. The thing is, I've seen no falsification of any of the evidence I cite.

 

[Scott]

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.

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.

In the opening post, I quote and link to a statement made by various people, including (former) doctors Sam Bailey and Mark Bailey. I believe that that paper is an excellent example of applying the scientific method. They present a way that labs could try to test for the existence of viruses. So far, I don't believe any lab has taken them up on the challenge. Clearly, if a lab were to take them up on the challenge and find evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist, that would clearly provide evidence that the doctors referenced in the opening post are mistaken in their belief that viruses don't exist.

 

[Scott]

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.
**

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

Where did the Bailey's claim that only one method can be used to show that viruses exist is true? They and other doctors made a statement wherein they presented a method wherein the existence of viruses could be tested. So far as I know, no one has provided evidence that their method isn't sound.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Pseudo-science seems to be all you have. Your theory is not only not falsifiable you have it in spite of evidence that shows it to be dubious. I didn't cherry pick a single statement from Mike Stone. I simply took his first argument and falsified it. I don't have to beyond that since his very first statement proved his claim wrong. In spite of that you stick to your pseudo science and believe something for which you have no evidence and all evidence points to you being wrong.

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.

You are using a source that is making arguments that are false and you don't agree with him on. Congratulations. You are using pseudo-science.

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.

Congratulations, you have falsified the claim that something can exist in the body that makes the person sick and also exist in the body when the person isn't sick. Now, do you agree that the first claim that Mike Stone makes is false based on observations and scientific experiments?

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

Terrain theory would also apply to viruses. Once again, you use evidence that shows you refuse to accept any evidence that disputes your pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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 don't believe viruses exist - <--- pseudo-science since you believe something that can't be falsified.

Vague statements like this don't further the discussion.

How is my statement vague? Have you provided any links to actual science papers that have been peer reviewed and published in a science journal? Do you reject every paper that has been published in a science journal that says viruses exist? Do you take theories that include viruses, remove the virus from that theory and then say the theory supports your claim that viruses don't exist? You have clearly done all those things.

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.

I looked at your statement very carefully. An if conjunction doesn't prevent an argument from being circular. Your argument was clearly circular. Denying it was circular doesn't make your argument look stronger. It only shows you can't rely on actual logic and are left with pseudo-science.

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.

Mike Stone did not make anything clear since Mike Stone didn't conduct any experiments. Mike Stone didn't make anything clear since he made statements that are easily proven false. I have falsified Mike Stone's first argument. Until you accept that his first argument was falsified, I see no reason to point out the problems with his second argument. At this point, all I am doing is pointing out that you refuse to look at any evidence that disputes your beliefs and prefer to practice pseudo-science.

Simple question and you have already answered it but then deny it. Can something exist in the body when that person is sick also exist in the body when the person is not sick. Since that is true, claiming that doesn't disprove anything. It only shows that the statement is false and nothing more than pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

First of all, it's Sam Bailey's husband Mark Bailey who's making the claim that virology has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. Secondly, no, a claim in and of itself is certainly not enough to prove anything, regardless of who's making it. However, I have read enough of Mark Bailey's work to believe that his claims here are valid. I didn't just read the abstract of his essay, I read the entire essay as well. Have you?



From what I've seen, the group of doctors referenced in the opening post present the only credible method of falsifying their theory that viruses don't exist. But if you think there's another way, by all means present it.

You have ignored all other evidence in order to believe the Baileys. You are practicing pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

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.

Pseudo-science seems to be all you have.

You love starting with your unsubstantiated conclusions, don't you?

Your theory is not only not falsifiable

I have always maintained that it's falsifiable, as have the doctors I reference in the opening post. That's what makes it -science-. It's virology that I've never seen provide any method wherein it could be falsified, necessitating the group of doctors in the opening post to provide a method for them.

I didn't cherry pick a single statement from Mike Stone. I simply took his first argument and falsified it.

You did nothing of the sort. Your premise that he made that statement as "proof" that viruses don't exist is unsubstantiated.

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.

You are using a source that is making arguments that are false

No, you just made a straw man and then knocked it down.

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

Terrain theory would also apply to viruses.

Not all terrain theorists believe that viruses exist. The Baileys are from this branch of terrain theorists.

 

[Scott]

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 don't believe viruses exist - <--- pseudo-science since you believe something that can't be falsified.

This is getting tiring. Once again, the doctors that I referenced in the opening post actually provide a preliminary method wherein evidence for the existence or non existence of viruses could be gathered. As far as I know, virologists have never done something similar. This strongly suggests that it's actually virology that is pseudo science.

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.

How is my statement vague?

You didn't specify what claim I made. Hard to present evidence in my defense with such a vague charge.

Have you provided any links to actual science papers that have been peer reviewed and published in a science journal?

As I mentioned in post #902, peer reviewed journals act as gate keepers that keep out any views that don't fit with their dogma. I provided an article that backs this up with evidence there as well.

Do you reject every paper that has been published in a science journal that says viruses exist?

Obviously.

Do you take theories that include viruses, remove the virus from that theory and then say the theory supports your claim that viruses don't exist?

I imagine you're referring to Arther Firstenberg's evidence that the spanish flu's primary cause was certain forms of electro magnetic radiation, or EMR for short and that the flu wasn't contagious as well. He brings no actual evidence that a virus was involved.

You really have to look at my statements more [carefully]. "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.

I looked at your statement very carefully. An if conjunction doesn't prevent an argument from being circular.

You've clearly misunderstood my argument if you think it's circular. You already -know- that I don't believe in viruses. I haven't said I have proof of such. But it stands to reason that if I don't believe in viruses, I clearly won't believe these non existent entities can be purified or isolated.

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.

Mike Stone did not make anything clear since Mike Stone didn't conduct any experiments.

You don't need to conduct experiments to use logic.

Mike Stone didn't make anything clear since he made statements that are easily proven false.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Scott]

First of all, it's Sam Bailey's husband Mark Bailey who's making the claim that virology has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. Secondly, no, a claim in and of itself is certainly not enough to prove anything, regardless of who's making it. However, I have read enough of Mark Bailey's work to believe that his claims here are valid. I didn't just read the abstract of his essay, I read the entire essay as well. Have you?

From what I've seen, the group of doctors referenced in the opening post present the only credible method of falsifying their theory that viruses don't exist. But if you think there's another way, by all means present it.

You have ignored all other evidence in order to believe the Baileys.

No, I've followed the work of the Baileys and -others- (you apparently forget that they're not the only ones who no longer believe in biological viruses) and have come to the conclusion that their logic that there is no solid evidence that viruses exist is solid.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You love starting with your unsubstantiated conclusions, don't you?



I have always maintained that it's falsifiable, as have the doctors I reference in the opening post. That's what makes it -science-. It's virology that I've never seen provide any method wherein it could be falsified, necessitating the group of doctors in the opening post to provide a method for them.



You did nothing of the sort. Your premise that he made that statement as "proof" that viruses don't exist is unsubstantiated.



No, you just made a straw man and then knocked it down.



Not all terrain theorists believe that viruses exist. The Baileys are from this branch of terrain theorists.

Tell us the specific hypothesis that the doctors are using. I keep asking the question and you keep not answering it. Until you present their hypothesis and show that it is falsifiable you have nothing but pseudo-science. Prove me wrong. Give me their hypothesis that you think is falsifiable.
Telling me to go read their work is not giving me their hypothesis. It is avoiding giving their hypothesis and would show you are conducting pseudo-science.

Frankly, I have already falsified their method. Viruses are not bacteria. Humans are not bacteria. Wombats are not bacteria. Eagles are not bacteria.
Then tell us if humans, wombats and eagles exist if they can't be grown in culture. Since living creatures can exist and the method proposed can't be used on them, requiring a method that can't be used for all creatures is pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I've followed the work of the Baileys and -others- (you apparently forget that they're not the only ones who no longer believe in biological viruses) and have come to the conclusion that their logic that there is no solid evidence that viruses exist is solid.

ROFLMAO.. SO tell us their hypothesis that can be falsified.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This is getting tiring. Once again, the doctors that I referenced in the opening post actually provide a preliminary method wherein evidence for the existence or non existence of viruses could be gathered. As far as I know, virologists have never done something similar. This strongly suggests that it's actually virology that is pseudo science.



You didn't specify what claim I made. Hard to present evidence in my defense with such a vague charge.



As I mentioned in post #902, peer reviewed journals act as gate keepers that keep out any views that don't fit with their dogma. I provided an article that backs this up with evidence there as well.



Obviously.



I imagine you're referring to Arther Firstenberg's evidence that the spanish flu's primary cause was certain forms of electro magnetic radiation, or EMR for short and that the flu wasn't contagious as well. He brings no actual evidence that a virus was involved.



You've clearly misunderstood my argument if you think it's circular. You already -know- that I don't believe in viruses. I haven't said I have proof of such. But it stands to reason that if I don't believe in viruses, I clearly won't believe these non existent entities can be purified or isolated.



You don't need to conduct experiments to use logic.



Unsubstantiated assertion.

Are you claiming that a substance can't exist in a sick person that also exists in a healthy person? I believe you already agreed that they can. That would mean Mike Stone made a statement that if false and you agreed it is false.

Your argument is circular. No question about it. Your argument is also pseudo-science since it ignores all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I've followed the work of the Baileys and -others- (you apparently forget that they're not the only ones who no longer believe in biological viruses) and have come to the conclusion that their logic that there is no solid evidence that viruses exist is solid.

Since you decided to bring up logic, let me point out that you are relying on a logical fallacy for your argument. Because some people believe something doesn't make it true.

If the Baileys aren't using pseudo-science then tell us what they falsifiable hypothesis is.
I have already shown that requiring that Koch's postulates be followed is not evidence that viruses don't exist. Koch's postulates can't be used to prove that humans, wombats or eagles exist. So that would prove that failure to meet Koch's postulates is not evidence something doesn't exist.

 

[Scott]

You love starting with your unsubstantiated conclusions, don't you?

I have always maintained that it's falsifiable, as have the doctors I reference in the opening post. That's what makes it -science-. It's virology that I've never seen provide any method wherein it could be falsified, necessitating the group of doctors in the opening post to provide a method for them.

You did nothing of the sort. Your premise that he made that statement as "proof" that viruses don't exist is unsubstantiated.

No, you just made a straw man and then knocked it down.

Not all terrain theorists believe that viruses exist. The Baileys are from this branch of terrain theorists.

Tell us the specific hypothesis that the doctors are using.

That statement from the group of doctors that I quote and link to in the opening post is a good place to start. If you're hungry for more, you can always read Dr. Mark Bailey's essay "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" in its entirety, as I did.

 

[Scott]

No, I've followed the work of the Baileys and -others- (you apparently forget that they're not the only ones who no longer believe in biological viruses) and have come to the conclusion that their logic that there is no solid evidence that viruses exist is solid.

ROFLMAO.. SO tell us their hypothesis that can be falsified.

Over 900 posts and we're still on square one on some things. The opening post quotes and links to a statement from a group of doctors that provide an outline for how virologists could try to prove or at least provide solid evidence that viruses exist. If virologists were to step up to the plate and provide this solid evidence, it'd certainly go a long way to falsifying the theory that viruses don't exist.

 

[Scott]

This is getting tiring. Once again, the doctors that I referenced in the opening post actually provide a preliminary method wherein evidence for the existence or non existence of viruses could be gathered. As far as I know, virologists have never done something similar. This strongly suggests that it's actually virology that is pseudo science.

You didn't specify what claim I made. Hard to present evidence in my defense with such a vague charge.

As I mentioned in post #902, peer reviewed journals act as gate keepers that keep out any views that don't fit with their dogma. I provided an article that backs this up with evidence there as well.

Obviously.

I imagine you're referring to Arther Firstenberg's evidence that the spanish flu's primary cause was certain forms of electro magnetic radiation, or EMR for short and that the flu wasn't contagious as well. He brings no actual evidence that a virus was involved.

You've clearly misunderstood my argument if you think it's circular. You already -know- that I don't believe in viruses. I haven't said I have proof of such. But it stands to reason that if I don't believe in viruses, I clearly won't believe these non existent entities can be purified or isolated.

You don't need to conduct experiments to use logic.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Are you claiming that a substance can't exist in a sick person that also exists in a healthy person? I believe you already agreed that they can.

I did.

That would mean Mike Stone made a statement that if false and you agreed it is false.

I strongly suspect that you misinterpreted something Mike Stone said, but if you like, quote what he said and we take it from there.

 

[Scott]

No, I've followed the work of the Baileys and -others- (you apparently forget that they're not the only ones who no longer believe in biological viruses) and have come to the conclusion that their logic that there is no solid evidence that viruses exist is solid.

Since you decided to bring up logic, let me point out that you are relying on a logical fallacy for your argument. Because some people believe something doesn't make it true.

You've jumped to a false conclusion. I have never stated that just because some people believe something means that it's true. I said I followed the work of the Baileys and came to the conclusion that their logic that there is no solid evidence that viruses exist is sound.