Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

I asked you to tell us what you think it is. I didn't ask you to tell me to go to your source that doesn't appear to contain a falsifiable hypothesis.

I have already falsified the claim that something has to be grown in culture as proof it exists. Humans, eagles, rats all exist and can't be grown in culture which proves that growing something in culture is not evidence of its existence or failure to exist. Humans are not bacteria. Viruses are not bacteria.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Over 900 posts and you still can't make any valid argument. You can only keep referencing the opening post which I have refuted on multiple occasions and you have never rebutted.
The method proposed is nonsense. Not only that, I have shown that viruses have been grown in culture, viruses have been isolated, viruses have been photographed under an electron microscope, viruses have been used to infect others after having been grown in culture. Your only response has been to DENY. You have not been able to explain with an reasonable explanation why and how all those things have been done by presenting a valid alternate hypothesis that covers all the evidence.

You cherry pick one piece and then claim it shows something. When I point out your explanation fails to explain the rest of the evidence, you either disappear, ignore the argument, or cherry pick to attack a different part.

Tell us their hypothesis that can be falsified!!

You have not done that.

I have repeatedly falsified the method they want used. Here.. let me do it again...
Humans, fish, sparrows all exist but none of them can be grown in a culture. Viruses, fish, sparrows and humans are not bacteria. Since living creatures that are not bacteria can exist even if they can't be grown in culture then their method is falsified and is not a valid one. You have no response to this that invalidates my argument.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

And yet you can't defend their logic?

Tell us if living creatures can exist that can never be grown in a culture.
Since living creatures can exist that can never be grown in a culture how does it prove a creature doesn't exist if it can't be grown in a culture?

 

[Scott]

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.

I asked you to tell us what you think it is.

First of all, considering the evidence the group of doctors have amassed, it's a theory, not a hypothesis. Secondly, there is no need for me to reinvent the wheel. I believe the group of doctors I reference in the opening post came up with a great statement outlining a method to falsify their theory that viruses don't exist. And I think that for anyone who's interested in more details as to what's wrong with virology, Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology" is a great place to find said details.

 

[Scott]

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.

Over 900 posts and you still can't make any valid argument.

I clearly disagree with you there.

You can only keep referencing the opening post which I have refuted on multiple occasions and you have never rebutted.

Another disagreement.

The method proposed is nonsense.

Another disagreement.

Not only that, I have shown that viruses have been grown in culture

No, you have not. I'll stop there. Above, we already have 4 disagreements- plenty of things to discuss right there.

 

[Scott]

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.

And yet you can't defend their logic?

I believe I've defended their logic quite well.

Tell us if living creatures can exist that can never be grown in a culture. Since living creatures can exist that can never be grown in a culture how does it prove a creature doesn't exist if it can't be grown in a culture?

I never said that things can't exist if they can't be grown in culture.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

First of all, considering the evidence the group of doctors have amassed, it's a theory, not a hypothesis. Secondly, there is no need for me to reinvent the wheel. I believe the group of doctors I reference in the opening post came up with a great statement outlining a method to falsify their theory that viruses don't exist. And I think that for anyone who's interested in more details as to what's wrong with virology, Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology" is a great place to find said details.

LOL.. A theory? OK. Tell us what this falsifiable theory is.

A single method to falsify their theory? That isn't science. That is pseudo-science.

Let me ask again..
What falsifiable hypothesis are they using? Without something that is falsifiable they are not conducting science.

Please cite some of this "evidence" they have amassed. It must be concrete evidence and not just denial of science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I clearly disagree with you there.



Another disagreement.



Another disagreement.



No, you have not. I'll stop there. Above, we already have 4 disagreements- plenty of things to discuss right there.

So you disagree but have nothing to support your position. Gosh. It seems you are practicing pseudo-science in the open for all of us to see.

Let's keep this simple.
Tell us the falsifiable hypothesis that the Bailey's have proposed? (Or falsifiable theory since you decided to misuse that term.)

Telling me to go read the Bailey's paper is proof you are not presenting valid arguments.

Tell us if humans exist if they can't be grown in a culture. If they can exist without being grown in a culture then the Bailey's procedure is nonsense and falsified.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I believe I've defended their logic quite well.



I never said that things can't exist if they can't be grown in culture.

Since something can exist that isn't grown in a culture, the procedure put forth by Bailey to prove viruses exist is falsified.

 

[Scott]

First of all, considering the evidence the group of doctors have amassed, it's a theory, not a hypothesis. Secondly, there is no need for me to reinvent the wheel. I believe the group of doctors I reference in the opening post came up with a great statement outlining a method to falsify their theory that viruses don't exist. And I think that for anyone who's interested in more details as to what's wrong with virology, Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology" is a great place to find said details.

LOL.. A theory? OK. Tell us what this falsifiable theory is.

The theory is that viruses don't exist. A method on how to falsify this theory is right there in the opening post of this thread.

A single method to falsify their theory? That isn't science. That is pseudo-science.

First of all, according to who? Secondly, do you know of -any- method that virologists have provided to falsify that viruses exist?

Please cite some of this "evidence" they have amassed.

I believe the statement in the opening post is a good start. Dr.. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" is good if you're looking for more details.

 

[Scott]

I clearly disagree with you there.

Another disagreement.

Another disagreement.

No, you have not. I'll stop there. Above, we already have 4 disagreements- plenty of things to discuss right there.

So you disagree but have nothing to support your position.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Tell us if humans exist if they can't be grown in a culture. If they can exist without being grown in a culture then the Bailey's procedure is nonsense and falsified.

Your hypothesis seems to be that humans should both be able to be grown in culture simply because microbes are able to be grown in culture. There's no evidence for that hypothesis.

 

[Scott]

I believe I've defended their logic quite well.

I never said that things can't exist if they can't be grown in culture.

Since something can exist that isn't grown in a culture, the procedure put forth by Bailey to prove viruses exist is falsified.

First of all, no one in the group of doctors has stated that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist. Secondly, the fact that some things can exist even if they can't be grown in culture doesn't mean that biological viruses should be able to exist even if they can't be grown in culture.

There's another issue as well: I decided to look back to the opening post of this thread just now and it struck me that the problem of virology goes even further than the inability to culture viruses. It goes all the way to purifying and isolating them. Quoting from the statement referenced in the opening post:

**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Source:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The theory is that viruses don't exist. A method on how to falsify this theory is right there in the opening post of this thread.

A negative can not be falsified. The method is not science and has beenfalsified since living creatures can exist that can't be grown in culture or purified.

hypothesis - Phoenyx doesn't exist.
How do you propose to falsify that hypothesis if I simply deny all evidence to the contrary?
I propose that to prove Phoenyx does exist he must be isolated from all other living creatures, He must be grown in a culture, He must be injected into another living creature. If those can't be done then he clearly doesn't exist.

By the way, you can not be isolated from all other living creatures so I guess that proves you don't exist.

First of all, according to who? Secondly, do you know of -any- method that virologists have provided to falsify that viruses exist?

Gosh.. let' see.. Hmm.. Oh wait.. I have listed those repeatedly and you have simply denied them.
We have RNA sequences. We have electron microscope pictures. We have viruses grown in tissue cultures. We have viruses being injected into people and causing the same disease as the person they were taken from.
Here you go.. tell us what is in this picture since it isn't polio virus. You must give us evidence to support your claim if you are not doing pseudo-science.
Claiming you don't know what it is but it isn't virus is pseudo-science.

What the Bailey's are doing is pseudo-science based on the article you linked to. Pseudo-science doesn't use falsifiable theories. Pseudo-science only looks for confirmation. Pseudo-science doesn't do experiments to attempt to falsify.

I believe the statement in the opening post is a good start. Dr.. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" is good if you're looking for more details.

ROFLMAO., So you believe something that you can't put into your own words? Tell us what the falsifiable theory is.

"Viruses don't exist" is not falsifiable if you set out only one way to falsify it. lt is pseudo-science since you just reject all evidence that they do exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Unsubstantiated assertion.

What actual evidence do you have to support your position? Tell us since you think my claim is false. (The paper by the Bailey's isn't evidence. It is pseudo-science.)
If you can't provide evidence that supports your position then you have nothing to support your position.
Denial is not evidence.

Your hypothesis seems to be that humans should both be able to be grown in culture simply because microbes are able to be grown in culture. There's no evidence for that hypothesis.

It's a ridiculous hypothesis, isn't it. Just as ridiculous as claiming that viruses should be able to be grown in a culture because bacteria are able to be grown in a culture.
Since humans can't be grown in a culture it falsifies the claim that viruses can't exist unless they can be grown in a culture. We haven't even gotten to virons yet.

Your argument proves you are conducting pseudo-science since you simply deny anything that falsifies your position.
Bacteria can be grown in a culture
Humans can't be grown in a culture
Eagles can't be grown in a culture
Fish can't be grown in a culture.
Clearly living creatures can exist that can't be grown in a culture.
Ergo - just because something can't be grown in a culture is not proof it is not a living creature. That is the only logical conclusion based on observations. Any other conclusion is denial of observation and would be pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

First of all, no one in the group of doctors has stated that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist. Secondly, the fact that some things can exist even if they can't be grown in culture doesn't mean that biological viruses should be able to exist even if they can't be grown in culture.

There's another issue as well: I decided to look back to the opening post of this thread just now and it struck me that the problem of virology goes even further than the inability to culture viruses. It goes all the way to purifying and isolating them. Quoting from the statement referenced in the opening post:

**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Source:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

Thanks for providing evidence that you are simply promoting pseudo-science.

Bacteria can be grown in a culture
Humans can't be grown in a culture
Eagles can't be grown in a culture
Fish can't be grown in a culture.
Clearly living creatures can exist that can't be grown in a culture.
Ergo - just because something can't be grown in a culture is not proof it is not a living creature. That is the only logical conclusion based on observations. Any other conclusion is denial of observation and would be pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

The theory is that viruses don't exist. A method on how to falsify this theory is right there in the opening post of this thread.

A negative can not be falsified.

According to who?

The method is not science and has been falsified since living creatures can exist that can't be grown in culture or purified.

The fact that various living creatures exist that can't be grown in culture in no way falsifies the method that the group of doctors describe. You seem to think that just because -some- living creatures can't be grown in culture, that it shouldn't matter that viruses can't be grown in culture.

First of all, according to who? Secondly, do you know of -any- method that virologists have provided to falsify that viruses exist?

Gosh.. let' see.. Hmm.. Oh wait.. I have listed those repeatedly and you have simply denied them.

I'm guessing you're referring to links you have listed in the past. I believe you're confused as to what those links contained.

We have RNA sequences.

Tell me of the ways virologists have attempted to falsify their notion that those RNA sequences come from alleged viruses.

We have electron microscope pictures.

Again, tell me of the ways that virologists have attempted to falsify that those electron microscope pictures came from alleged viruses.

We have viruses grown in tissue cultures.

Claims that viruses have been grown in tissue cultures are just claims without solid evidence. (Former) Dr. Mark Bailey gets into evidence that the world has been deceived in relation to the alleged Cov 2 virus. From his essay "Farewell to virology (Expert Edition)":

**
SARS-COV-2 NOT FOUND

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. — Dr Thomas Cowan et al., The “Settling the Virus Debate” Statement, 2022.1​

As of 11 September 2022 and following extensive enquiries through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests coordinated by Christine Massey, not one of 209 mainly health or science institutions in over 35 countries have been able to provide direct evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.2 The institutions were asked to produce any documents demonstrating, “the purification of ‘SARS- CoV-2’ said to have caused disease in humans (via maceration, filtration, and use of an ultracentrifuge; also referred to at times by some people as ‘isolation’), directly from a diseased human...” On many occasions, following an admission that no such evidence is held, institutions such as the New Zealand Ministry of Health then suggest that, “there are several examples of the virus being isolated and cultured in a laboratory setting.”3 However, the examples referred to are universally tissue culture proxy experiments, in which the word ‘isolation’ has become detached from its understood meaning and it has not been demonstrated that any particle, imaged or imagined, has the properties of a disease-causing virus. In any case, it is a distraction from the wider issue exposed by the FOI requests, which is that particles claimed to be viruses can never be found in human subjects. Virology has made excuses for this missing evidence but even allowing for this embarrassing deficiency, it is running out of places to hide as its various methodologies are increasingly scrutinised by those outside the field. This essay outlines the many aspects of virology’s anti-science that have been employed to maintain the illusion that pathogenic viruses exist. The situation has become increasingly dangerous and since early 2020, the COVID-19 “pandemic" has been used as a Trojan horse to bring humanity to its knees.
**

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

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

According to who?

So you admit you don't exist. Thanks for that.

You don't exist. The only way to prove you exist is to grow you in culture.
Is that a valid argument? Yes or no.

The fact that various living creatures exist that can't be grown in culture in no way falsifies the method that the group of doctors describe. You seem to think that just because -some- living creatures can't be grown in culture, that it shouldn't matter that viruses can't be grown in culture.

This is simple falsification. If some living creatures exist that can't be grown in culture then until you first prove that a creature can be grown in culture you can't argue that the failure to grow it would indicate it doesn't exist.
Some living beings can be grown in culture.
Some living beings can't be grown in culture.
Since some living creatures exist that can't be grown in culture, there is no scientific way to require that a living creature be grown in culture to accept that it exist. Requiring it would be pseudo-science since we have evidence that living creatures exist that can't be grown in culture.

I'm guessing you're referring to links you have listed in the past. I believe you're confused as to what those links contained.

LOL. I know what they contain. I also know that your only response has been denial and pseudo-science.

Tell me of the ways virologists have attempted to falsify their notion that those RNA sequences come from alleged viruses.

Different viruses have different RNA sequences. If that was not the case then it would be impossible to see the same RNA sequence for a particle that results in the same symptoms. Do you have evidence of polio virus RNA being found in the sequences that were done for Covid? If your mathematician had found the sequence of polio virus when he did his work, then you would have falsified the polio RNA. Every time RNA sequences are found de novo it is an attempt to falsify where the RNA comes from.
Your denial is nothing but pseudo-science.

Again, tell me of the ways that virologists have attempted to falsify that those electron microscope pictures came from alleged viruses.

They grew the virus in culture before taking it's picture. I asked you to tell us what it was. Clearly you can only deny, deny, deny, deny, deny. Denial is pseudo-science.

Claims that viruses have been grown in tissue cultures are just claims without solid evidence. (Former) Dr. Mark Bailey gets into evidence that the world has been deceived in relation to the alleged Cov 2 virus. From his essay "Farewell to virology (Expert Edition)":

Claims that viruses can't be grown in tissue cultures have less evidence then the claims that some can be grown in tissue culture.
You have never told us how the Nobel Committee was lied to when they gave the Nobel prize in medicine for growing polio virus in a tissue culture. You have never told us how Cutter could not have infected 40,000 people with a virus grown in tissue culture and not properly attenuated.
We keep going over your same denials repeatedly and you never defend your position with any facts. You just keep circling back to the same bullshit over and over and over.

 

[Scott]

I clearly disagree with you there.

Another disagreement.

Another disagreement.

No, you have not. I'll stop there. Above, we already have 4 disagreements- plenty of things to discuss right there.

So you disagree but have nothing to support your position.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

What actual evidence do you have to support your position?

I have a lot of positions- I disagreed with 4 of yours in post #925, you'll have to be more specific in your question.

Your hypothesis seems to be that humans should both be able to be grown in culture simply because microbes are able to be grown in culture. There's no evidence for that hypothesis.

It's a ridiculous hypothesis, isn't it.

Glad we agree on that.

Just as ridiculous as claiming that viruses should be able to be grown in a culture because bacteria are able to be grown in a culture.

Here we disagree, but by all means, provide any evidence you have that these alleged biological viruses shouldn't be able to be grown in culture.

 

[Scott]

First of all, no one in the group of doctors has stated that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist. Secondly, the fact that some things can exist even if they can't be grown in culture doesn't mean that biological viruses should be able to exist even if they can't be grown in culture.

There's another issue as well: I decided to look back to the opening post of this thread just now and it struck me that the problem of virology goes even further than the inability to culture viruses. It goes all the way to purifying and isolating them. Quoting from the statement referenced in the opening post:

**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Source:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

Thanks for providing evidence that you are simply promoting pseudo-science.

What alleged evidence are you referring to?

Bacteria can be grown in a culture
Humans can't be grown in a culture
Eagles can't be grown in a culture
Fish can't be grown in a culture.
Clearly living creatures can exist that can't be grown in a culture.
Ergo - just because something can't be grown in a culture is not proof it is not a living creature. That is the only logical conclusion based on observations. Any other conclusion is denial of observation and would be pseudo-science.

Bacteria and alleged biological viruses are both microbes, something that the other groups you bring up aren't. Again, if you have any evidence that biological viruses shouldn't be able to be cultured, by all means, present it.

 

[Scott]

A negative can not be falsified.

According to who?

So you admit you don't exist. Thanks for that.

No idea how you arrived at that conclusion. You also didn't answer my question.

The fact that various living creatures exist that can't be grown in culture in no way falsifies the method that the group of doctors describe. You seem to think that just because -some- living creatures can't be grown in culture, that it shouldn't matter that viruses can't be grown in culture.

This is simple falsification. If some living creatures exist that can't be grown in culture then until you first prove that a creature can be grown in culture you can't argue that the failure to grow it would indicate it doesn't exist.

First of all, even virologists have claimed that they can grow alleged biological viruses in culture. Are you admitting that they are all essentially liars?