Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In some ways sure, but humans can't be reproduce in "culture". To reproduce, a female human egg has to be fertlized by a male human sperm.

So that is the way some living creatures reproduce. Would it be a valid test to say bacteria must reproduce by an egg being fertilized with sperm as proof that they are living? Of course it would not be a valid test because we know some living creatures don't reproduce by eggs and sperm. We also know some living creatures don't have male and females. Science doesn't set up a test for the whole by using a test that is only valid for a subset. You can't use the test until you know that test is actually valid for that particular creature. Any other use of it would be pseudo-science. But then we go even further. Science doesn't require that an individual reproduce to prove it exists. Plenty of humans exist that either haven't or are biologically incapable of reproducing. That doesn't mean they aren't human.

They are both microbes. If you can find any argument to explain why viruses can't be truly isolated and grown in culture just like their fellow microbes, bacteria, by all means let me know.

How can something that doesn't exist be a microbe? Your reasoning is circular here. You claim they are microbes so want to use a test that is valid for bacteria which were the only known microbes when the word microbe came into being and the test for bacteria was first formulated. But you also claim viruses don't exist. Since they don't exist and you are devising a test, you can't start with a test that only is used for SOME living creatures. You are using pseudo-science. You have declared they will only exist if tests show them to be the same as bacteria. That test has been shown to be false since it doesn't work for all living creatures. You can't use that test until you first show that viruses are like bacteria. You clearly have not shown that since you claim they don't exist. Your logic is ridiculous and PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

It seems all the evidence you can provide is the fact that some Nobel Prize judges were hoodwinked into believing it happened. In fairness, a lot more people believed it too, including most if not all of the doctors referenced in the opening post of this thread at the time that this alleged covid pandemic started. But since then, they started looking into the evidence of the Cov 2 virus and viruses more generally and found that the evidence that any virus exists is severely wanting.

That is only a small bit of the evidence I have presented and you have been unable to refute with any evidence of your own. You have only denial, cherry picking, logical fallacies, and you are unable to explain away in any reasonable or rational way even the most simple of evidence that supports viruses existing.

The doctors haven't refuted the evidence that was accepted by the Nobel Committee and the scientific community. They have avoided addressing it at all. Science doesn't avoid experimental evidence that would show their theory to be false. They address that evidence. Your doctors have never explained what was grown if it wasn't virus. Your doctors have never explained what was in the Cutter vaccine that wasn't in the other vaccines if it wasn't virus that wasn't properly attenuated. Your doctors have never explained why polio didn't return to Africa when they started using DDT if DDT caused polio symptoms. These are 3 pieces of evidence I have asked you to address and you have not done so. Now you are trying to run away from it again by claiming that is all the evidence I have. That is bullshit on your part. I have provided multiple links to scientific articles published in scientific papers and you have ignored all those links and not addressed the science or simply denied what they said.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Is this Russian troll still posting bullshit? Why isn't he banned.? He is literally posting ONLY Russian disinformation.

I love this because it gives us another chance to point out Phoenyx's failure at logic.

Concart believes Phoenyx is a Russian Troll. Phoenyx has been asked and refuses to or is unable to provide evidence he isn't a Russian Troll. Based on that Phoenyx is a Russian Troll.
That is the logic constantly being used by Phoenyx, the russian troll. It must be valid logic since he uses it.

 

[Scott]

The group of doctors referenced in the opening post outline a set of tests that could be done that could in theory provide evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.

Please explain your logic here.

I believe all vaccines are toxic and that polio is caused by toxins. I'm sure you can work out what I think caused these 40,000 people who came down with polio symptoms after taking these polio "vaccines".

I have already shown that the scientists "tests" are pseudo-science.

To clarify for anyone dropping into this conversation, I believe he's referring to the doctors and other professionals who signed on to a statement made in the opening post. If this is the case, I strongly disagree with his statement.

They require a procedure that can't be used for all living things. Since it can't be used for all living things it is pseudo-science to claim it must be met to prove that a living thing exists.

As if all living things were tested in the same way. I'm pretty sure you know full well that only microbes are referred to as being grown in culture. But solid evidence has to be shown that something can reproduce for it to be considered alive. I know that some argue that biological viruses aren't alive because they can't reproduce without host cells. I find this notion that a living thing can't be considered alive unless it can reproduce without being a parasite to be absurd. These alleged biological viruses are hardly the only parasitical creatures on earth.

Until you know the characteristics of a living creature you can't claim it must meet the standards of another living creature to prove it exists.

Agreed, but the point here is that there is -very- little evidence that biological viruses exist. The fact that at this point, virologists are admitting that at least some viruses can't be grown in culture, that is, providing evidence that these alleged creatures can even reproduce, is telling.

One HUGE problem with your beliefs. Explain why 40,000 got sick from a vaccine where the virus had not been properly attenuated but over 100 million that took a vaccine where the virus was properly attenuated didn't get sick.

I think you know that I believe that all vaccines are toxic. Pretty sure we can agree that people can get sick from toxins. You also know that I don't believe that biological viruses exist. I think it's not hard to guess what I think happened, but I'll point it out to you this time around. If biological viruses don't exist and all vaccines are toxic, I think it's highly likely that what got those vaccine recipients sick was the toxins in the vaccines.

You did the same thing with DDT and polio. I showed that polio existed in African when DDT wasn't being used, vaccines were given, polio went away and then Africa started using DDT and polio didn't come back.

If what you say is true, reference the post where you showed evidence for these claims.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

To clarify for anyone dropping into this conversation, I believe he's referring to the doctors and other professionals who signed on to a statement made in the opening post. If this is the case, I strongly disagree with his statement.

We know you strongly disagree. We also know you can't support your beliefs with any actual science. We also know that you are here promoting pseudo-science while pretending that your pseudo-science is science.

As if all living things were tested in the same way. I'm pretty sure you know full well that only microbes are referred to as being grown in culture. But solid evidence has to be shown that something can reproduce for it to be considered alive. I know that some argue that biological viruses aren't alive because they can't reproduce without host cells. I find this notion that a living thing can't be considered alive unless it can reproduce without being a parasite to be absurd. These alleged biological viruses are hardly the only parasitical creatures on earth.

Simple question. Are bacteria the same as viruses? If not, then you can't use the test for one as evidence that the other doesn't exist. By using the word "microbe" you are simply attempting to do pseudo-science and imply that viruses are the same as bacteria and if they can't be tested the same way as bacteria then they can't exist. Pseudo-science starts with a presumption and then only looks for confirmation. You are looking for confirmation by only allowing certain tests.

Agreed, but the point here is that there is -very- little evidence that biological viruses exist. The fact that at this point, virologists are admitting that at least some viruses can't be grown in culture, that is, providing evidence that these alleged creatures can even reproduce, is telling.

The same bullshit from you. The only difference is it's a different day. You keep claiming there is little evidence but then when presented with evidence you simply deny it. Denial of evidence is pseudo-science. Because some viruses can't be grown in culture is not evidence they don't exist. It is evidence they aren't bacteria.

I think you know that I believe that all vaccines are toxic. Pretty sure we can agree that people can get sick from toxins. You also know that I don't believe that biological viruses exist. I think it's not hard to guess what I think happened, but I'll point it out to you this time around. If biological viruses don't exist and all vaccines are toxic, I think it's highly likely that what got those vaccine recipients sick was the toxins in the vaccines.

I know you believe a lot for things for which you have no evidence. The problem you have is you are arguing that toxins can grow and spread since that is the only explanation for how disease spreads. Toxins become less toxic as they expand their range. Viruses can expand their range as they reproduce and because they reproduce their toxicity stays the same.
Explain how a toxin in Wuhan China moved to NYC and Italy and didn't infect anywhere between those places at the same rate. You can't explain it. You can only ignore the fact that your explanation makes no sense.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If what you say is true, reference the post where you showed evidence for these claims.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Biological-Virus-Debate&p=5587867#post5587867

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.

 

[Scott]

In some ways sure, but humans can't be reproduce[d] in "culture". To reproduce, a female human egg has to be fertlized by a male human sperm.

So that is the way some living creatures reproduce. Would it be a valid test to say bacteria must reproduce by an egg being fertilized with sperm as proof that they are living? Of course it would not be a valid test because we know some living creatures don't reproduce by eggs and sperm. We also know some living creatures don't have male and females. Science doesn't set up a test for the whole by using a test that is only valid for a subset.

Agreed. However, some virologists have claimed that some viruses have been isolated and grown in culture. All the doctors referenced in the opening post are suggesting is that they prove that these claims are actually true.

They are both microbes. If you can find any argument to explain why viruses can't be truly isolated and grown in culture just like their fellow microbes, bacteria, by all means let me know.

How can something that doesn't exist be a microbe?

It can't be ofcourse. That being said, virologists -claim- that biological viruses are microbes. A lot of this thread is dedicated to the virologists' claims.

It seems all the evidence you can provide is the fact that some Nobel Prize judges were hoodwinked into believing it happened. In fairness, a lot more people believed it too, including most if not all of the doctors referenced in the opening post of this thread at the time that this alleged covid pandemic started. But since then, they started looking into the evidence of the Cov 2 virus and viruses more generally and found that the evidence that any virus exists is severely wanting.

That is only a small bit of the evidence I have presented

What other evidence have you allegedly presented?

The doctors haven't refuted the evidence that was accepted by the Nobel Committee and the scientific community.

Can you remind me which alleged biological virus the Nobel Committee believed in again? I highly suspect that the no virus camp has in fact provided plenty of evidence casting doubt on this alleged virus.

Your doctors have never explained why polio didn't return to Africa when they started using DDT if DDT caused polio symptoms.

Some people here may have missed previous posts I and Saunders have exchanged in regards to Polio. I think a good place to start is this post from Tessa Lena:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

As to Saunder's specific allegation on DDT in Africa, I think it'd be better to go over the evidence in the above article which deals with Polio in the U.S. before wandering off to far out places like Africa.

 

[Scott]

Is this Russian troll still posting bullshit? Why isn't he banned.? He is literally posting ONLY Russian disinformation.

I love this because it gives us another chance to point out Phoenyx's failure at logic.

Concart believes Phoenyx is a Russian Troll. Phoenyx has been asked and refuses to or is unable to provide evidence he isn't a Russian Troll. Based on that Phoenyx is a Russian Troll.
That is the logic constantly being used by Phoenyx, the russian troll. It must be valid logic since he uses it.

You haven't shown any evidence that I use this type of logic.

 

[Scott]

I have already shown that the scientists "tests" are pseudo-science.

To clarify for anyone dropping into this conversation, I believe he's referring to the doctors and other professionals who signed on to a statement made in the opening post. If this is the case, I strongly disagree with his statement.

We know you strongly disagree.

I'm not sure who you're referring to with your "We". I simply thought it'd be good to recap a bit for anyone not fully versed on our past conversations on this.

As if all living things were tested in the same way. I'm pretty sure you know full well that only microbes are referred to as being grown in culture. But solid evidence has to be shown that something can reproduce for it to be considered alive. I know that some argue that biological viruses aren't alive because they can't reproduce without host cells. I find this notion that a living thing can't be considered alive unless it can reproduce without being a parasite to be absurd. These alleged biological viruses are hardly the only parasitical creatures on earth.

Simple question. Are bacteria the same as viruses?

You already know that I believe that biological viruses don't exist. I do believe that bacteria exist. So clearly, I don't believe they are the same.

Agreed, but the point here is that there is -very- little evidence that biological viruses exist. The fact that at this point, virologists are admitting that at least some viruses can't be grown in culture, that is, providing evidence that these alleged creatures can even reproduce, is telling.

The same bullshit from you.

You know full well that insulting me or things I say tends to tune me out. If that's what you want, good job.

I think you know that I believe that all vaccines are toxic. Pretty sure we can agree that people can get sick from toxins. You also know that I don't believe that biological viruses exist. I think it's not hard to guess what I think happened, but I'll point it out to you this time around. If biological viruses don't exist and all vaccines are toxic, I think it's highly likely that what got those vaccine recipients sick was the toxins in the vaccines.

I know you believe a lot for things for which you have no evidence.

Perhaps we can agree that it's easy to believe a lot of things- what's hard is providing evidence for those beliefs. For instance, your belief that I believe "a lot of things" without evidence.

The problem you have is you are arguing that toxins can grow and spread [snip]

I believe no such thing.

 

[Scott]

You did the same thing with DDT and polio. I showed that polio existed in African when DDT wasn't being used, vaccines were given, polio went away and then Africa started using DDT and polio didn't come back.

If what you say is true, reference the post where you showed evidence for these claims.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Biological-Virus-Debate&p=5587867#post5587867

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.

Apparently you missed my response posts to this post of yours. My response is in posts #866 and #867. I keep a thread tree of this entire thread and I've noted that you never responded to either of these posts of mine. In regards to the specific point that you quoted, I respond to it in post #867.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. However, some virologists have claimed that some viruses have been isolated and grown in culture. All the doctors referenced in the opening post are suggesting is that they prove that these claims are actually true.

This isn't some "claim." It is over 70 years of actual science. Because some idiots refuse to believe something doesn't mean they have to prove something that has been proven billions of times.
Your doctors have no argument for why the Nobel Committee gave the prize for growing viruses in a culture.
Your doctors have no argument for why 40,000 people got polio from the Cutter virus.
Your doctors have conducted no experiments to falsify the claim that viruses exist. All they have done is pseudo-science where they cherry pick details and deny evidence.

It can't be ofcourse. That being said, virologists -claim- that biological viruses are microbes. A lot of this thread is dedicated to the virologists' claims.

Really? Do you have evidence that their claim is that viruses are the same as bacteria? Much of your pseudo-science is based on claiming that viruses should be treated the same as bacteria and then complaining when the virologists say viruses shouldn't be treated the same as bacteria.

What other evidence have you allegedly presented?

And there it is folks. DENIAL of all evidence that has been presented. Phoenyx is just conducting pseudo-science. And he's not even very good at that. He is nothing but a tinfoil hat troll. I have listed evidence on a number of occasions and you ignore the questions I ask.

Can you remind me which alleged biological virus the Nobel Committee believed in again? I highly suspect that the no virus camp has in fact provided plenty of evidence casting doubt on this alleged virus.

Are you that ignorant of the conversations we have had here? Or are you just trolling? It's clear you are only interested in promoting pseudo-science.

Some people here may have missed previous posts I and Saunders have exchanged in regards to Polio. I think a good place to start is this post from Tessa Lena:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

It would appear the person most likely to not be familiar with the conversations we have been having is Phoenyx. Pseudo-science ignores evidence that doesn't confirm their bias. Pseudo-science doesn't have tests that can falsify their beliefs.

As to Saunder's specific allegation on DDT in Africa, I think it'd be better to go over the evidence in the above article which deals with Polio in the U.S. before wandering off to far out places like Africa.

Pseudo-science at its finest. Why should we ignore evidence that disputes your claims? If you weren't conducting pseudo-science, shouldn't you be welcoming attempts to falsify your claims?
You are attempting to restrict to just the evidence that shows correlation and then demanding we ignore the evidence that proves there is no correlation. That is pseudo-science. There is no other explanation unless you happen to be a Russian troll. That would be an alternate explanation.


Let's make this simple again.
What falsifiable hypothesis are the doctors presenting? If they have no such hypothesis and it can't be falsified then we have evidence they are simply promoting pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You haven't shown any evidence that I use this type of logic.

Why should I show evidence since you have proven that is your logic? The evidence is there for all to see.

The theory is that Phoenyx is a Russian troll. The way for him to prove he isn't one is laid out in another post.
That would be the exact same logic you have used repeatedly.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm not sure who you're referring to with your "We". I simply thought it'd be good to recap a bit for anyone not fully versed on our past conversations on this.

We would be every thinking person following along. It's quite clear that you are only promoting pseudo-science.

You already know that I believe that biological viruses don't exist. I do believe that bacteria exist. So clearly, I don't believe they are the same.

Since they aren't the same then why are you requiring a test that would assume they are the same? This reveals your idiocy. You make demands that you know can't be met based on your own beliefs. You are doing pseudo-science. You are not attempting to falsify your theory. You are demanding that others prove something in only the fashion you demand and not in the fashion science requires.

You know full well that insulting me or things I say tends to tune me out. If that's what you want, good job.

Another perfect example of how Phoenix attempts to avoid evidence that his arguments are bullshit. He pretends to be upset by his bullshit being called bullshit and then he simply repeats his bullshit over and over and never addresses the logical errors and falsities that are pointed out. Tell us why we should ignore the evidence that DDT can't cause polio since it didn't cause polio in Africa. If DDT doesn't cause polio in Africa, why should we believe it causes polio in the US? This is where your bullshit takes us. You claim something and then when it isn't true, you backtrack before you then claim it to be true again later. That is nothing but bullshit. But just for the sake of argument, we will now call your claims PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

Perhaps we can agree that it's easy to believe a lot of things- what's hard is providing evidence for those beliefs. For instance, your belief that I believe "a lot of things" without evidence.

I have shown you believe a lot of things without evidence since you have not told us what causes all the viral diseases, you have not told us how a viral disease can spread if it isn't something that grows, you have not told us how electricity can be targeted in only areas where viruses are claimed to be infecting people, you have not told us what is in the pictures of viruses, you have not told us how the Nobel Committee was hoodwinked to believing viruses were grown in a culture, you have not told us why 40,000 people got polio from a vaccine and millions other didn't. You clearly believe a lot of things without evidence.

I believe no such thing.

Then your arguments are based on bullshit pseudo-science. How can Covid spread if it the toxin can't spread and keep the same level of toxicity? How can measles spread if the toxin can't spread and keep the same level of toxicity? We know how bacterial diseases spread, the microbe that causes it replicates so it can spread. If it couldn't replicate then the toxicity would have to decrease as it spreads. Your arguments that viral disease is caused by poison are nonsense since they you have no explanation for how the poison spreads and doesn't lose toxicity. This is another example of you having no evidence for your arguments.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Apparently you missed my response posts to this post of yours. My response is in posts #866 and #867. I keep a thread tree of this entire thread and I've noted that you never responded to either of these posts of mine. In regards to the specific point that you quoted, I respond to it in post #867.

Let's examine your argument.
You claimed DDT causes polio. I point out polio didn't occur in Africa when DDT was being used which refutes your claim. You then claim you didn't say DDT but other poisons you can't name or give any evidence for are the cause. While at the same time you use an article that states that polio is making a comeback because under immunized people are infecting others with the polio virus because the weakened virus in the vaccine is returning to its virulent form.

Let's see that your post shows us.
1. You don't have evidence to support your claim.
2. You ignore evidence that disputes your claim.
3. You use evidence that disputes your claim and pretend it supports your claim.
4. You don't have a falsifiable theory.
5. You are conducting pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. However, some virologists have claimed that some viruses have been isolated and grown in culture. All the doctors referenced in the opening post are suggesting is that they prove that these claims are actually true.

This isn't some "claim."

I said claims, not claim.

It is over 70 years of actual science.

I believe that Dr. Mark Bailey makes a compelling case in his farewell to virology essay that virology is not science, but pseudo science.

Because some idiots refuse to believe something doesn't mean they have to prove something that has been proven billions of times.

Saunders, when are you going to learn that attacking people who disagree with you with ad hominems doesn't actually bolster your case?

Your doctors have no argument for why the Nobel Committee gave the prize for growing viruses in a culture.

Dr. Mark Bailey and others have made a detailed account of how all virology is based on pseudo science. The fact that some Nobel Committee was taken in by this pseudo science doesn't legitimatize it.

Your doctors have no argument for why 40,000 people got polio from the Cutter virus.

I imagine you're referring to the Cutter incident. The mainstream narrative on that is here:

The Cutter Incident: Consequences of a Public Health Crisis | National Bureau of Economic Research

Given the evidence that viruses don't exist, as well as the evidence that vaccines themselves can cause health conditions, it's not much of a stretch to consider the possibility that the toxins in the polio vaccines is the true cause. Nor is the Cutter incident the only time that polio vaccines have been implicated in causing polio. As a matter of fact, polio vaccines are still being implicated in causing polio this year, even by mainstream news sources:

Burundi officials detect polio outbreak linked to vaccine | ABC News

Your doctors have conducted no experiments to falsify the claim that viruses exist.

If they had the labs available for them to do so, I imagine they would. Meanwhile, it appears that no virologists have attempted to conduct the experiments outlined by these doctors in the opening post of this thread.

 

[Scott]

You haven't shown any evidence that I use this type of logic.

Why should I show evidence since you have proven that is your logic?

Proven? You haven't even shown evidence for your claim.

 

[Scott]

I have already shown that the scientists "tests" are pseudo-science.

To clarify for anyone dropping into this conversation, I believe he's referring to the doctors and other professionals who signed on to a statement made in the opening post. If this is the case, I strongly disagree with his statement.

We know you strongly disagree.

I'm not sure who you're referring to with your "We". I simply thought it'd be good to recap a bit for anyone not fully versed on our past conversations on this.

We would be every thinking person following along.

You are now apparently claiming that some people don't think -.-

You already know that I believe that biological viruses don't exist. I do believe that bacteria exist. So clearly, I don't believe they are the same.

Since they aren't the same then why are you requiring a test that would assume they are the same?

No one's requiring anything. The doctors referenced in the opening post proposed a set of experiments that could help determine whether or not biological viruses exist. So far, I've heard no compelling arguments as to why these tests shouldn't discover these alleged biological viruses if they do in fact exist.

This reveals your idiocy.

Again with another ad hominem attack -.- I think that's enough for this post.

 

[Scott]

Apparently you missed my response posts to this post of yours. My response is in posts #866 and #867. I keep a thread tree of this entire thread and I've noted that you never responded to either of these posts of mine. In regards to the specific point that you quoted, I respond to it in post #867.

Let's examine your argument.
You claimed DDT causes polio. I point out polio didn't occur in Africa when DDT was being used which refutes your claim.

I claimed that there is evidence that DDT was -one- of the causes of polio, and provided a good deal of evidence that this was the case as well. For more details, please see my post #867.

You then claim you didn't say DDT but other poisons you can't name or give any evidence for are the cause.

I already mentioned that vaccines could be another cause, such as the polio vaccine itself. There are other potential causal factors as well, which I mentioned in post #867.

While at the same time you use an article that states that polio is making a comeback because under immunized people are infecting others with the polio virus because the weakened virus in the vaccine is returning to its virulent form.

Just because the mainstream media believes in biological viruses doesn't mean everyone else has to. It's only natural that if viruses don't exist, something else in the vaccines is probably to blame. Plenty of evidence that vaccines have caused health issues, suggesting that the toxins in the vaccines themselves are the problem.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I said claims, not claim.

Nice deflection. Do you have any other deflections you want to make? His claim is only one. That viruses don't exist. The idiocy spouted to support that claim is not multiple claims.

I believe that Dr. Mark Bailey makes a compelling case in his farewell to virology essay that virology is not science, but pseudo science.

We know what you believe. We also know that you have no evidence for your belief and no evidence disputing the existence of viruses. All you have is denial.

Saunders, when are you going to learn that attacking people who disagree with you with ad hominems doesn't actually bolster your case?

Maybe you need to learn what an ad hominem is before you use the term.

Dr. Mark Bailey and others have made a detailed account of how all virology is based on pseudo science. The fact that some Nobel Committee was taken in by this pseudo science doesn't legitimatize it.

Except their "detailed account" fails to answer my questions about the evidence that viruses exist. They make an argument that is so detailed they can't explain how disease is caused or why it spreads if there are no viruses. That is not a detailed account. That is them making an argument where they simply deny and ignore evidence.

I imagine you're referring to the Cutter incident. The mainstream narrative on that is here:

The Cutter Incident: Consequences of a Public Health Crisis | National Bureau of Economic Research

Given the evidence that viruses don't exist, as well as the evidence that vaccines themselves can cause health conditions, it's not much of a stretch to consider the possibility that the toxins in the polio vaccines is the true cause. Nor is the Cutter incident the only time that polio vaccines have been implicated in causing polio. As a matter of fact, polio vaccines are still being implicated in causing polio this year, even by mainstream news sources:

Burundi officials detect polio outbreak linked to vaccine | ABC News

Do you know how they are detecting the virus? Perhaps you should do some research before you use this as your evidence that viruses don't exist. People are not getting polio paralysis. They are detecting the virus from wastewater and blood samples using RNA sequencing. They then compare the sequence found in those samples to the sequence used in the vaccine and since they are the same they can then say the circulating virus comes from the vaccine. The circulating virus is still in the weakened form used for the vaccine. The fear is that it will change back to the virulent form if it continues to circulate.

If they had the labs available for them to do so, I imagine they would. Meanwhile, it appears that no virologists have attempted to conduct the experiments outlined by these doctors in the opening post of this thread.

So they can't do the science? All they can do is snipe from the side? That is pseudo-science on their part.
There experiment is bullshit and I have repeatedly pointed out why it is bullshit. It certainly isn't science. Simple question for you. Can humans exist if they can't be grown in culture?
Their argument is bullshit because they start with an assumption that can't be falsified.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Proven? You haven't even shown evidence for your claim.

1. The theory is that Phoenyx is a Russian troll. The way for him to prove he isn't one is laid out in another post.

2. 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.

Would you care to tell us what the difference is between the two statements when it comes to logic? Be specific and give us proof. Why is one valid and the other is not? Both statements are constructed in the same fashion. Both provide no evidence to support them.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You are now apparently claiming that some people don't think -.-

Are you going to beat up that strawman now they have have him all laid out? Why did you delete the rest of that paragraph and not respond to show you are not using pseudo-science? I would guess it is because as a "thinking person" you know you are using pseudo-science.

No one's requiring anything. The doctors referenced in the opening post proposed a set of experiments that could help determine whether or not biological viruses exist. So far, I've heard no compelling arguments as to why these tests shouldn't discover these alleged biological viruses if they do in fact exist.

LOL. So you think humans have to be grown in culture before they exist? The argument has been made and is quite compelling. There are millions of creatures that can replicate but can't be grown in culture. If you are not sure if a creature exists as a living being, you can't start with a test that we know can't be applied to all living beings. That would be pseudo-science.
2 simple questions.
Can all living creatures be grown in culture? yes/no?
If you don't know if something is a living creature, is it a valid test to require it be grown in culture before accepting that it is a living creature? yes/no?

Unless you answer no to both of those questions you are conducting pseudo-science.

Again with another ad hominem attack -.- I think that's enough for this post.

Once again, you don't know what an ad hominem is. Then you use it as an excuse to not have to defend your position. You are doing pseudo-science. You avoid any questions or facts that show your argument is pseudo-science.

I see you can't answer an of the following:
You have not told us what causes all the viral diseases, you have not told us how a viral disease can spread if it isn't something that grows, you have not told us how electricity can be targeted in only areas where viruses are claimed to be infecting people, you have not told us what is in the pictures of viruses, you have not told us how the Nobel Committee was hoodwinked to believing viruses were grown in a culture, you have not told us why 40,000 people got polio from a vaccine and millions other didn't. You clearly believe a lot of things without evidence.