Settling the Biological Virus Debate

Nordberg said:
Medical science KNOWS that viruses exist.
Click to expand...

You act like medical science is a person, rather than a concept. If medical science "knows" that viruses exist, you'd think they'd be able to prove it, or at least provide solid evidence for them. It hasn't been able to do either.
 
Phoenyx said:
I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Spanish flu. Conventional wisdom is that it was caused by the H1N1 influenza A virus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

There is, however, an alternative theory that I believe accounts for much if not all of this pandemic, as well as flu pandemics both before and after it- the rise of human produced electromagnetic discharges, whether from electricity or radio waves. The 1918 pandemic followed the rise of the use radio closely. I first learned of this theory from a book called The Invisible Rainbow. There are articles on this, one of which is here, which adds another twist, namely that vaccines played a part in its deadliness:

The 1918 “Spanish Flu”: Only The Vaccinated Died | birthofanewearthblog.com
Click to expand...

I just read something last week that claimed the telegraph had something to do with it.
 
Nordberg said:
They have proved it, absolutely and conclusively. Again. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...l-to-humans-are-proven-to-exist-idUSKBN23335V
Click to expand...

Even your article can't make up its mind. It starts off saying that biological viruses have been proven to exist, with a picture of some microbes alleged to be viruses, and ends by saying that there is "established scientific evidence of the existence of viruses harmful to humans". For starters, evidence is not proof. Secondly, while the virologist they interview, Lynda Coughlin, -claims- that viruses have been isolated, no evidence is offered to support her assertion.
 
Guille said:
Phoenyx said:
I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Spanish flu. Conventional wisdom is that it was caused by the H1N1 influenza A virus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

There is, however, an alternative theory that I believe accounts for much if not all of this pandemic, as well as flu pandemics both before and after it- the rise of human produced electromagnetic discharges, whether from electricity or radio waves. The 1918 pandemic followed the rise of the use radio closely. I first learned of this theory from a book called The Invisible Rainbow. There are articles on this, one of which is here, which adds another twist, namely that vaccines played a part in its deadliness:

The 1918 “Spanish Flu”: Only The Vaccinated Died | birthofanewearthblog.com
Click to expand...


I just read something last week that claimed the telegraph had something to do with it.
Click to expand...

I'd like to read what you read. I think it may be possible, at least if the telegraphs in question were communicating with each other via radio waves.
 
Phoenyx said:
I never said it was.



I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was suggesting that smallpox was all diseases, but that's certainly not what I meant to convey.



Oh boy, more insults -.-
Click to expand...

Provide actual evidence that the diseases that science says is caused by viruses are actually caused by something else. You have made an extraordinary claim. It is up to you to provide support for it. Stating that some diseases are not caused by viruses is not evidence concerning the diseases that are caused by viruses. It was a straw man attempt to imply I was asking you about all diseases and not just the ones caused by viruses. You are either trolling or being disingenuous in your arguments. The fact that you have come out in support of multiple different conspiracy theories raises questions as to whether you are really capable of having an intelligent conversation on any topic.
 
Phoenyx said:
Nothing like engaging in an ad hominem attack at the beginning of a post to short circuit discussion. If that was your goal, well done. In any case, my believe here stands.
Click to expand...

Nothing like ignoring all arguments that show your arguments to be bullshit. You failed to address all the evidence I presented that show you and Dr Sam Baily are full of shit.

Here you go.. Address the following about how science has managed to isolate and sequence viruses.

Evidence of the covid virus being isolated and sequenced.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC703e6342/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...98743X20304274
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366528/
https://link.springer.com/article/10...96-020-03899-4

Evidence of other viruses being isolated and sequenced.
https://link.springer.com/article/10...96-020-03899-4
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/profes...terization.htm
https://asm.org/Articles/2020/Octobe...-Is-in-the-Gen
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rstb.2019.0572
https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/be...n-torrent-ngs/

Directions of how to isolate a virus and sequence it's RNA
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...42682219300728
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2016.182
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709572/
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/...985-017-0741-5
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0027805
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01360-14
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502977/

Calling you a conspiracy nut is hardly an ad hominem. Your failure to provide any valid arguments for your positions show you to be a conspiracy nut or a troll.
There are several databases worldwide that have the sequences of viruses. Anyone can look them up and run their own tests using the methods and compare to them. The fact that Dr Bailey has never done this speaks volumes to her lack of expertise on the subject.
 
Phoenyx said:
You act like medical science is a person, rather than a concept. If medical science "knows" that viruses exist, you'd think they'd be able to prove it, or at least provide solid evidence for them. It hasn't been able to do either.
Click to expand...

Science has proven it. In spite of what you and Dr Bailey spout the scientific community has been able to isolate and sequence viruses.

This is a a takedown of Dr Bailey's arguments that includes multiple links to scientific papers.
https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-real-truth-about-viruses/

How do we know viruses exist?

It is very hard to mount a coherent argument against the specific way Bailey argues as she cherry picks pieces of viral evidence, such as not adhering to Koch’s postulates or not always being purified or visible under a microscope. But the fact is that the existence of any virus is triangulated by an array of increasingly sophisticated laboratory techniques whereby theories may be tested, cultures grown, and infectivity demonstrated. In fact, a great many viruses have been purified, often against the odds. Viral proteins, including on the novel coronavirus, are largely glycoproteins and these alone, due to heterogeneity in structure, are very hard to purify to a level where, for example, they could be crystallised. While methods for the purification of glycoproteins have improved, I recall a glycoprotein expert once telling me that if someone holds up a test tube and claims it contains a purified solution of glycoprotein, he or she is lying.
Click to expand...

Let's address the alleged problems raised by Dr Watson in his lengthy article that tears apart Sam Bailey's claims point by point.
 
We have a national epidemic of conspiracy theory, and modern medicine is among the irrationally mistrusted things.

The only good that can come from that is that the psychotic theorists will be the ones to die from not accepting the immunizations.
 
Phoenyx said:
Thanks. So she is no longer licensed to practice. I'm definitely curious to know why. In any case, this in no way takes away from her knowledge. I'd argue that she's gone the extra mile and learned a great deal more than most doctors when it comes to viruses. She's one of the authors of the most recent edition of the Virus Mania book that I bought. I highly recommend it. It's here for anyone who's interested:

Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense | Amazon.com
Click to expand...

What you believe and reality seem to be far removed from each other. If you bothered to read the court ruling, you might be able to buy a clue as to why she is no longer licensed to practice. (She is arguing to the court that her videos on YouTube are not medicine.)


Oh, look you posted a link to a book you haven't read and can't defend.

But, if she is so far ahead of others, why do they know that the RNA sequences of viruses can be found here and she doesn't?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/
(The influenza virus has been sequenced and submitted to the database over 250,000 times by labs around the world. How would that be possible if it can't be isolated like [Dr] Bailey claims?)

Here is the sequence of the influenza A virus from 2009 in California
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CY121687.1

Here is another sequence of influenza A virus, also from 2009 in California.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CY121686

Here is the sequence of an influenza A virus from Uruguay in 2007
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CY121646

Here is one from South Dakota in 2007
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CY121646

Here is one from Hong Kong in 2009
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CY111621

Here is one from Mexico in 2003.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/CY100621
 
Phoenyx said:
I'd like to read what you read. I think it may be possible, at least if the telegraphs in question were communicating with each other via radio waves.
Click to expand...

I'll try to look for it. The jist was that farmboys who had never been exposed to electrical fields moved to cities to learn to operate telegraphs and got sick because of it. I'll look for the article tonight.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Phoenyx said:
I never said it was.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was suggesting that smallpox was all diseases, but that's certainly not what I meant to convey.

Oh boy, more insults -.-
Click to expand...

Provide actual evidence that the diseases that science says is caused by viruses are actually caused by something else.
Click to expand...

There you go, making science sound like a person, or perhaps a God. Here's Merriam Webster's first definition for the term:
**
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

I think it's worth taking a look at the linked term above, the scientific method:

**
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method

I believe that the doctors who signed their name to the statement linked to in the opening post are inviting scientists to use the scientific method to prove that biological viruses do in fact exist. You're welcome to disagree, but your disagreement will only be credible if you can provide evidence that they aren't following this method.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
You have made an extraordinary claim.
Click to expand...

First of all, the claim that there is little if any evidence of biological viruses wasn't made by me. I came across some of the doctors who signed off on the statement made in the opening post and came to believe they were correct over time. Now, I can certainly agree that the claim is extraordinary in the sense that it is "beyond what is usual, regular, or customary", which is Merriam Webster's first definition for extraordinary. That being said, I have never claimed that I can -prove- that biological viruses don't exist. Those who believe in biological viruses frequently act or outright say that there is proof that they do exist, and thus the burden of proof would fall on them. The doctors and other professionals who wrote the article linked to in the opening post even helpfully give them a blueprint on how they could go about their efforts on trying to prove that biological viruses do in fact exist.


Poor Richard Saunders said:
Stating that some diseases are not caused by viruses is not evidence concerning the diseases that are caused by viruses.
Click to expand...

There you go again, asserting that certain disease are caused by viruses, yet offering no proof for such an assertion.
 
Phoenyx said:
There you go, making science sound like a person, or perhaps a God. Here's Merriam Webster's first definition for the term:
**
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

I think it's worth taking a look at the linked term above, the scientific method:

**
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method
Click to expand...
Now that you have defined the scientific method, I think we can all agree that you are only doing so in order to not actually follow it. You haven't provided an hypothesis that fits the known facts. You go to great lengths to avoid any tests of the hypothesis that viruses don't exist.

I believe that the doctors who signed their name to the statement linked to in the opening post are inviting scientists to use the scientific method to prove that biological viruses do in fact exist. You're welcome to disagree, but your disagreement will only be credible if you can provide evidence that they aren't following this method.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything that supports your belief. The scientific method is not one where you propose a hypothesis and then demand others disprove it. It is the responsibility of the one with they hypothesis to provide their work and evidence. Do you wonder why they haven't done the procedure themselves that they propose?

I can tell you why. They know their arguments are bullshit.

First of all, the claim that there is little if any evidence of biological viruses wasn't made by me. I came across some of the doctors who signed off on the statement made in the opening post and came to believe they were correct over time. Now, I can certainly agree that the claim is extraordinary in the sense that it is "beyond what is usual, regular, or customary", which is Merriam Webster's first definition for extraordinary. That being said, I have never claimed that I can -prove- that biological viruses don't exist. Those who believe in biological viruses frequently act or outright say that there is proof that they do exist, and thus the burden of proof would fall on them. The doctors and other professionals who wrote the article linked to in the opening post even helpfully give them a blueprint on how they could go about their efforts on trying to prove that biological viruses do in fact exist.




There you go again, asserting that certain disease are caused by viruses, yet offering no proof for such an assertion.
Click to expand...

Oh.. look... You have nothing but your conspiracy bullshit so you resort to deflection.

If you aren't making the argument then why are you here arguing one side? Are you an idiot or a troll? You can't post bullshit and then claim you believe it but you aren't making an argument.
 
There are many possible strategies we could use to fight viruses... Or we can go the Republican route and debate whether viruses really exist.
 
Phoenyx said:
For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

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

I'll quote the first few paragraphs of the statement here:

**
July 14, 2022

Settling the Virus Debate

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

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.
**

The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative.
Click to expand...

Viruses exist. They can be observed with an electron microscope.
 
Into the Night said:
Phoenyx said:
For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

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

I'll quote the first few paragraphs of the statement here:

**
July 14, 2022

Settling the Virus Debate

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

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.
**

The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative.
Click to expand...

Viruses exist. They can be observed with an electron microscope.
Click to expand...

Microbes can be observed with an electron microscope. What's under contention is whether any of those microbes are actually biological viruses. The group of doctors and other professionals that I reference in my opening post provide a method wherein scientists can attempt to prove the viruses actually exist. So far, it seems no one has taken them up on their offer.
 
Walt said:
There are many possible strategies we could use to fight viruses... Or we can go the Republican route and debate whether viruses really exist.
Click to expand...

As Into the Night correctly pointed out, this is not a partisan issue. As far as I know, there is only a small group of doctors and other professionals who question if not outright no longer believe that viruses exist. They signed their name to a 2 page statement that I link to in the opening post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top