Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

So you claimed. But correlation is not causation. Then you ignore when there are many periods where there is no correlation. Lack of correlation would make the evidence stronger that there is no causation.
Thanks for the link to more of your pseudo-science. Pseudo-science ignores any data and evidence that disputes their claim. You are ignoring the evidence that DDT doesn't cause polio and then you simply claim there is some other mysterious thing that causes polio, you have no clue what it is, you just believe it can't be a virus. That is pseudo-science on your part.

My question is, if you don't know what causes a disease how can you say it isn't a virus? We know it can't be a toxin based on how toxins actually work in the real world. Toxins lose their toxicity as they spread. You are promoting pseudo-science.

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.

You mentioned but never gave any scientific answer as to how toxins could be the cause.
If vaccines were the cause then why did polio decrease with the introduction of vaccines? The evidence is contrary to your claim. Yes, there were some instances where polio increased before everyone was vaccinated but the overall trend was for polio to decrease when the vaccines were introduced.
The problem with your pseudo-science is you have to cherry pick data and ignore the majority of it.

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.

No one is saying you have to believe anything. You are free to believe in your pseudo-science. But the evidence for your pseudo-science is overwhelmed by the evidence for science.
There may be evidence of vaccines causing health issues but there is also evidence of vaccines reducing disease. There is also evidence of viruses causing disease. Your denial of evidence is only proof you are pushing 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." It is over 70 years of actual science.

I said claims, not claim.

Nice deflection. Do you have any other deflections you want to make? His claim is only one.

Apparently, you've forgotten what claims were being referred to. The claims we were talking about are the claims made by virologists. I'll quote the snippet from the opening post to get this conversation back on track:

**
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.
**

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

 

[Scott]

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.

There you go again with your "We". For the most part, it's just you and me in this conversation for some time now.

We also know that you have no evidence for your belief and no evidence disputing the existence of viruses.

Prove it then.

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.

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?

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

I know what it means, but it looks like you don't. I can attempt to educate you though:

**
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

 

[Scott]

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.

What are your questions?

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.

As to their explanation for the causes of disease, I think it's safe to say that they are of the terrain theory rather than germ theory. If you'd like to learn more on the terrain theory branch that I believe these doctors believe in, feel free to take a look at the following article:
The Terrain Theory vs. The Germ Theory | drrobertyoung.com

 

[Scott]

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?

You already know I don't believe that biological viruses exist. Given that fact, I think it's evident that I don't believe they are "detecting" viruses at all.

Perhaps you should do some research before you use this as your evidence that viruses don't exist.

I've done plenty of research and quoted large tracts from various doctors, such as Dr. Mark Bailey, on numerous occassions. You, on the other hand, tend to just post links to articles and somehow think that makes a persuasive argument.

People are not getting polio paralysis. They are detecting the virus from wastewater and blood samples using RNA sequencing.

Dr. Mark Bailey has already exposed the flawed reasoning of alleged viral RNA sequencing. I've quoted his essay A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition) numerous times here. In regards to RNA sequencing, there is no solid evidence that any RNA that virologists have sequenced over the years belongs to a biological virus.

 

[Scott]

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?

Clearly you didn't process what I said. In any case, it's up to virologists to show evidence that biological viruses actually exist. The doctors referenced in the opening post created a framework of experiments they could do in order to try to do that. So far, I don't believe any virologist has tried to do so. The "Settling the Virus Debate" statement referenced and partially quoted in the opening post of this thread gets into a set of experiments they could do in order to verify that biological viruses do in fact exist. Here it is:

**
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**

The statement then goes on to state that it's unlikely that they will try this, however, and explains why:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis.
**

The author(s) of the statement then go on with a compromise of sorts:

**
Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.
**

The statement then goes on to describe a 2 step process that virologists could do to try to verify that biological viruses do in fact exist. If you're interested, you can find this 2 step process near the bottom of the statement here:

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

 

[Scott]

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.

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

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.

You're getting sidetracked. You had claimed that I was using some rather twisted logic. I said you hadn't shown any evidence that I'd used this twisted logic, and your response was that it was already "proven". I suppose that's -one- way to make an argument. Just say that your belief is already proven and call it a day .

 

[Scott]

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 -.-

Are you going to beat up that strawman now they have have him all laid out?

Are you saying that you -didn't- imply that some people don't think?

Why did you delete the rest of that paragraph

I deleted the rest for 2 reasons:

1- I wanted to draw your attention to your insulting, unsubstantiated claim. The hope is that if I do this enough, you'll stop making them so much.

2- I tend to stop reading after seeing the person I'm responding to makes some inane insult.

 

[Lightbringer]

You're right, he's wrong.

 

[Scott]

You're right, he's wrong.

Lol . I certainly believe that. I will say though, that despite my frequent protests of Saunders, he's the only poster on the other side of this debate to stick it out. So I give him kudos for that at least. I do tend to wish he'd stop with the inane insults, but I think he's gotten somewhat better than he has been in the past, so there's that.

 

[Scott]

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?

No, I've told you numerous times that I don't believe that.

 

[Scott]

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.

So you claimed.

Indeed.

But correlation is not causation.

Agreed. That being said, correlation -can- be evidence of causation. Wikipedia gets into the details:

**
Causal analysis is the field of experimental design and statistics pertaining to establishing cause and effect.[4][5] For any two correlated events, A and B, there are four possible relationships:

A causes B (direct causation);
B causes A (reverse causation);
A and B are both caused by C (common causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.
These relationships are not mutually exclusive; they may exist in any combination. For example, it is possible that both A can cause effect B and B can cause effect A (bidirectional or cyclic causation).

No conclusion can thus be made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship, and if so which direction the causality is, requires further investigation. If the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, the final relationship in the list above ("coincidence") may be statistically ruled out, but the correlation itself will not clarify whether A caused B, B caused A, or A and B were both caused by some other effect, C.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Then you ignore when there are many periods where there is no correlation.

Unsubtantiated claim.

There may be evidence of vaccines causing health issues but there is also evidence of vaccines reducing disease.

I believe that evidence is shoddy at best.

There is also evidence of viruses causing disease.

I believe it's quite shoddy evidence, considering the flimsy evidence that biological viruses exist at all.

 

[Lightbringer]

Lol . I certainly believe that. I will say though, that despite my frequent protests of Saunders, he's the only poster on the other side of this debate to stick it out. So I give him kudos for that at least. I do tend to wish he'd stop with the inane insults, but I think he's gotten somewhat better than he has been in the past, so there's that at least.

There's something to say about stick-to it iveness.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I suppose that's -one- way to make an argument. Just say that your belief is already proven and call it a day .

that's why totalitarianism is attractive to stupid people.

They get to feel right all the time with no effort.

 

[Kamala Trump]

There's something to say about stick-to it iveness.

not when one is sticking to stupidity.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Apparently, you've forgotten what claims were being referred to. The claims we were talking about are the claims made by virologists. I'll quote the snippet from the opening post to get this conversation back on track:


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

I am very familiar by now with the pseudo-science you keep using.

Humans have never been isolated. Do humans exist without isolation? No human has ever been isolated from their microbe biome therefor isolation can't be used as a test.

We are back to the same argument. You claim that something can't exist unless it meets a narrow definition. I point to things to DO exist that don't meet your narrow definition. You ignore the fact that things can exist that don't meet your narrow definition. You are promoting pseudo-science. Any test that can't be applied to all living things can't be used to prove something exists. We have evidence isolation can't be used for all living things.

Since no human has ever been isolated from the bacteria that live in and on them, humans can't exist as living creatures if we apply your test.
Do you think humans exist? yes/no
Do you think humans exist even though they have never been isolated from their bacterial biome? yes/no

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There you go again with your "We". For the most part, it's just you and me in this conversation for some time now.

I guess that is an admission that your position is not well founded since you think no one can understand it other than me.

Prove it then.

ROFLMAO. Really? You are going to play that game?
I think your failure to answer these questions pretty much proves it.
Can a living creature exist that can't be isolated? yes/no
Can a toxin keep the same toxicity as it is diluted? yes/no
Is correlation in some instances and no correlation in other instances proof of causation? yes/no

I know what it means, but it looks like you don't. I can attempt to educate you though:

**
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

You might want to look up the word "rather."

Let's look at what you are complaining as being an ad hominem. I have bolded the argument you ignored that proves my statement is not an ad hominem.

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.

(More at the original post that you clearly can't argue against.)

Once again, we see you avoiding any actual discussion of the topic at hand by whining and making false claims about ad hominems.

Tell us where the doctors addressed the Nobel Committee giving the prize for isolation of the polio virus.
Tell us where the doctors addressed 40,000 people getting polio after being injected with the virus that was first grown in tissue and then not properly killed.
Tell us where the doctors have conducted any experiments to test their theories.
All we have is evidence of them and you conducting pseudo-science since you only deal with the 'facts' that support your theory and discard, ignore or run away from everything that doesn't support it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What are your questions?



As to their explanation for the causes of disease, I think it's safe to say that they are of the terrain theory rather than germ theory. If you'd like to learn more on the terrain theory branch that I believe these doctors believe in, feel free to take a look at the following article:
The Terrain Theory vs. The Germ Theory | drrobertyoung.com

Have microzymas ever been isolated? Have microzymas ever been grown in culture?
How can microzymas exist if neither of those have ever been done?

Look! I just proved your terrain theory is not true.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I've told you numerous times that I don't believe that.

Since humans can exist without being grown in culture and humans can exist without being isolated from their bacteria then any argument that something must be isolated and grown in culture before it exists if false.
You are promoting pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Indeed.



Agreed. That being said, correlation -can- be evidence of causation. Wikipedia gets into the details:

**
Causal analysis is the field of experimental design and statistics pertaining to establishing cause and effect.[4][5] For any two correlated events, A and B, there are four possible relationships:

A causes B (direct causation);
B causes A (reverse causation);
A and B are both caused by C (common causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.
These relationships are not mutually exclusive; they may exist in any combination. For example, it is possible that both A can cause effect B and B can cause effect A (bidirectional or cyclic causation).

No conclusion can thus be made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship, and if so which direction the causality is, requires further investigation. If the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, the final relationship in the list above ("coincidence") may be statistically ruled out, but the correlation itself will not clarify whether A caused B, B caused A, or A and B were both caused by some other effect, C.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation



Unsubtantiated claim.



I believe that evidence is shoddy at best.



I believe it's quite shoddy evidence, considering the flimsy evidence that biological viruses exist at all.

You left out the part where causation REQUIRES correlation.


If the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, the final relationship in the list above ("coincidence") may be statistically ruled out,
[snip]
Correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. Correlations must first be confirmed as real, and every possible causative relationship must then be systematically explored. In the end, correlation alone cannot be used as evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and various outcomes. It is one of the most abused types of evidence because it is easy and even tempting to come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation


I provided evidence of polio existing when DDT was not being used and polio not existing when DDT was being used in Africa. That means the correlation you are relying on is nothing more than coincidence.

Polio symptoms are described as far back as ancient Egypt.
The first medical description was in the late 1800s. 1789 by the British physician Michael Underwood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Underwood_(physician)
Jakob Heine did a study of polio in 1840, almost 40 years before DDT was first made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Heine
In 1916, NY had a polio epidemic, 23 years before DDT was ever used as an insecticide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_New_York_City_polio_epidemic
DDT was first synthesized in 1874. It's use as an insecticide wasn't discovered until 1939. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
In 1928, the iron lung was introduced to be used for polio patients and keep them alive. No DDT was being used as an insecticide.
Africa stopped using DDT in the 1960s. Polio was around when DDT wasn't being used. By the time DDT was reintroduced to help control malaria, the cases of Polio had dropped to almost zero due to vaccines.

This leads to the only possible conclusion: There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.

The only shoddy evidence I am seeing is how you are using the coincidence from the 1950s in the US when DDT and Polio were both around and claiming that shows a correlation that you then imply is causation. That completely ignores all the evidence that shows there is no correlation. You are conducting pseudo-science by ignoring data that doesn't support your theory and cherry picking data that does.