Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

Saunders also tends to make ad hominem attacks of this nature at times, perhaps varying "stupid people" with "idiots" and 'tin foil hatters'. I think the bottom line is the same- by attacking people's characters rather than their arguments, it tends to derail efforts to keep focused on the evidence for a given position rather than the person or people who hold said position.

sometimes we really are talking about stupid people tho.

Sure, according to various definitions of the term. But I think we can agree that it tends to be an insult/ad hominem attack and we -might- be able to agree that it tends to derail thread discussions in the direction of more of the same. At the very least, it can tend to discourage the person one is insulting to further engage in a conversation with their insulter.

I think it makes more sense to try to focus on a person's arguments rather than insult them if we believe them to not meet a certain standard of intelligent discussion.

 

[Scott]

This thread is actually meant to discuss whether biological viruses exist at all, though I believe that I and people I've quoted have tend to focus more on the alleged Cov 2 virus.

so cov2 is alleged?

Just checking.

International organizations such as the WHO alleged that the Cov 2 virus is real. The group of doctors referenced in the opening post persuaded me that this allegation is false. As to the disease labelled Covid, I believe it's actually a combination of different factors. I believe one factor is the ramping up of the 5G networks. I just found an article that makes the case that 5G makes alleged infection with the alleged Cov 2 virus more likely:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522/

I don't think it's that far of a stretch to simply say that it's 5G itself that's causing the problem. I made a thread on evidence that 5G was at least one of the factors involved in Covid way back in 2021 in another forum here:

https://thepoliticsforums.com/threa...-Covid-19-may-have-started-due-to-5G-networks

 

[Kamala Trump]

Sure, according to various definitions of the term. But I think we can agree that it tends to be an insult/ad hominem attack and we -might- be able to agree that it tends to derail thread discussions in the direction of more of the same. At the very least, it can tend to discourage the person one is insulting to further engage in a conversation with their insulter.

I think it makes more sense to try to focus on a person's arguments rather than insult them if we believe them to not meet a certain standard of intelligent discussion.

after you do that and they're still being dumb and gay, they're probably just dumb.

people are dumb, and often liars.

you can humor them and let them cloud the discussion like a tardo if you want to.

you may be an operative peronality.

 

[Kamala Trump]

humanity should boycott technology.

the only email or text we should ever write should just say "fuck you, deep state".

throw your phone and computer in the river everybody!

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Unsubstantiated assertion.



Agreed.



Also agreed.



I -believe- that viruses don't exist. It's a subtle difference, but one of the reasons that I say believe rather than claim is that I don't claim to have proof that they don't exist.



Ah, now -that- is some pretty fancy footwork there. If viruses exist, they are microbes. Various virologists have -claimed- that they have isolated and grown viruses in culture. The issue is whether those claims are true.

Why are viruses microbes? The only way you can categorize something as a microbe is if it exists and you can show it to have the characteristics of a microbe. Trying to argue that something you don't think exists must meet the narrow requirements of something that does exist is pseudo-sceince.

Are microzymas microbes? Have microzymas ever been grown in a culture or isolated? No, they have not. Since they have not met your requirements for viruses then your attempt to use terrain theory which relies on the existence of microzymas is only further proof of you promoting pseudo-science. You cherry pick what you want and ignore anything that refutes your beliefs.

Present your evidence that the polio virus has not been grown in culture.
I have the presentation of a Nobel Prize for doing just that and over 70 years of the virus being grown to produce vaccine on my side. What do you have other than your denial which is pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm not calling you by any base ad hominem attack. I'm simply pointing out that by using ad hominem attacks (and I make it clear that you're not alone there), it tends to distract from the subject of a thread (unless the subject of the thread -is- someone being attacked, but that clearly isn't the case here).

The only thing that is distracting is your falsely claiming ad hominems so you can ignore my arguments.
You use the claim of an ad hominem to not have to defend your undenfensible position. It is a red herring fallacy on your part to not

For instance. You have never explained how a poison can increase in toxicity as it spreads. Your failure to explain that and simply ignore the fact that poisons do not increase in toxicity the further they get from a source shows you are pushing pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You notice how JesusAI said "you guys", not "Phoenyx"? Whatever dead end JesusAI was thinking of, it involved more than one person.

Notice how my statement includes the words "you" and "I". You and I are not the same person so therefore my statement includes more than one person. Is English not your first language?

The dead end we always end up with is me presenting facts and you denying any fact that doesn't fit your beliefs as you practice your pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

humanity should boycott technology.

the only email or text we should ever write should just say "fuck you, deep state".

throw your phone and computer in the river everybody!

Are you drowning while you write that?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Sure, according to various definitions of the term. But I think we can agree that it tends to be an insult/ad hominem attack and we -might- be able to agree that it tends to derail thread discussions in the direction of more of the same. At the very least, it can tend to discourage the person one is insulting to further engage in a conversation with their insulter.

I think it makes more sense to try to focus on a person's arguments rather than insult them if we believe them to not meet a certain standard of intelligent discussion.

LOL. Continuing to get the definition of ad hominem wrong doesn't do you any service.

Common misconceptions
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" is not on its own an example of the abusive argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy.[1][2][3][4][5] The fallacy occurs only if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not fallacious ad hominem attacks.

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

You are an idiot which is why you are wrong about what an ad hominem is. <--- ad hominem
Like an idiot, you get the definition wrong about ad hominem when you claim any name calling is an ad hominem when the actual definition requires there be no valid argument included with the name calling. <--- not an ad hominem.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Are you drowning while you write that?

me and nigger jim made a raft.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

International organizations such as the WHO alleged that the Cov 2 virus is real. The group of doctors referenced in the opening post persuaded me that this allegation is false. As to the disease labelled Covid, I believe it's actually a combination of different factors. I believe one factor is the ramping up of the 5G networks. I just found an article that makes the case that 5G makes alleged infection with the alleged Cov 2 virus more likely:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522/

Do viruses exist or not? This is another example of you using an article that clearly accepts that viruses and in particular the Covid-19 virus exist and then tying it's effects to other environmental factors that may worsen how the virus affects the body.
If you are arguing that viruses don't exist, then you should not be using any research that says they do exist. By using research that says that virueses do exist and then ignoring the parts of the research that say they exist, you are denying facts and only conducting pseudo-science. Pseudo-science cherry picks evidence and tries to downplay or ignore any evidence that contradicts the pseudo-scientific claim.

I don't think it's that far of a stretch to simply say that it's 5G itself that's causing the problem. I made a thread on evidence that 5G was at least one of the factors involved in Covid way back in 2021 in another forum here:

https://thepoliticsforums.com/threa...-Covid-19-may-have-started-due-to-5G-networks

It is a far stretch. You have to rely on pseudo-science to make that stretch.
This is from the article you linked to:

We recognize that many factors have influenced the pandemic’s course. Before restrictions were imposed, travel patterns facilitated the seeding of the virus, causing early rapid global spread. Population density, higher mean population age, and socioeconomic factors certainly influenced early viral spread. Air pollution, especially particulate matter PM2.5 (2.5 micro-particulates), likely increased symptoms in patients with COVID-19 lung disease [129].

We postulate that WCR possibly contributed to the early spread and severity of COVID-19. Once an agent becomes established in a community, its virulence increases [130]. This premise can be applied to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The article is stating that 5G may have helped to make the virus more virulent. It does not say that 5G causes Covid-19. You are simply ignoring the entire article other than where it uses the phrase 5G as you push your pseudo-science.
Not only do the authors of the article you linked to accept that viruses are real, the entire basis of their article requires that viruses be real.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

me and nigger jim made a raft.

I always knew you were a Huckster.
But it seems you weren't quite able to Finnish throwing your computer in the river.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I always knew you were a Huckster.
But it seems you weren't quite able to Finnish throwing your computer in the river.

oh my.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

oh my.

Are you asking for Clemensy for not throwing away your phone and computer?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Are you asking for Clemensy for not throwing away your phone and computer?

excellent work here, fine sir.

 

[Kamala Trump]

5g is a war on humanity.

 

[Scott]

What specific claim made by a virologist do you think we were talking about?

I said virologists, plural. It's all laid out in post #982. Follow the nested quotes.

It would appear we are talking about some doctor that disagrees with them since that is all that is in post 982.

I'm guessing you didn't read the nested quotes. So I'll just quote the relevant quotes that you somehow missed here. I said:

**
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.
**

And then -you- said:
**
This isn't some "claim." It is over 70 years of actual science.
**

Whereupon I pointed out that I had said claims, not claim. You then claimed I was deflecting, and then failed to provide any evidence for your claim that these virologist claims have been proven. Sorry, you didn't say proven, you said "actual science", but that sounds like you think these claims are proven to me.

Anyway, you're welcome to try to provide proof now if you like.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm guessing you didn't read the nested quotes. So I'll just quote the relevant quotes that you somehow missed here. I said:

**
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.
**

And then -you- said:
**
This isn't some "claim." It is over 70 years of actual science.
**

Whereupon I pointed out that I had said claims, not claim. You then claimed I was deflecting, and then failed to provide any evidence for your claim that these virologist claims have been proven. Sorry, you didn't say proven, you said "actual science", but that sounds like you think these claims are proven to me.

Anyway, you're welcome to try to provide proof now if you like.

Go read post 982. It is a quote from some doctor. What "claims" are made by virologists in that quote? The word virologist never appears in the quote. All I see is denial by some doctors and then they lay out a process that has been shown to not be valid based on the fact that viruses are not bacteria.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Do viruses exist or not? This is another example of you using an article that clearly accepts that viruses and in particular the Covid-19 virus exist and then tying it's effects to other environmental factors that may worsen how the virus affects the body.
If you are arguing that viruses don't exist, then you should not be using any research that says they do exist. By using research that says that virueses do exist and then ignoring the parts of the research that say they exist, you are denying facts and only conducting pseudo-science. Pseudo-science cherry picks evidence and tries to downplay or ignore any evidence that contradicts the pseudo-scientific claim.

It is a far stretch. You have to rely on pseudo-science to make that stretch.
This is from the article you linked to:
The article is stating that 5G may have helped to make the virus more virulent. It does not say that 5G causes Covid-19. You are simply ignoring the entire article other than where it uses the phrase 5G as you push your pseudo-science.
Not only do the authors of the article you linked to accept that viruses are real, the entire basis of their article requires that viruses be real.

but this one is fake, yes.

kwed.

 

[Scott]

You made 2 claims:

1- That I have no evidence for my belief that Dr. Mark Bailey makes a compelling case in his farewell to virology essay that virology is not science, but pseudo science.

2- That I have no evidence disputing the existence of viruses.

I'm simply asking you to prove your claims. I'm pretty sure you won't even try, but I think it's good to point out the fact that you tend to make a lot of claims that you can't actually prove.

When are you going to prove Dr Bailey has evidence?

Nice deflection, but we were talking about -your- claims, not mine, remember? Look, I don't expect you to be able to prove the 2 claims you made. Heck, I don't think you should even bother to try. I believe it's an impossible task. Why not just admit that you bit off more than you can chew and call it a day?

Interesting that you accuse me of deflection when it is you that ignores almost my entire post that lays out an argument that you don't dispute.

I accuse you of deflection because that's what you did. You made 2 claims that I quote above. Let me know if you ever intend to try to prove them.