Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

I don't believe they ever have. In fact, I think they share an uncanny resemblance to most if not all microbes that are called "viruses". I did a search on Dr. Mark Bailey's essay "Farewell to Virology", I don't believe there's any non searchable portion in it, and I found no mention of any word with "zymas" in it.

Dr Young is not Dr Bailey. you presented Dr Young as evidence in support of your beliefs.

Dr. Young's article -does- support a lot of the same things that the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement believe. One thing the signatories do -not- mention, however, are microzymas. You ofcourse cherry picked that one point and apparently ignored everything else that his article says that -does- support what the signatories stated.

 

[Scott]

Ahhh, I think I get you now. You seem to think that just because you have responded to various points that this somehow means words like "idiots" are no longer ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but you can respond to points -and- use an ad hominem, or personal attack. From Wikipedia:

**
"Personal attack" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
**

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

In this case, you're B, asserting that I and/or others like me (aka A) holds a property that is unwelcome (aka that people who believe things as I do are "idiots" and therefore shouldn't be believed. The fact that you -also- at times address certain points doesn't change the fact that you engage in ad hominem attacks.

Calling someone an idiot and laying out the reasons why they are wrong is not an ad hominem attack. by the very definition you just cited.

A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

At no time have I concluded that Dr Bailey is wrong because he is an idiot. I have said he is an idiot because he is wrong. Causation doesn't seem to be your strong suit. An ad hominem requires that the conclusion is that x is wrong solely because A is an idiot. If you can find the post where I said Baily is wrong because he is an idiot and then presented no other argument please show where that occurred.

Fair enough, but using base insults like "idiot" does nothing to further the discussion. Best to simply focus on what you have against the arguments presented attacking those presenting them.

 

[Scott]

It means "correlations must first be confirmed as real".

No, it still just means "correlations must first be confirmed as real". If they're not, they're false correlations.

Agreed. A false correlation is just a coincidence.

I don't know how many times I need to tell you that I have never claimed that DDT was the only cause of polio, but here I'm doing it... again -.- A while back, I referenced and quoted an article from Tessa Lena, published at Children's Health Defense. Here's part of it that delves into the -many- potential causes of polio:

**
Poliomyelitis-like symptoms caused by poisoning

In 1951, Dr. Ralph R. Scobey published an article in Archives of Pediatrics, titled “Is the public health law responsible for the poliomyelitis mystery?”

In the article, Scobey investigated the evidence showing the contagiousness (or not) of poliomyelitis — and talked about how the research into complex causes of the disease had been decapitated once the “official” opinion was declared. Among other things, he stated the following:

“Unlimited poliomyelitis research ceased abruptly when this disease was legally made a communicable disease. However, definite progress toward a solution to the problem was being made before the public health law made poliomyelitis a germ or virus disease. For example, it was reported by toxicologists and bacteriologists that poliomyelitis could be produced both by organic and inorganic poisons as well as by bacterial toxins.

“The relationship of this disease to beriberi was also being given consideration. However, these investigations lost support when a germ or virus came to be considered by some to be the full and final answer to the problem. Funds for poliomyelitis research were from then on designated for the investigation of the infectious theory only.

“There are today many investigators who have strong evidence contradicting the infectious theory. Vitamin and mineral deficiency, poison, allergy and other theories are being presented to explain the mystery, but these men, because of the public health law and the limited ability to obtain funds or cooperation from any source cannot work freely on the problem of [the] cause of poliomyelitis.

“At one time or another the classical dietary deficiency diseases, beriberi and pellagra, and even sunstroke, have been considered to be communicable infectious diseases. If by law any one, or all of these diseases, had been made a reportable communicable disease, it is obvious that today it would legally be a germ disease and a search for the causative germ might still be in progress.

“If beriberi and pellagra had been made reportable communicable diseases, it is conceivable that the epochal studies on vitamins by Funk and subsequent workers could have been ignored in the search for the infectious agent as the etiological factor in these diseases. The progress of medicine would have been seriously retarded.

“The time is long past due for careful reappraisal of the poliomyelitis problem and for many capable workers with various opinions regarding the cause of the disease to be given the opportunity to work and the funds with which to work. The implications of the public health law that poliomyelitis is an infectious communicable disease must be reconsidered if progress is to be made.”​

**

Source:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

So you are arguing that you have no clue what causes polio symptoms and since you have no clue what causes those symptoms that proves that it can't be a virus.

I have no idea how you arrived at these conclusions. Care to explain?

 

[Scott]

It means "correlations must first be confirmed as real".

No, it still just means "correlations must first be confirmed as real". If they're not, they're false correlations.

Correlation is not confirmed as real if we have multiple instances of:
One thing happening but not the second
the second thing happening but not the first
More instances of one and not the other than of the two together.

Polio occurs quite often when DDT is not present

As I've said umpteen times, I've never made the claim that DDT is the only likely cause of polio.

DDT has been used without polio occurring

As I've said before, things like dosage and health of the humans dosed matters. Also, polio like symptoms won't be found if no one tests for and reports them.

 

[Scott]

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.

Fine, but I don't think that pointing that out helps anything. When it comes to the issue of biological viruses, I think it's easy to be fooled by the mainstream media. Until the advent of Covid 19, I myself believed in all virology claims on viruses. It took Covid 19 for me to start looking into viruses, beginning with Covid 19, but branching out to all viruses by the end of it. A medical journalist friend was the one who first clued me in to the possibility that all alleged biological viruses could be a sham. She later changed her mind back to the idea that most if not all claimed biological viruses were real, but after doing my own research, I came to be won over by the evidence presented by the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Statement", referenced in the opening post.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Fine, but I don't think that pointing that out helps anything. When it comes to the issue of biological viruses, I think it's easy to be fooled by the mainstream media. Until the advent of Covid 19, I myself believed in all virology claims on viruses. It took Covid 19 for me to start looking into viruses, beginning with Covid 19, but branching out to all viruses by the end of it. A medical journalist friend was the one who first clued me in to the possibility that all alleged biological viruses could be a sham. She later changed her mind back to the idea that most if not all claimed biological viruses were real, but after doing my own research, I came to be won over by the evidence presented by the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Statement", referenced in the opening post.

U Owe me and apology.

 

[Hawkeye10]

"I was wong, I am sorry, I will never do it again".
You, if you desire to make the grade

 

[Scott]

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!

I wouldn't go that far. I actually use my cell phone a fair amount, though pretty much since the beginning I've spent little time with my cell phone next to my ear when on a call. In my case, doing so causes my head to hurt where my cell phone is next to my ear almost immediately. So I use speakerphone. I also try to avoid using instagram and tiktok that much as I've found that if I do, I tend to develop rashes on my hands where I use it.

There has been studies that show that some people are more sensitive to cell phone EMFs (Electro Magnetic Frequencies) than others. That being said, I believe that most if not all people are affected by them to some extent.

There are various articles and resources with evidence of its dangers. Here's one:

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety | saferemr.com

 

[Scott]

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 definition of microbes, or microorganisms:

**
A microorganism, or microbe,[a] is an organism of microscopic size, which may exist in its single-celled form or as a colony of cells.
**

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

To be fair, whether alleged biological viruses should be classified as microbes is somewhat in dispute because they are frequently classified as non living. it makes no sense to me, since no one disputes that other parasitic microbes are alive:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24885-parasitic-infection

Perhaps they like blurring things since there is so little evidence that they exist at all.

The only way you can categorize something as a microbe is if it exists

Not true. We can classify unicorns as a mammal and probably related to horses even if we both agree they don't exist.

 

[Scott]

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.

I now see that the definition of ad hominems are somewhat vague, but you definitely engaged in personal attacks on people who believe that viruses aren't real by calling them "idiots". This doesn't help the actual discussion of the merits of this point of view.

 

[Scott]

exosomes exist too.

you guys keep going down the same dead end.

What dead end would that be and who are you referring to by "you guys"?

The dead end would be you keep going back to the same sources over and over and never addressing the legitimate issues I raise as to your arguments and your sources credibility.

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".

Yes, but you seem to think that JesusAI is only referring to me when he speaks of this dead end. Anyway, he never elaborated on what he meant, so perhaps it's best to just leave this.

 

[Scott]

**personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not fallacious ad hominem attacks.**

[Source]:
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.

Fine, engaging in personal insults tends to derail threads. Happy now?

 

[Scott]

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?

I believe most if not all biological entities labelled biological viruses don't.

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.

It is, yes. I'm simply pointing out that for people who don't believe in the Cov 2 virus but -do- believe that 5G causes harmful effects to the body, papers like the one above suggest that 5G alone is the cause of the health effects.

 

[Scott]

5g is a war on humanity.

I'd say it's more that 5G cell phone networks have a lot of harmful effects on humans and other life forms. Even Scientific American published an article pointing out evidence that it's unsafe way back in 2019:

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe | Scientific American

 

[Scott]

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.

Not only did I read it, I quoted the relevant portion. Let me know if you ever plan to try to prove virologists' claims that they have truly isolated and cultured alleged biological viruses.

 

[Scott]

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.

Glad we agree on that the Cov 2 virus is fake . What does kwed mean?

 

[Scott]

Fine, but I don't think that pointing that out helps anything. When it comes to the issue of biological viruses, I think it's easy to be fooled by the mainstream media. Until the advent of Covid 19, I myself believed in all virology claims on viruses. It took Covid 19 for me to start looking into viruses, beginning with Covid 19, but branching out to all viruses by the end of it. A medical journalist friend was the one who first clued me in to the possibility that all alleged biological viruses could be a sham. She later changed her mind back to the idea that most if not all claimed biological viruses were real, but after doing my own research, I came to be won over by the evidence presented by the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Statement", referenced in the opening post.

U Owe me and apology.

For what?

 

[Hawkeye10]

For what?

For accusing me without evidence of feeling anything but pity for the stupid.

 

[Scott]

For accusing me without evidence of feeling anything but pity for the stupid.

Where did I allegedly do this?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Where did I allegedly do this?

At JPP.