I've made a lot of posts here, that's a bit like searching for a needle in a haystack. However, I -suspect- that you're probably referring to something I said in the "After Bakhmut" thread. I know I stopped responding in that thread, was busy with this one. I'm done with this one for now, so I'll take a look over there.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Settling the Biological Virus Debate
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
I've made a lot of posts here, that's a bit like searching for a needle in a haystack. However, I -suspect- that you're probably referring to something I said in the "After Bakhmut" thread. I know I stopped responding in that thread, was busy with this one. I'm done with this one for now, so I'll take a look over there.
I've made a lot of posts here, that's a bit like searching for a needle in a haystack. However, I -suspect- that you're probably referring to something I said in the "After Bakhmut" thread. I know I stopped responding in that thread, was busy with this one. I'm done with this one for now, so I'll take a look over there.
Do NOT accuse me without evidence of feeling contempt for the stupid...what I feel is almost exclusively pity...do you understand?
Do NOT accuse me without evidence of feeling contempt for the stupid...what I feel is almost exclusively pity...do you understand?
I suggest you work on providing evidence that I accused you of feeling contempt for the stupid first.
I suggest you work on providing evidence that I accused you of feeling contempt for the stupid first.
I suggest that you attempt to be a man.
Do NOT accuse me without evidence of feeling contempt for the stupid...what I feel is almost exclusively pity...do you understand?
I suggest you work on providing evidence that I accused you of feeling contempt for the stupid first.
I suggest that you attempt to be a man.
That's not evidence. Anyway, I've looked through the "After Bakhmut thread". I see no evidence that I ever accused you of "feeling contempt for the stupid". I do note that you never responded to the last post I wrote you in that thread though. After laughing at your comment in what I felt was a friendly way, I simply said "I just think that sometimes we give those who disagree with us too hard of a time. It ends up biting us back, as they frequently proceed to do the same to us." Feel free to respond to said post if you like. It's here:
After Bakhmut [Ukraine War], Post #56 | justplainpolitics.com
If you find any evidence that I did in fact accuse you of what you claimed I accused you of, by all means present it.
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.
Pseudo-science cherry picks data and evidence.
You brought up the terrain theory. The terrain theory says there are microzymas. You ignored the basic premise of terrain theory.
I didn't cherry pick anything. I am merely pointing out how you are using pseudo-science when you attempt to use a theory but ignore parts of it that don't support your position? YOu have done this repeatedly. You attempt to claim VFR can cause illness by ignoring that your source says VFR activates viruses. You attempt to use terrain theory but ignore that it is based on microzymas which have not been shown to exist. You claim DDT causes polio but ignore that there is not real correlation between DDT and polio.
Beauchamp " believed that microorganisms are essentially benign, and that pathogens emerge when structures inside our cells, called microzymes, transform into bacteria in response to unhealthy environmental conditions—like tiny Dr. Jekylls transforming into Mr. Hydes. In other words, he believed that disease causes pathogens, and not the reverse."
https://www.popsci.com/health/germ-theory-terrain-theory/
Tell us how I was the one cherry picking data since I didn't bring up terrain theory and I have not ignored any part of terrain theory.
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.
Calling an idiotic argument idiotic seems to be the only way to get your attention. You just ignore evidence and data at every turn.
Dr Bailey is wrong because not all life can be grown in culture an isolated. Since all life can not be grown in culture and isolated requiring that something be grown in culture and isolated is not a valid scientific test. It is pseudo-science. You have agreed that humans can't be grown in culture and yet you continue to repeat the pseudo-science of the Baileys in direct contradiction of the facts you accept. At that point your argument has become idiotic as you promote pseudo-science that requires you and anyone that believes as you do to ignore evidence.
I have no idea how you arrived at these conclusions. Care to explain?
What causes polio?
I say it is the polio virus and I have evidence in pictures, vaccines, and contagion.
You claim it is poison but can't name the the specific poison but claim it could be several. You claim this poison can somehow move around the world, spreading by contact with others but can show no poison that acts in this fashion. You have no clue what causes polio since you can not point to any definitive source. The claims you do make are easily proven false since you can't point to a single toxin that increases in toxicity as it spreads. I have asked you repeatedly do explain how a toxin can spread and cause polio and you have never made a valid argument. Your lack of a valid argument shows that you have no clue what causes polio. Since you have no clue what causes polio the most likely cause is a virus since it explains all the questions you can't answer. Yet there you are claiming viruses don't exist based on your claim polio is most likely caused by a poison.
You are promoting pseudo-science. You ignore how poisons actually work to try to claim they cause polio.
You are promoting pseudo-science. You are using you inability to explain something as evidence that something else doesn't exist.
You are promoting pseudo-science. When your hypthesis are falsified you refuse to accept that falsification. Poison does not work the way you claim it causes polio. Poison does not work the way you claim it causes Covid.
You are promoting pseudo-science. You repeatedly use sources that state that viruses exist to argue that viruses don't exist.
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.
Pseudo-science cherry picks data and evidence.
You brought up the terrain theory. The terrain theory says there are microzymas.
You are under the false assumption that all terrain theorists are identical in their views on microbes. In truth, terrain theorists are more like christians- they have different branches. They don't have nearly as many adherents as christian religions do, so they don't have names for different "denominations" or terrain theorist groups, but they still have some clear differences. I'm an adherent of the group that comprises the signatories referenced in the opening post.
Thanks for showing us once again that you have no clue what causes polio.As I've said umpteen times, I've never made the claim that DDT is the only likely cause of polio.
Science requires you provide evidence to support your claim. Pseudo-science says you can just ignore any evidence and make your claim. Do you have any evidence of any poison causing polio? A scientific paper? A study that identifies the poison? No. You have none of that. All you have is your pseudo-sceintific unsupported claim. Since you have no support for your claim it is pseudo-science. Based on your evidence vs the evidence of a virus causing polio, the only logical conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence is that polio is caused by a virus. Any other conclusion is pseudo-science. Your claims are nothing but pseudo-science since you can not provide any actual scientific support for them. All you have is the pseudo-science of denial and cherry picking.
You seem to be forgetting that we find polio by doing RNA sequencing. Your attempt to claim the increase in polio cases in Nigeria could by caused by increased DDT use ignored that fact. There are no symptoms in Nigeria because the polio virus that is circulating is too weak to cause symptoms. We know the virus is circulating based on blood tests and finding the polio virus in human sewage. Those tests look for the polio virus sequences to confirm it exists. We also know based on the virus RNA sequence that the virus circulating is the weakened one used in the vaccines most likely because vaccinated people are not getting the proper doses to allow them to kill the weakened virus.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.
When it comes to poison dosage matters. Of course it does. Something that you continue to ignore. In order for someone to get a large dosage then there needs to be a source for that large dosage. Your pseudo-science has not explained how and where this source is that allows for the large dosage you admit is required.
Large dosage requires concentrated environmental source of the poison/toxin.
As an environmental poison spreads its concentration is reduced. That means the farther you are from the source the smaller the dosage. But you just admitted large dosages are required.
This simple scientific fact shows your poison claim is unlikely until and unless you can show a poison that can generate itself in larger and larger quantities as it spreads.
Science says poison concentration decreases as it expands. Pseudo-science ignores that fact. You are clearly promoting pseudo-science.
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.
Calling an idiotic argument idiotic seems to be the only way to get your attention.
If you'd have only called an argument I made idiotic, that would have been a bit better. In point of fact, you called people who don't believe in viruses "idiots". I'll quote you to help refresh your memory:
**
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.
**
Source:
Settling the Biological Virus Debate, Post #970 | justplainpolitics.com
You never actually provided any evidence that virologists claims (note the plural) were based on "actual science", but you were all too happy to insult anyone who called their claims into question.
Dr Bailey is wrong because not all life can be grown in culture an isolated.
Have you seen any evidence that either of the Baileys made the claim that all life can be isolated and cultured?
Since all life can not be grown in culture and isolated requiring that something be grown in culture and isolated is not a valid scientific test.
Virologists have claimed that they have isolated and grown in culture some viruses. The doctors and other experts in the opening post have simply asked virologists to provide solid evidence that this has in fact been accomplished.
Viruses are not cells since they have no cell structure. Bacteria are single celled organisms. It seems even the dictionary says you are promoting pseudo-science.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.
**
Everything listed in that article is an organism that is either single celled or a group of cells. Once again, your own sources refute your argument.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
microorganisms have CELLS!! Microbes have CELLS! Viruses do not have cells.
Pseudo-science ignores facts to make an argument. You are ignoring the definition you just provided to try to claim viruses are microbes.
It seems that you are the one that is blurring things since you claim something not included in the definition of microbes is a microbe.Perhaps they like blurring things since there is so little evidence that they exist at all.
You are free to use pseudo-science to claim it is a mammal but science will never call it a mammal since it doesn't exist.Not true. We can classify unicorns as a mammal and probably related to horses even if we both agree they don't exist.
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.
The definition of ad hominem is not vague at all. It is very specific.
The fact that you attempt to make the definition vague is simple another example of you perverting logic to promote your agenda like when you promote your pseudo-science.
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.
We are both at the dead end. I never once said it was just you. More false arguments from you which seems to be all you can make.
The dead end is you keep promoting pseudo-science and I keep pointing out the reasons what you are promoting is pseudo-science.
The dead end is you refuse to give up on promoting pseudo-science even when you have to agree it is logically flawed and I refuse to give in to your pseudo-scientific bullshit that you continue to repeatedly spout.
Fine, engaging in personal insults tends to derail threads. Happy now?
You are free to run away and pout anytime you want to. It would probably make us both happy if you did so indefinitely.
And yet your pseudo-science can't come up with a reasonable explanation for what causes the diseases attributed to viruses. All you can do is make vague claims and then deny you are arguing something like when you claimed DDT caused Polio and the backtracked to claim it could be several poisons while not providing any evidence.I believe most if not all biological entities labelled biological viruses don't.
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.
The paper doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that 5g may aggravate the disease caused by a virus. Arguing that the paper suggests that viruses don't exist is another example of you throwing out the majority of the science to stick to your pseudo-science. It is further proof that all you are doing here is promoting pseudo-science.
Arguing that paper suggests that 5g alone causes Covid is like arguing that Dr Bailey's paper suggests that viruses exist.
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.
Are you referring the billions of times they have done that? or the claim that they have done it billions of times?
You can't use the plural unless you specify which specific claims of isolating you are referring to. Then you are asking that we time travel back to each time it was done to see the proof.
This is an example of your idiocy. You can't even specify the "claims" you want proven.
You are under the false assumption that all terrain theorists are identical in their views on microbes. In truth, terrain theorists are more like christians- they have different branches. They don't have nearly as many adherents as christian religions do, so they don't have names for different "denominations" or terrain theorist groups, but they still have some clear differences. I'm an adherent of the group that comprises the signatories referenced in the opening post.
Multiple views on one theory is possible? Perhaps you should tell the Baileys that since they are under the false assumption that all virus theorists are identical in their views.
Once again, you prove you are promoting pseudo-science as you set standards for others that you refuse to apply to yourself when it comes to arguing theories.
Where is that theory that the signatories referenced in the OP? I see no mention of the terrain theory in the OP or in the linked article. Why do you insist on lying and being evasive? Are you trolling?
If you'd have only called an argument I made idiotic, that would have been a bit better. In point of fact, you called people who don't believe in viruses "idiots". I'll quote you to help refresh your memory:
**
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.
**
Source:
Settling the Biological Virus Debate, Post #970 | justplainpolitics.com
You never actually provided any evidence that virologists claims (note the plural) were based on "actual science", but you were all too happy to insult anyone who called their claims into question.
Have you seen any evidence that either of the Baileys made the claim that all life can be isolated and cultured?
Virologists have claimed that they have isolated and grown in culture some viruses. The doctors and other experts in the opening post have simply asked virologists to provide solid evidence that this has in fact been accomplished.
When someone posits that something doesn't exist as life and then suggests the only way to prove it exists is to pretend it has certain characteristics that don't apply to all life is psuedo-science.
I have repeatedly shown this to be true.
Humans can't be grown in culture. Humans exist.
If some life exists that can't be grown in culture then you can't demand proof of life be that it is grown in culture. If it no science. It isn't even logical.
A is a living creature and can't be grown in culture.
B is a living creature and can be grown in culture.
therefor
For C to be a living creature it must be grown in culture.
That is pure logical nonsense. Even you can see that. It's just you are so stuck in your pseudo-science you refuse to accept basic logic.
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?
What causes polio?
I already gave you a long list of possible causes, courtesy of Tessa Lena, in the nested quotes above. It's right up there in the nested quotes. You can start reading at the title "Poliomyelitis-like symptoms caused by poisoning" and just keep on going from there.
I say it is the polio virus and I have evidence in pictures, vaccines, and contagion.
What evidence do you have that the electron microscope pictures are actually from a virus? How do polio vaccines provide evidence that the polio virus actually exists? And what evidence do you have that polio is actually spread by this alleged virus?
You claim it is poison but can't name the the specific poison but claim it could be several.
First of all, I'm simply repeating other people's claims, people who have put a lot more work into researching the causes then I have. Second of all, I'd like to note something about your take on things- it's a common flaw of people who dislike thinking that their worldview might be mistaken: "Demand complete solutions". I remember a line from a film called Zeitgeist that I really liked. It was about God, but it can work for a lot more than the concept of God: "I don't know what God is, but I know what he isn't". That's the case here. I'm not sure what all the causes of polio are, but I strongly believe that it is -not- caused by this alleged polio virus. DDT definitely seems to be -one- of the causes, but certainly not the only cause.
You claim this poison can somehow move around the world, spreading by contact with others but can show no poison that acts in this fashion.
No, I have never claimed such a thing.