Which link is that?
Settling the Biological Virus Debate
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Which link is that?
Kamala Trump
Verified User
I agree that viruses are not defined as cells.
As I said in the post you were responding to, whether or not alleged viruses can be considered to be microbes is in debate. You may note that Wikipedia doesn't actually say that microbes -have- to be cells. Here's another article that gets into the dispute directly:
**
Is a virus a microbe? Not all consider viruses an organism. But for those who do, viruses could then be the smallest form of microbes.
**
Source:
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/microbe
As an aside, there is another microbe that is also not a cell, but is produced from cells, that sounds suspiciously like viruses- exosomes. I believe at least one of the doctors in the group of signatories I reference in the opening post believes that atleast some of the electron microscope pictures taken of alleged viruses are actually exosomes. More on them here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosome_(vesicle)
You're missing the point for my bringing up the article- the point was that just because something is parasitic doesn't mean that it shouldn't be listed as a microbe.
I see that pseudo-science has become your new favourite word when dialoguing with me in this thread. I may have done this before, but considering the amount of times you've used this term, I think it would be best to make sure that we've defined the term. Here's the introduction to the term from Wikipedia:
**
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1]
**
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
You may have noticed that Dr. Mark Bailey actually accuses virologists of employing pseudoscientific methods. He brings it up in the very first paragraph of the abstract of his essay "Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)". For anyone interested, he's what he says specifically:
**
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
**
Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com
There are only 2 choices in the definition you provided. Viruses can not be either of them. Are you now claiming the definition you provided is not correct?
It does say they have to be cells since it says they "
" It does not say they may exist as not being cells.
Now you are just playing word games and ignoring your own sources.
If one doesn't believe viruses exist then they can't believe viruses are microbes. For those that do believe in viruses, viruses could be microbes and that means they don't have to be.
Once again your own source undercuts your argument since it would mean anyone that doesn't believe in viruses can't believe they are microbes. We are back to the same logical failure you keep making.
This is the logic that you and the Baileys are using:
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.
Back to our dead end where you spout pseudo-science without any supporting evidence. What falsifiable experiment has been done to show what is in those pictures are exosomes? Did they do the RNA? Did they grow them in cultures? Did they do any science at all other than make the claim?
I never said all parasites were microbes. I never said all microbes were parasites. If your intention was to introduce a straw man then congratulations. Or was it simply another attempt to ignore what an article actually says and twist it to fit your pseudo-science.
Congratulations. Now tell us what the scientific method is. It requires that you test your hypothesis and not just make claims that you never test.
Claims from Dr Bailey that they have never tested. Denials by Dr Bailey. Not a single falsifiable hypothesis in that statement by Dr Bailey. Congratulations! Nothing but pseudo-science from your sources and you. The only one providing pseudo-scientific methods in that statement is Dr Bailey.
Even the American Heritage Dictionary's 2 definitions makes it clear that its meaning isn't very specific. It has 2 definitions there:
**
adjective Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
adjective Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
**
Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/ad hominem
No one disagrees that calling someone an idiot is a personal insults, however, so I think I'll stick to calling that and other similar words by that term in the future.
I looked back at what you said. Specifically post 1024:
**
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.
**
So apparently you seem to think that the reason that we are at this alleged dead end is because I'm not addressing legitimate issues that you believe you raise. Assuming this is what you mean, I'd disagree with you.
What I'm -trying- to do is point out that personal insults tend to derail a thread. Do you agree?
I strongly disagree.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the paper suggests that 5G has negative health effects, which is something that it has in common with people like me who don't believe that most if not all viruses exist. As with Arther Firstenberg, one can agree with part of a theory without agreeing to another part of it.
I'd be happy if you could provide a -single- example where virologists have proven to have truly isolated an alleged biological virus.
Sure, just like there are different views on christianity, leading to different denominations.
Humans aren't microbes or microscopic. Alleged biological viruses clearly are microscopic and arguably microbes as well, depending on how one defines microbes.
You've clearly misinterpreted the meaning of pseudo-science. From Wikipedia:
**
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.
**
Listing possible causes of a disease isn't pseudo science, it's the first step in the scientific method- developing hypothesis. Next comes seeing of hypothesis are supported by evidence. Dr. Mark Bailey has argued that it is virology that is pseudo scientific as it doesn't follow the scientific method.
Ever since reading Tessa Lena's article, I have claimed that it is -one- of a list of possible causes of polio or polio like symptoms.
The assumption you are relying on is that the genome database is accurate. Dr. Mark Bailey has a good paragraph in his "Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" essay that I think is worth bringing up here:
**
In The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity83 we documented the invention of SARS-CoV-2 by Fan Wu’s team who assembled an in silico “genome” from genetic fragments of unknown provenance, found in the crude lung washings of a single ‘case’ and documented in, “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China.”84 A further analysis of this paper is indicated as it illustrates how the fraudulent COVID-19 pandemic was created by means of an invented “genome” through deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing, which simply sought to detect all the RNA in a crude sample, and how it was misused to invent a non-existent pathogen. The claim that anyone can declare, “[they] identified a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus,”85 from a single human subject diagnosed with pneumonia is farcical in itself. The authors tried to justify this by stating, “although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study.” Firstly, there was no physical isolation of any virus as will be discussed in detail momentarily. Secondly, their claim of being “independently corroborated” is a reference to the February 2020 paper of Peng Zhou et al. — a paper that cannot corroborate anything and the fraud of which is discussed on page 41. All that can be said is that if circular reasoning is employed, then finding similar genetic sequences on more than one occasion is seen as confirmation of a virus. The GISAID database is the treasure chest of this virological nonsense and by 29 August 2022 had over 12.8 million claims of having ‘found’ SARS-CoV-2.86 However none of them can point to an actual virus, they are simply calling ‘bingo’ by assembling similar sequences which they have aligned with Fan Wu et al. and other previous assemblies, no actual virus required.
**
Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition), Page 28 | drsambailey.com
As mentioned in my previous post, pointing towards databases of alleged viral RNA is useless if the entire database is filled with nonsense.
I quoted the Wikipedia definition of viruses, but as I point out further down in my post, I found another article that claimed that alleged biological viruses are classified as the smallest microbes by some.
No, I simply pointed out that not everyone agrees that alleged biological viruses aren't microbes.
You don't have to believe something exists in order to classify what type of life form it would be if it did, in fact, exist.
You're looking at this backwards. It's virologists who claim that the electron microscope pictures must be viruses. Therefore, it's up to -them- to prove that they're not other things, such as exosomes.
I never said you made either claim.
Agreed. What do you think that the doctors and other professionals are asking virologists to do in the statement referenced in the opening post?
It's not Dr. Mark Bailey that has to test these claims. The claims are made by virologists. They're the ones who have to test them.
It doesn't help your arguments when you also cherry pick part of the definition just like you cherry pick data and pieces of articles.
The second definition more closely fits your arguments here as you ignore logic and reason in many of your posts.
Some examples of you ignoring logic and reason:
You claim poisons can be the cause polio but can't explain how the poison spreads and grows in toxicity since every poison I know of loses toxicity as it is diluted.
You claim EMR can be the cause of disease but can't explain why those diseases occurred before humans started using electricity.
You claim Dr Baily is correct in his claim that growing in culture must occur to prove something is living but can't explain why humans can be living since they can't be grown in culture.
Another dead end as you resort to arguing about dead ends instead of explaining how your logic and reason works.
Is this valid logic? Yes or no?
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.
All I see is you avoiding defending your position.
Explain how a poison can increase in toxicity as it spreads and decreases in ppm. If you can't explain that then any claim that a disease that spreads worldwide is caused by poison is not logical or reasonable.