Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Step 3 of the scientific method:

3. Gather Data

Evidence is needed to test the prediction. There are several strategies for collecting evidence, or data. Scientists can gather their data by observing the natural world, performing an experiment in a laboratory, or by running a model.

https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/the-scientific-process

Dr Bailey has not conducted a single scientific experiment to see if his hypothesis is correct. Dr Bailey has not gathered all the available data to see if his hypothesis is correct. Dr Baily clearly has not followed the scientific method so Dr Bailey is using pseudo-science. His statements claim to be scientific but his failure to follow the scientific method make them pseudo-science according to the definition you just presented. Requiring someone else to prove your theory is wrong is incompatible with the scientific method and would be pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Claiming you have a list but not conducting any experiments or gathering all the available data to confirm anything on that list is pseudo-science since simple presenting a list is incompatible with the scientific method which requires you test your hypothesis.
All you have been doing here is providing pseudo-science being conducted by you and your sources.
What actual scientific experiments has Dr Bailey done to confirm his hypothesis?
What actual scientific experiments has Tessa Lena done to confirm her list?

Gathering data can be science. Not gathering all the data is pseudo-science.

Here is a simple question for you. Do all virologists think that Koch postulates can be applied to viruses?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Humans aren't microbes or microscopic. Alleged biological viruses clearly are microscopic and arguably microbes as well, depending on how one defines microbes.

Let me get this right.
Viruses are microbes unless you define microbes to not include viruses? That is logical nonsense since it admits that viruses may not be microbes. If viruses may not be microbes than any claim that they only exist if you use the test for microbes is pseudo-science.

Here is your logic and how it fails.
A is a living creature that is not a microbe and can't be grown in culture.
B is a living creature that is a microbe and can be grown in culture.
C may or may not be a microbe.
therefor
For C to be a living creature it must be grown in culture as if it was a microbe.

That logic is pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As mentioned in my previous post, pointing towards databases of alleged viral RNA is useless if the entire database is filled with nonsense.

Pointing towards articles by Dr Bailey is useless if his article is filled with nonsense.

The difference between those 2 statements is I have pointed to how Dr Bailey has not used the scientific method to confirm what he has put in his article.
The RNA in the database did use the scientific method to come up with the genetic sequences put on the database. Tell us how the people that found those sequences didn't use the scientific method if you think they didn't. Show us who conducted those experiments.

If Dr Bailey doesn't think the RNA sequences in the database are correct then he is free to conduct his own experiments and show a different result. That would be the scientific method. Denying the results of others without ever testing their methods is pseudo-science. Dr Bailey's articles are filled with pseudo-science. Since they are filled with pseudo-science they are filled with nonsense. You can prove me wrong by pointing to where Dr Bailey has conducted step 3 of the scientific method in a complete and thorough fashion. Cherry picking data is not conducting step 3 of the scientific method. It is practicing pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Conflicting arguments would mean you can't classify them as microbes if you don't believe they exist.

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.

LOL. If you can just make up whatever you want about something that is pseudo-science since what you make up can't be tested. I don't believe humans exist so let's classify them as microbes. Now you have to grow them in culture to prove they exist. Do you see how stupid that logic is?

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.

The scientific method is that if someone disagrees with the result of an experiment, it is not up to the original scientists to prove their claim. It is up to the person claiming they were wrong to prove his claim. Copernicus didn't demand that others prove that the sun revolves around the earth. He conducted experiments to show that science was wrong and his theory was correct. Demanding that the original scientists of which there are many prove their claims while the deniers don't have to do any science at all is pseudo-science.

I never said you made either claim.

If I made neither argument then introducing your argument about parasites was nothing but a red herring.

Agreed. What do you think that the doctors and other professionals are asking virologists to do in the statement referenced in the opening post?

I think the doctors are conducting pseudo-science since they are not looking at all the data and have not conducted a single science experiment. Claiming the results of a scientific experiment is wrong without looking at all the evidence or conducting the experiment yourself is pseudo-science.

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 IS the responsibility of Dr Mark Bailey to test HIS claims.
Virologists have repeatedly tested those claims. The problem for Dr Bailey is he fails to address all the times those claims have been tested and instead cherry picks just a few of the tests and denies all the others. That is pseudo-science. Using step 3 of the scientific method would require that Dr Baily look at all the evidence, not just the little bit he can nitpick and claim is wrong. The bottom line is for Dr Bailey to not be conducting pseudo-science he would have to be the one to test his claims. Dr Bailey is not doing any actual science. He is spouting pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

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.

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.

Not cherry picking anything, I just quoted the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of the term ad hominem. When I'd brought up ad hominem attacks, I had thought it was clear that ad hominem attacks were essentially personal insults. Wikipedia's definition of the term cast this interpretation of mine in doubt. Therefore, I decided it was best to just use the term personal insults, as that term is far less ambiguous.

 

[Scott]

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.

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.

Apparently you're unaware that only microscopic things are grown in culture.

 

[Scott]

What I'm -trying- to do is point out that personal insults tend to derail a thread. Do you agree?

All I see is you avoiding defending your position.

What position is that? And are you going to answer my question?

Explain how a poison can increase in toxicity as it spreads and decreases in ppm.

I imagine your notion is that the alleged disease labelled "Covid 19" is spread in this way. What you need is solid evidence that this is the case. Without it, the notion that Covid 19 is actually spread by a virus falls flat.

 

[Scott]

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.

Step 3 of the scientific method:
**
3. Gather Data

Evidence is needed to test the prediction. There are several strategies for collecting evidence, or data. Scientists can gather their data by observing the natural world, performing an experiment in a laboratory, or by running a model.
**

https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/the-scientific-process

Yes, this is what virologists have failed to do. Dr. Mark Bailey and the other signatories referenced in the opening post of this thread provide a method wherein virologists could try to provide solid evidence that viruses actually exist. So far, it appears that no virologists have attempted to perform these experiments.

 

[Scott]

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.

Claiming you have a list but not conducting any experiments or gathering all the available data to confirm anything on that list is pseudo-science since simple presenting a list is incompatible with the scientific method which requires you test your hypothesis.

Again, you misinterpret what pseudoscience is. Pseudoscience is not stating that a list of possible reasons for a disease exists. Pseudoscience is stating that a -particular- reason for a disease, such as a virus, is the truth, without putting one's hypothesis through the scientific method to ensure that this is, in fact, the case.

As to confirming what truly causes polio, true scientists would love to run more tests on the subject. Unfortunately, scientists, like everyone else, need to eat, and there is little if any funding for testing for alternate theories to the theory that all polio is caused by an alleged polio virus at this point. Tessa Lena says as much in an article I've quoted before. Quoting from it once more:

**
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

 

[Scott]

Humans aren't microbes or microscopic. Alleged biological viruses clearly are microscopic and arguably microbes as well, depending on how one defines microbes.

Let me get this right.
Viruses are microbes unless you define microbes to not include viruses?

Alleged biological viruses are indeed classified as microbes by some, but not by others.

That is logical nonsense since it admits that viruses may not be microbes.

No, I'm just pointing out that different people have different ways of defining these alleged biological entitites labelled "viruses".

If viruses may not be microbes than any claim that they only exist if you use the test for microbes is pseudo-science.

You really love that word don't you? Whether or not someone labels these alleged viruses as microbes, they are still microscopic. Virologists have -claimed- to isolate and culture some viruses, but when one looks at what they've actually done, one must admit that they are doing something much different than what is usually definied as isolating and culturing a microscopic entity.

 

[Scott]

As mentioned in my previous post, pointing towards databases of alleged viral RNA is useless if the entire database is filled with nonsense.

Pointing towards articles by Dr Bailey is useless if his article is filled with nonsense.

That's a very big if. I clearly believe that his article is filled with very useful factual information. For those who may have missed the previous post I was referring to, here's the most relevant part:

**
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

The difference between those 2 statements is I have pointed to how Dr Bailey has not used the scientific method to confirm what he has put in his article.

I strongly disagree. I believe Dr. Mark Bailey has made it clear that it is virologists who aren't using the scientific method. For those who may not be aware of Dr. Mark Bailey's main argument in the article Saunders and I are referring to, I think quoting the abstract of said article may help get a better grasp of its contents:

**
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.

A viral particle must fulfil defined physical and biological properties including being a replication- competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human. However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations. In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.” The existence of a virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions.

This essay contains three parts. Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method. The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence, and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. The examples provided cover all major aspects of the virological fraud including alleged isolation, cytopathic effects, genomics, antibodies, and animal pathogenicity studies.

Part Two examines the fraud used to propagate the COVID-19 “pandemic.” A breakdown of the methodology relied upon by the original inventors Fan Wu et al., shows how the fictional SARS-CoV-2 was “created” through anti-scientific methods and linguistic sleights of hands. It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templating them against previous “virus” templates. Using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, the trail of “coronavirus” genomic templates going back to the 1980s reveals that none of these genetic sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any viral particle — the phylogenetic trees are fantasies. The misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction [aka PCR tests] has propagated this aspect of virology’s fraud and created the ‘cases’ to maintain the illusion of a pandemic.

Part Three provides an analysis of how some key participants, “health” institutions, and the mainstream media maintain the virus illusion through information control and narratives that parrot virology’s claims. By way of happenstance, the virological fraud now finds itself front and centre of the COVID-19 fraud. From here, however, it can be critically appraised by those outside virology and the pseudo- scientific paradigm virology has built around itself can finally be dismantled and laid to rest.

The aim of this essay is to provide refutations to various claims that pathogenic viruses exist and cause disease. SARS-CoV-2 has been used as the main example but the principles apply to all alleged viruses. What follows addresses virology’s often arcane literature on its own terms, which, it should be said, may make parts of this essay somewhat heavy reading. However, it is hoped that this contribution will fill a niche for the reader seeking a more technical understanding of the virus hypothesis as it seeks to expose the very foundation of purported pandemics and fraudulent medical practices. The threat of virology to humanity is increasing so it is time we bid farewell to these destructive pseudoscientific practices and free ourselves from unnecessary fears.

**

Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition), Page 4 | drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

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.

Conflicting arguments would mean you can't classify them as microbes if you don't believe they exist.

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. As I've explained to you before, I don't have to believe that unicorns exist in order to believe that they would be a mamallian species closely related to horses if they did, in fact, exist.

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.

LOL. If you can just make up whatever you want about something that is pseudo-science since what you make up can't be tested.

As I've pointed out numerous times, the authors of the statement referenced in the opening post have set up a method wherein the existence of biological viruses could be tested for. To date, I don't believe that any virologists have tried to test for viruses. This may be because of the failures that virologists have had in the past to try to provide evidence that viruses actually exist, which is something that authors of the statement also bring up.

I don't believe humans exist so let's classify them as microbes.

One thing that I think that all reasonable people can agree on is that a biological entity has to be microscopic in order to be classified as a microbe. Humans don't qualify.

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.

The scientific method is that if someone disagrees with the result of an experiment, it is not up to the original scientists to prove their claim.

The main problem when it comes to virologists is that they've done precious little testing and the testing they've done has been pseudo scientific. I believe Dr. Mark Bailey makes this quite clear in the essay of his that i keep on referring to. Others may judge for themselves ofcourse.

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

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.

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 never said all parasites were microbes. I never said all microbes were parasites.

I never said you made either claim.

If I made neither argument then introducing your argument about parasites was nothing but a red herring.

I was trying to explain why I disagreed with this notion that viruses shouldn't be classified as microbes. In any case, I think it's been established at this point that not everyone agrees that these alleged biological viruses shouldn't be classified as microbes.

 

[Scott]

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

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.

Agreed. What do you think that the doctors and other professionals are asking virologists to do in the statement referenced in the opening post?

I think the doctors are conducting pseudo-science since they are not looking at all the data and have not conducted a single science experiment.

What data do you think they're not looking at? And how would you know whether or not they've conducted science experiments? Furthermore, the main issue is whether -virologists- have followed the scientific method, as the point of contention is whether or not viruses exist. I think you'd agree that if virologists haven't followed the scientific method to arrive at the conclusion that viruses exist, it would be -virologists- who are engaging in pseudoscience.

 

[Scott]

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

Claims from Dr Bailey that they have never tested.

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 IS the responsibility of Dr Mark Bailey to test HIS claims.

As you can see above, I went back to previous posts to get the gist of what we were discussing. I certainly agree that Dr. Mark Bailey needs to provide evidence for the claims he himself makes, and I believe that he does. But I think that the claims that do -not- have much evidence are various claims by virologists, most importantly their claims that they have solid evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.

Virologists have repeatedly tested those claims.

What claims are you referring to?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not cherry picking anything, I just quoted the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of the term ad hominem. When I'd brought up ad hominem attacks, I had thought it was clear that ad hominem attacks were essentially personal insults. Wikipedia's definition of the term cast this interpretation of mine in doubt. Therefore, I decided it was best to just use the term personal insults, as that term is far less ambiguous.

You cherry picked the first half of the definition.
Attacking a persons character while also attacking their position or argument would not be an ad hominem if you use the entire definition.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Apparently you're unaware that only microscopic things are grown in culture.

Another example of you not arguing your position but instead trying to change the topic. You didn't answer my question.

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.

As to your claim that only microscopic things can be grown in culture, let's put that pseudo-science claim to rest.
https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/14/default.asp

Tissue culture (TC) is the cultivation of plant cells, tissues, or organs on specially formulated nutrient media.

Clearly multicellular organisms can be grown in culture. Something you seem to be unaware of. Now that you are aware of that will you answer my logic question or continue with your deflections?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What position is that? And are you going to answer my question?

I follow with one of your positions. You claim poison is the cause of some diseases such as polio.

Personal insults don't derail the thread nearly as much as you avoiding defending your positions does.

I imagine your notion is that the alleged disease labelled "Covid 19" is spread in this way. What you need is solid evidence that this is the case. Without it, the notion that Covid 19 is actually spread by a virus falls flat.

|There you go. Not defending your position. Did you forget your position? Or are you aware that you can't defend it so have to deflect.
Why do I need solid evidence for your position? I didn't say Covid is caused by poison. I didn't say polio is caused by poison.

Covid is most likely caused by something that can replicate and transfer from one host subject to another. Covid acts the way bacterial diseases that can do that. We can look at the spread based on personal contacts. We don't see the spread based on location contacts. Poisons don't get on a plane and travel from Wuhan to NYC or Italy. No bacteria has been found that causes Covid. A virus has been found that causes Covid. The virus would spread the way Covid was spread.

So.. let's repeat the question about your position.

Explain how a poison can increase in toxicity as it spreads and decreases in ppm.

 

[Scott]

Not cherry picking anything, I just quoted the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of the term ad hominem. When I'd brought up ad hominem attacks, I had thought it was clear that ad hominem attacks were essentially personal insults. Wikipedia's definition of the term cast this interpretation of mine in doubt. Therefore, I decided it was best to just use the term personal insults, as that term is far less ambiguous.

You cherry picked the first half of the definition.

If that was actually true, I wouldn't have included the entire definition.

Attacking a persons character while also attacking their position or argument would not be an ad hominem if you use the entire definition.

That's not actually what The American Heritage Dictionary definitions say. I'll quote them again to make this clear to those who have missed the first time:

**
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

The word rather is important here.

The Wikipedia definition, on the other hand, seems to think that you are attacking someone's argument, it can't be an ad hominem even if you are insulting them as well. It's for this reason that I've decided that I'd use the less ambiguous term of personal insult.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, this is what virologists have failed to do. Dr. Mark Bailey and the other signatories referenced in the opening post of this thread provide a method wherein virologists could try to provide solid evidence that viruses actually exist. So far, it appears that no virologists have attempted to perform these experiments.

ROFLMAO. So your denial is evidence they didn't do this? No. Your denial is pseudo-science since you simply deny evidence rather then looking at it all and coming up with a reasonable or logical explanation that explains the evidence better than viral theory does. I think we already established this as a valid argument since you think you can use it about my sources.
Pointing towards articles by Dr Bailey is useless if his article is filled with nonsense. Dr Bailey is not a valid source at this point. You have to defend your position.


Did a virologist or anyone ever grow viruses in culture? Yes or no? They say they did and I have presented multiple cases of them doing the experiments to do so. Virologists claim to have done this millions if not billions of times. They couldn't create viral vaccines without growing the viruses. Every time a virus RNA sequence is in the database that virus would have been grown.

Since you are claiming no polio virus has been grown in culture explain why the Nobel committee gave out a prize for doing just that.
This is another dead end that we keep ending up at since I have asked you this on multiple occasions. You simply deny and then don't explain away the evidence that exists.
Until you give us evidence that the Nobel Committee was defrauded your claim is nothing but unsubstantiated pseudo-science.

Explain why viral vaccines help to create immunity in creatures that are vaccinated so they are less likely to get sick. Explain how a vaccine can prevent illness from poison. The problem you keep having is your pseudo-science can't explain the majority of the facts.