Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

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.

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

Your question is reminiscent of the prosecution lawyer asking a man if he'd stopped beating his wife. If he says yes, it suggests he was doing it before, if he says no, it suggests he's still doing it. There's no choice in this type of a question to say something like "I never beat my wife". Recognizing that your question was similar to this, I simply pointed out what I believed was the fundamental flaw in your question, that being that only microscopic things are 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

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?

Alright, so multicellular organisms can be grown in culture, and these can go beyond microscopic. It doesn't take away that we're still talking fairly small things. The bottom line is that while some have claimed to grow biological viruses in culture, I've never seen anyone claim to grown any animal in culture. It seems to be reserved for alleged biological viruses, bacteria or tissues.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

LOL. Tell us how all those RNA sequences for viruses got in the genome database if no one conducted any scientific experiments.
Your denial of the science is the pseudo-science.

If the scientific method was never used to grow polio virus then why did the Nobel Committee give the Nobel prize as if they had done that?
If the scientific method was never used then how did the Sabin and Salk vaccines come into being?

All you have is denial of the overwhelming evidence of the scientific method being followed in viral research. Instead, all you have is the pseudo-science of Dr Bailey who has not conducted one experiment and hasn't answered any of the questions I keep asking you.

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?”

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

Since 1951 what has happened in science?
The polio virus was grown in culture.
The Nobel prize was awarded for growing polio virus in culture.
The grown polio virus was used to make a vaccine.
The vaccine was given to hundreds of millions of people.
Polio has been almost eradicated from the entire globe.

An article from 1951 does not explain away anything that has happened since 1951. Science moves forward. Pseudo-science cherry picks old articles and ignores the newer science. It seems the only one on this thread using pseudo-science is you.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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



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



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.

That's an awful lot of pseudo-science from you. I wouldn't have to use that word if it wasn't so accurate for what you are doing.

I think it is well established and we both agree that some people consider viruses a microbe and some don't so a virus may or may not be a microbe.


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]

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.
**

Thanks for providing more evidence of how Dr Bailey's article is nonsense and how you practice pseudo-science.
Dr Bailey's quote is not about the genome database and all the viral sequences in it. Dr Bailey's quote is only about the majority of the Covid-19 sequences found in GISAID database.
Dr Bailey's quote fails to talk about the over 50 other times that Covid has been independently assembled de Novo, not using the Wuhan sequencing. Dr Bailey's quote fails to talk about the thousands of other viruses with millions of sequences found in the various genome databases.
So you have provided us a perfect example of how Dr Bailey is conducting psuedo-science. He cherry picks one thing and then attacks it while ignoring all other evidence that shows his attack is pseudo-science.

Then the one thing that really stands out in Dr Bailey's quote as pseudo-science is when he states "no actual virus" required. There is one major problem with that pseudo-scientific claim. The virus hasn't been sequenced in healthy people without the virus. If Covid didn't exist then the genome for Covid had to exist before Covid started making people ill. And yet with over 20 years of sequencing of viruses and genomes, the Covid sequence never occurred prior to Wuhan. Science can explain that. Dr Bailey doesn't explain why that is because he is using pseudo-science.

Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition), Page 28 | drsambailey.com



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

We are going to stop there and just point out the pseudo-science in that one sentence.
The evidence of a virus causing disease after it transmits between hosts is overwhelming in just how the infection spreads. Dr Bailey does not deal with that because for him to do so would undermine his pseudo-science.
Let's look at the spread of the disease. Contact tracing has been extensive with Covid both to identify the source in a community and to try to prevent further spread. Contact tracing is science. Ignoring that contact tracing exists is pseudo-science.
Next we have the evidence of the vaccine working to help slow the spread.
And then there is the fact that the genomic sequencing shows the virus evolving which also correlates with changes in virulency and transmission spread rate.
We have over 100 years of seeing how disease spreads with a bacteria. We have more than that seeing how poison spreads. They do not spread the same way. Viral diseases follow the pattern of bacterial diseases that are transmissible. This is only possible if viral diseases have something that can replicate like bacteria. Viral theory says it is a virus and has fund genomes, grown viruses in culture, taken pictures of the viruses, used the viruses grown to make vaccines.

Your repeated use of only a few sources if pseudo-science. Your logic failures are pseudo-science. Your entire argument is nothing but pseudo-science.
Pseudo-science ignores data. Dr Bailey ignores data of how viral diseases spreads.
Pseudo-science cherry picks data. Dr Bailey relies on limited genome databases and ignores all the other virus genomes.
Pseudo-science doesn't conduct any scientific experiments. Dr Bailey demands others do the experiments.
Pseudo-science is all you and Dr Bailey have.

 

[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?

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

I have claimed that there is evidence that it is probably at least one of the causes of polio.

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

You seem to be agreeing that personal insults do in fact derail threads. That's a start. As to me accusation that I am avoiding defending my positions, I don't see evidence of this.

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?

I have many positions. You'll have to be more specific as to what position you believe I'm not defending.

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

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

You seem to think that I believe that poisons can do this. I don't.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Circular reasoning. Unicorns are imagined as a horse with a horn. If the majority of people imagined unicorns as a lizard with a horn then you couldn't argue that they were mammals since you are relying solely on your opinion and not on any facts. You have posted on more than one occasion about how some virologists have claimed viruses aren't subject to Koch's postulates and argued that this is somehow proof that viruses don't exist. But the reality is it undermines your argument that all microbes must be subject to Koch's postulates. You are conducting pseudo-science in that you have come up with a belief and then claim if reality doesn't comply with your belief then it can't be true. That isn't how science works. In science when an hypothesis is shown to be falsified, the hypothesis is modified. In pseudo-science when the hypothesis is shown to be falsified, the claim is the falsification must be wrong.

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.

And I have pointed out numerous times, the author's test 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.

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.

More pseudo-science from you. You are attempting to classify something before you know if it exists or what properties it has.


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.
Wow. Nice bullshit. And that statement is nothing but bullshit. If they have done almost no testing then why are there over 15 million contributions of Covid-19 sequencing in the GISAID database? I don't think you know what little testing means. Little testing would be what Dr Bailey has done since he has not done a single test.

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.

If you think something doesn't exist, then how can you classify it? To try to classify something that doesn't exist is pseudo-science since you can't falsify your claim.
Let me give you an example.
You claimed that unicorns are mammals. Propose a test to falsify your claim. If you can't propose a test that can actually be conducted then you are conducting pseudo-science.


Now. You claim that viruses do not exist. Then you claim if they did exist they would be microbes. Propose a test to falsify your claim about something that doesn't exist.. You can't propose such a test since any test would violate your claim that viruses don't exist. That means your argument is pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I have claimed that there is evidence that it is probably at least one of the causes of polio.

There it is. The perfect example of pseudo-science.

You have just made a statement that can't be falsified by any possible scientific test since any test that would test DDT would be simply dismissed as DDT is only one possible cause. Clearly you are not conducting science. You are simply spouting pseudo-science.

You seem to be agreeing that personal insults do in fact derail threads. That's a start. As to me accusation that I am avoiding defending my positions, I don't see evidence of this.

So when did you give a logical and reasonable answer to this?

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.

I have many positions. You'll have to be more specific as to what position you believe I'm not defending.



You seem to think that I believe that poisons can do this. I don't.

Really? Then how can poison cause polio if it can't increase in toxicity as it spreads? I have asked that on multiple occasions and you always refuse to answer.
You have not explained how DDT or any poison can cause widespread polio if the poison is not widespread. I have already shown that there is no real correlation between DDT and polio and you ran away from that argument as quickly as you could because it revealed your pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Your question is reminiscent of the prosecution lawyer asking a man if he'd stopped beating his wife. If he says yes, it suggests he was doing it before, if he says no, it suggests he's still doing it. There's no choice in this type of a question to say something like "I never beat my wife". Recognizing that your question was similar to this, I simply pointed out what I believed was the fundamental flaw in your question, that being that only microscopic things are grown in culture.

MY question isn't even close to being a loaded question. I am providing a simple logical construct. The thing about logical constructs is it is easy to point out where the logic fails.

For instance. A is a duck, B is a goose, therefore C must be a duck fails as logic because there is no predicate for C to reach the conclusion.
Or - a deer is a duck, a gander is a goose, therefore a doe is a duck while logical in its construct fails because the predicate is false.

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.

I see nothing false in the predicates of that logical construct. Do you?
Do you think the conclusion is accurate based on the predicates? Is the conclusion one of the requirements proposed by Dr Bailey for proving viruses exist?
You are free to rewrite the construct however you want but leaving out predicates to get to your conclusion will only prove you are conducting pseudo-science.

Alright, so multicellular organisms can be grown in culture, and these can go beyond microscopic. It doesn't take away that we're still talking fairly small things. The bottom line is that while some have claimed to grow biological viruses in culture, I've never seen anyone claim to grown any animal in culture. It seems to be reserved for alleged biological viruses, bacteria or tissues.

Didn't you read the article? It includes plants and animal tissues and organs.
It goes to show that you are relying on leaving out some data to keep your argument alive which shows you are conducting pseudo-science which cherry picks data and ignores data that contradicts the pseudo-scientific claim.

 

[Scott]

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.

ROFLMAO. So your denial is evidence they didn't do this?

You'd like some evidence, alright, let's go with part of what I quoted in the opening post of this thread:

**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Source:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You'd like some evidence, alright, let's go with part of what I quoted in the opening post of this thread:

**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Source:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

Nice pseudo-science. Tell us what actual tests can be used to falsify that idiocy?

This is the logic you just presented.

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

Dr Bailey is not presenting any science. He has not conducted any science. He has not presented any falsifiable theory. He has not presented a test that makes logical sense based on his arguments. If you think Dr Baileys claim is valid then explain why my logical construct is valid in your opinion.

 

[Scott]

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.

LOL. Tell us how all those RNA sequences for viruses got in the genome database if no one conducted any scientific experiments.

Gladly. Dr. Mark Bailey gets into it in Part 2 of his "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" essay. Quoting from his abstract:

**
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.
**

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

 

[Scott]

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

Since 1951 what has happened in science?

Not much when it comes to examining the likely causes of polio I'm afraid.

The polio virus was grown in culture.

As Dr. Mark Bailey has pointed out, there's no solid evidence that any alleged virus has ever been isolated, let alone grown in culture. Quoting from his essay "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)":

**
WHY ISOLATION MATTERS

He who controls the language controls the masses. — Saul Alinsky21​

A further embarrassment for virology is that alleged viral particles that have been successfully purified have not been shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing by themselves. In other words, what have been physically isolated can only be said to be extracellular vesicles (EVs). In May 2020, a publication appeared in the journal Viruses that claimed, “nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension.”22 ‘Nowadays’ means in contrast to the past and it is unclear how such an observed technical change may be reconciled with biological laws. It appears more likely that the virologists are distancing themselves from their own techniques in order to avoid refutation of their own postulates. They may have to accept that the reason differential ultracentrifugation is not able to separate viruses from other vesicles is because their assertion that viruses are present in the sample is ill-founded.

The virologists are clearly distracting from the foundational issue of isolation as they have been unable to deliver on this front. Instead of addressing the problem honestly and scientifically, they have obfuscated the language. In 2017, The Perth Group pointed out in their magnum opus, “HIV - a virus like no other” that, “in virology, while purification retains its everyday meaning, ‘isolation’ is an expediential term virologists assign to data they claim are proof a particular virus exists.”23 In other words, it is convenient and practical but with regard to the claims that are made and the subsequent actions that are carried out against humanity, it should be viewed as improper and immoral.
**

Source:
A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), Pages 9-10 | drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

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

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

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.

That's an awful lot of pseudo-science from you.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

I think it is well established and we both agree that some people consider viruses a microbe and some don't so a virus may or may not be a microbe.

Alright.

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.

I think you might want to start with the fact that virologists have claimed that they have in fact grown some viruses in culture. Or is it just polio? In any case, I think it's a good place to start. Just because a virologist claims something happened doesn't mean it actually happened.

 

[Scott]

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

Thanks for providing more evidence of how Dr Bailey's article is nonsense and how you practice pseudo-science.

You really have to stop putting your conclusions before any evidence you may have gathered.

Dr Bailey's quote is not about the genome database and all the viral sequences in it. Dr Bailey's quote is only about the majority of the Covid-19 sequences found in GISAID database.

I admit I'm not aware how many of these viral databases there are. Based on what Dr. Mark Bailey has pointed out in the past (and that I have quoted), it doesn't matter- they're all based on a house of cards, RNA sequences of unknown provenance.

Dr Bailey's quote fails to talk about the over 50 other times that Covid has been independently assembled de Novo, not using the Wuhan sequencing.

All Cov 2 sequences rely on the original alleged Cov virus. Only that one isn't based on anything solid either. It's all a stack of cards.

Dr Bailey's quote fails to talk about the thousands of other viruses with millions of sequences found in the various genome databases.

He actually addresses them all by pointing out that they're all based on RNA sequences of unknown provenance.

 

[Scott]

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.

[snip]

**

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

We are going to stop there and just point out the pseudo-science in that one sentence.
The evidence of a virus causing disease after it transmits between hosts is overwhelming in just how the infection spreads.

You haven't provided any solid evidence that any alleged virus spreads disease.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Gladly. Dr. Mark Bailey gets into it in Part 2 of his "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" essay. Quoting from his abstract:

**
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.
**

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

More pseudo-science from you and Dr Bailey. What actual scientific experiments did Dr Bailey conduct to reach the conclusion that the actual science is wrong? Dr Bailey conducted no experiments. He has proposed no theory or hypothesis that can be falsified. He has simply cherry picked some small subset of the science to claim it is wrong. If he wants to claim that none of the viral RNA comes from a virus then he needs to show where it came from. He does no such thing. He simply makes a claim that has not been tested and then ignores everything else.
In response, let me point out that the Covid-9 virus has been assembled de novo by multiple sources. The paper you presented from the mathematician from Hamburg that refused to be named even admits that his use of the Wuhan data resulted in the Covid-19 virus genome being found when he did his de novo assembly. His complaint is he didn't get all the other possible combinations.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Unsubstantiated assertion.



Alright.



I think you might want to start with the fact that virologists have claimed that they have in fact grown some viruses in culture. Or is it just polio? In any case, I think it's a good place to start. Just because a virologist claims something happened doesn't mean it actually happened.

I see you are continuing to avoid defending Dr Bailey's logic and yours.

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You really have to stop putting your conclusions before any evidence you may have gathered.

That is some funny stuff that shows how unaware you are of your own arguments and Dr Bailey's arguments. What evidence has Dr Bailey actually gathered? Cite the single modern science paper he quotes.
The correct answer would be Dr Bailey did not collect data. He cherry picked some things and created a pseudo-scientific argument that has no basis in logic or science. I have repeatedly pointed out how ludicrous his logic is and you have ignored it and refused to defend his logic.

I admit I'm not aware how many of these viral databases there are. Based on what Dr. Mark Bailey has pointed out in the past (and that I have quoted), it doesn't matter- they're all based on a house of cards, RNA sequences of unknown provenance.

It's Dr Bailey that has built a house of cards with his pseudo-science. All genetic sequencing uses the same process. You can't claim the process works for some and not for others without actually doing the work.
If the process doesn't work at all then most of your argument here is bogus.

All Cov 2 sequences rely on the original alleged Cov virus. Only that one isn't based on anything solid either. It's all a stack of cards.

Speaking of unsubstantiated claims. That is a lovely one by you that I have previously shown to be false when I have posted links to at least 2 other times when the Covid-19 virus was assembled de novo without relying on the Wuhan sequence. Here are links to 3 other times that the Sars-COV-2 has been assembled de novo and not used the Wuhan sequence to find parts of it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33822878/
Results: We performed 6648 de novo assemblies of 416 SARS-CoV-2 samples using eight different assemblers with different k-mer lengths.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/omi.2022.0042?journalCode=omi
In this study, we performed a comparative evaluation and benchmarking of eight de novo assemblers: SOAPdenovo, Velvet, assembly by short sequences (ABySS), iterative De Bruijn graph assembler (IDBA), SPAdes, Edena, iterative virus assembler, and VICUNA on the viral NGS data from distinct Illumina (GAIIx, Hiseq, Miseq, and Nextseq) platforms. WGS data of diverse viruses, that is, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), dengue virus 3, human immunodeficiency virus 1, hepatitis B virus, human herpesvirus 8, human papillomavirus 16, rhinovirus A, and West Nile virus, were utilized to assess these assemblers

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00938-3/fulltext

He actually addresses them all by pointing out that they're all based on RNA sequences of unknown provenance.

No. He doesn't address any of the other times that the Sars-Cov-2 virus has been sequenced and he doesn't address any of the other viruses that have been sequenced millions of times. I just linked to 3 papers that de novo assembled viruses that Dr Bailey does not address.

This is the logic that you and Dr Bailey use and neither you or he have been able to defend it.

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

Why do you keep ignoring this simple logic question? Simply repeating Dr Bailey's article that lays out the false logic doesn't defend his position. It only points to how you can't defend your pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You haven't provided any solid evidence that any alleged virus spreads disease.

How do you think contact tracing works? Do you think your denial of science and promotion of pseudo-science is cute?
Speaking of not providing any solid evidence. That leads us right back to Dr Bailey and your failure to answer as to whether this is valid logic or not.

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

When are you going to actually defend Dr Bailey's logic instead of just blindly quoting his pseudo-science?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Let me put this here in large letters so you can't miss it. All others reading this thread can't miss it so they can clearly see how disingenuous your arguments are.
It highlights how your argument is pseudo-science. Your failure to address it highlights how you are promoting pseudo-science.
The fact that you won't address or defend Dr Bailey's logic but continue to quote him shows you are not pursuing an intellectual or factual basis for your beliefs.




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




Dr Bailey's logic fails and is easily recognized as a failure when it is examined honestly. Why are you not being honest?