Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

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.

I don't see how, but perhaps you explain further down, so let's see...

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.

I can certainly agree that if people thought unicorns looked like lizards with horns, I certainly wouldn't think they were mammals closely related to horses, assuming they existed. I really don't see your point though.

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.

I challenge you to find me -ever- saying that there is proof that biological viruses exist. I'm pretty sure I have claimed that no virus has ever satisfied Koch's postulates as far as I know. It's a rather different claim.

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.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Scott]

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.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

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.

Alright, I think that's enough insults there, snipping the rest of that paragraph. As I've told you before, if you want me to pay attention to what you have to say, stick the insults at the end. I can snip those off without losing anything important.

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?

Quite easily. If people describe something, real or imagined, you can attempt to classify said thing. In the case of biological viruses, I think we can all agree that they would be microscopic if they exist.

 

[Scott]

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.

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

Unsubstantiated assertion.

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.

Again, you're looking at things backward here. Most people believe that polio is caused by an alleged polio virus. I've simply provided evidence that it is actually caused by other things. There are certainly tests to try to ascertain whether a polio virus actually exists. The doctors and other professionals in the opening post provide a method wherein they could test to see if there's solid evidence that the polio virus and other viruses do in fact exist.

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?

Pretty sure I've done so, but it's probably easier to just do it again then try to find where I did so...

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.

Alright, here's my reasonable answer. I think I'll bookmark it for future reference. Your "For C" statement isn't logical.

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?

First, you're going to have to provide evidence that polio is caused by a parasitical biological entity.

 

[Scott]

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.

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 have now answered your question in post #1183.

 

[Scott]

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.

I just mentioned tissues. Where did you think I got that from? I don't see them "growing" any animal colonies though.

 

[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

Nice pseudo-science.

You start with an insult. You know that tends to get me to snip the rest of what you say and just end my response. Is that what you're hoping to achieve?

 

[Lightbringer]

He did start with an insult.

 

[Scott]

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

More pseudo-science from you and Dr Bailey.

Again, you start with your conclusions, and an insulting one at that. Now, if you'd started with your argument and -then- concluded that what Dr. Mark Bailey wrote was pseudo-science, that'd be different. Anyway, I'll let it pass this time around. At least your second sentence isn't even worse than the first this time.

What actual scientific experiments did Dr Bailey conduct to reach the conclusion that the actual science is wrong?

I think I'm actually going to try to help you out here. You don't need to do scientific experiments to provide evidence for a given claim. I'm going to take Dr. Mark Bailey's paragraph above and list the claims he's making. He's basically making 1 claim per sentence:

1- 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.

2- It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templating them against previous “virus” templates.

3- 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.

4- 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.

Now, you could say that you disagree with 1 or more of these claims and ask to see the evidence for them. At which point, the ball would be in my court- I'd need to look through his essay to find evidence for his claims.

 

[Scott]

He did start with an insult.

If he'd just said the bit about pseudo science, I probably would have plowed on. But his very next sentence ends with calling my reference "idiocy". So I just snipped everything after the "pseudo science" sentence.

 

[Scott]

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

I strongly disagree.

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.

Not my logic. See post 1183.

 

[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.

That is some funny stuff that shows how unaware you are of your own arguments and Dr Bailey's arguments.

I'm just pointing out that you're bringing up your conclusion before anything else. I'm not sure how familiar you are with writing essays, but if you're trying to persuade someone who doesn't agree with you, the key is to put your evidence first and -end- with your conclusions based on that evidence.

Anyone can say that what their ideological opponent says is nonsense, but if you say that from the start, well, let's just say that it's not all that persuasive. It's also something that your opponent can't defend against, because you haven't even presented the evidence you've used to come to your conclusion yet.

 

[Lightbringer]

If he'd just said the bit about pseudo science, I probably would have plowed on. But his very next sentence ends with calling my reference "idiocy". So I just snipped everything after the "pseudo science" sentence.

I get it. I think the same way.

 

[Scott]

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.

I never said that genetic sequencing doesn't work at all. It's how viruses are allegedly "discovered" that's the problem here. Dr. Mark Bailey gets into this in the abstract of his essay "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)". 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 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]

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.

They essentially did what the Wuhan scientists did. Here's a few lines from a journalist who came to believe that the evidence that the Cov 2 virus actually exists is on very shaky ground:

**
The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

He continues by being suspicious of the -original SARS Cov virus:

**
The Wuhan team used 40 rounds of RT-qPCR amplification to match fragments of cDNA (complimentary DNA constructed from sampled RNA fragments) with the published SARS coronavirus genome (SARS-CoV). Unfortunately it isn’t clear how accurate the original SARS-CoV genome is either.
**

 

[Scott]

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 [snip]

Yes, he does. I've referenced the passage where Dr. Mark Bailey does this multiple times. Going back to my previous posts, I think that post #1188 is perhaps best, as it breaks down the paragraph where he makes 4 key claims. If true, it demolishes virology in its entirety.

 

[Scott]

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

How do you think contact tracing works?

With the fraudulent PCR tests. Dr. Mark Bailey gets into their missaplication of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests in the essay that I've quoted to you many times. Again, my post #1188 is the one to look at here.

 

[Scott]

Let me put this here in large letters so you can't miss it.

No need. I answered your question long ago. Back in post #1183 to be precise.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Alright, here's my reasonable answer. I think I'll bookmark it for future reference. Your "For C" statement isn't logical.

Now that you recognize your argument isn't logical, are you going to stop using it?
Now that you recognized that Dr Bailey's argument isn't logical are you going to stop using him as a source?

Continuing with your argument that viruses must be grown and isolated to prove they exist is not science but it pseudo-science.
You have now agreed that such an argument is pseudo-science.

But let's move to the next fault in Dr Bailey's test and show how it doesn't prove anything about viruses existence.

This should be easy if you agree with basic facts.
Fact - bacteria are microbes
Fact - bacteria exist that don't make anyone or anything ill.
Fact - Koch's postulates requires that a microbe be taken from something ill, grown and then the grown microbes must cause illness.

Based on these three facts, requiring Koch's postulates to prove the existence of a microbe is false. It may prove the existence of some but clearly microbes can exist that don't meet the requirements of Koch's postulates. Since some bacteria can exist, using Koch's postulates doesn't prove viruses don't exist and any attempt to do so would be pseudo-science.

Koch's postulates do not prove the existence of microbes. Koch's postulates try to prove the cause of a specific illness. All the failure of Koch's postulates can verify is that no specific cause can be found that follows the postulates. Any attempt to use Koch's postulates to show a class of living creatures doesn't exist is pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Well substantiated since even you agree it is not logical and would therefor be pseudo-science.

Alright, I think that's enough insults there, snipping the rest of that paragraph. As I've told you before, if you want me to pay attention to what you have to say, stick the insults at the end. I can snip those off without losing anything important.

I compliment your bullshit be calling it nice and you still get upset. Are you 6?

Quite easily. If people describe something, real or imagined, you can attempt to classify said thing. In the case of biological viruses, I think we can all agree that they would be microscopic if they exist.

Classifying something you claim doesn't exist and then testing based on your classification is not science. That is pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

Alright, here's my reasonable answer. I think I'll bookmark it for future reference. Your "For C" statement isn't logical.

Now that you recognize your argument isn't logical, are you going to stop using it?

That right there folks is what we call a straw man argument.