Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

It seems you haven't written many essays. Your initial paragraph should be the introduction which gives the thesis of the essay. The thesis is you are providing evidence of Dr Bailey's pseudo-science.

The reality is I am not writing an essay but instead we are in an ongoing discussion and this is building on previous parts of that discussion. You provided more evidence of Dr Bailey using pseudo-science. I thanked you for that. It seems my being polite makes you upset.

I haven't presented the evidence? Do you wake up every morning with amnesia? I thought you said you were keeping clear records of our back and forth so you could respond and yet you seem to somehow think I have presented no evidence?

 

[Scott]

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

I've "recognized" no such thing.

Continuing with your argument that viruses must be grown and isolated to prove they exist is not science but it pseudo-science.

For starters, I never made that claim. I -have- pointed out that virologists have claimed to have isolate and culture biological viruses though. It's that claim that Dr. Mark Bailey knocks down.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

It is hardly a straw man.
This is directly from Dr Bailey.

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed
factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living
being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must
be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles

Is the following logical 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.

You have already agreed that Dr Bailey's requirements are not logical hence they are pseudo-science.
But if you think I presented a straw man then explain how you would meet Dr Bailey's requirements without a virus be isolated and grown.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

It is hardly a straw man.
This is directly from Dr Bailey.

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed
factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living
being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must
be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles

Is the following logical or not? (You have already agreed it isn't.)

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.

Purification occurs when a bacteria be grown in culture and isolated.
Here is Dr Bailey again.

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,

You have agreed that Dr Bailey's requirement of a virus being purified are not logical hence Dr Bailey's proposed method is pseudo-science.
But if you think I presented a straw man then explain how you would meet Dr Bailey's requirements without a virus be isolated and grown.

I look forward to your apology for calling my argument a straw man.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.
**

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!!!!

Where in the papers I linked to do they show they used any previous Sars-COV to match?
How did they match Denge, Hepatitis, HIV, Herpes, west nile etc with Sars-COV?

de novo assembly has been used to find every genome include the human genome. Using de novo assembly either works or doesn't. If you argue that it doesn't work then you can't accept any genome for any creature since all were assembled using de novo assembly. Quite simply, any claim that de novo assembly doesn't work is false.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

You keep repeating the same debunked pseudo-science.

Let's go back to your post 1188 and point out it's problems.

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.

When claiming someone that did experiments did them wrong, you do need to have some evidence of that. Dr Bailey has no evidence. He makes unsubstantiated claims.

Here is Dr Bailey

The claim that
anyone can declare, “[they] idenEfied a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which
is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus,” from a single human subject diagnosed with85
pneumonia is farcical in itself

Dr Bailey relies solely on this one patient being used to find the virus as the basis of his entire part II. As I have shown the virus has been found de novo multiple times since then from multiple samples. (Several hundred in one experiment alone.)
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.

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.

The breakdown is when Dr Bailey relies on debunking one experiment but fails to address the hundreds of other times the experiment has been repeated in different labs with different samples with the same results.
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.

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

The deception here is by Dr Bailey where he fails to address the hundreds of other samples and the hundreds of other de novo assemblies.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00938-3/fulltext

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.

Using Dr Bailey's ignoring of hundreds of times the Sars-Cov-2 genome has been sequenced de novo from hundreds of different patients, the only fantasy seems to be Dr Bailey's beliefs that ignore evidence and all those experiments that confirm the one he claims is false.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/omi.2022.0042?journalCode=omi

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.

PCR tests are not used when assembling the viral genome de novo. This only applies to the PCR tests. PCR tests use genome-referencing while de novo assembly does not rely on any genome referencing. Any claim that all genome sequencing of the Sars-COV-2 virus since the initial one in Wuhan have referenced the Wuhan genome is clearly false. Dr Bailey does is either ignorant of evidence or is intentionally hiding evidence. Either one is pseudo-science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9013232/

The de novo assembly is performed without the need for a reference genome, by using heuristics to generate consensus sequences and maintaining the single/multiple nucleotide variants and indels (Li, 2012).

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.

Science is based on being able to repeat experiments to get similar results. The Sars-Cov-2 virus has been found multiple times using multiple samples. That is the very basis of science. Dr Bailey conducts no experiment to show the initial one is wrong. Then he simply ignores the millions of times the experiment has been repeated and never shows how they are wrong by conducting the experiment himself.

Tell us where in his essay Dr Bailey debunks this peer reviewed published scientific paper?
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.

Tell us where in his essay Dr Bailey debunks this peer reviewed published scientific paper?
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

Tell us where in his essay Dr Bailey debunks this peer reviewed published scientific paper?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9013232/
The de novo assembly strategy also adopted by PipeCoV preserves the biological structure of the genome variation, such as indels and single/multiple nucleotide variants, avoiding missing information, which might happen in analysis using only reference-based assembly.

I am sure I can find many more peer reviewed published papers that Dr Bailey fails to address. But see if you can tell us where he even admits that Sars-COV-2 has been de novo assembled by anyone not in Wuhan.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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



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.



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.



Unsubstantiated assertion.

Imagining what a creature would be and then using that imagined creature as your basis to describe that creature is circular reasoning because your conclusions about what the creature is are simply what you imagined the creature to be. It is circular in that the conclusion is the predicate.
I imagine a unicorn is a mammal therefor a unicorn is a mammal. <<<<--- circular.

The point is if you don't believe a creature exists then you can't claim it has any properties at all without your claim being a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies by their nature are pseudo-science since they are false. Any test of a creature to see if it exists can't restrict to a limited set of properties that can't be applied to all creatures. To do so is pseudo-science. Dr Bailey says viruses don't exist. Dr Bailey then creates a test that can't be applied to all creatures. Dr Baily is doing pseudo-science because his test presupposes characteristics for an unknown creature.

 

[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.

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

You want to explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

 

[Scott]

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.

You remind me of someone who says "I don't mean to offend" before proceeding to do just that. Putting "nice" in front of "bullshit" doesn't remove the insult.

 

[Scott]

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.

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

Virologists themselves are the ones that have claimed to isolate and culture biological viruses. This is just a matter of asking them to provide evidence that they actually did so.

 

[Scott]

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.

It seems you haven't written many essays. Your initial paragraph should be the introduction which gives the thesis of the essay.

I was describing -your- essay writing, in the form of posts.

The reality is I am not writing an essay but instead we are in an ongoing discussion and this is building on previous parts of that discussion.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that you stating your conclusions before your evidence doesn't make for a very persuasive essay.

 

[Scott]

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.

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.

It is hardly a straw man.
This is directly from Dr Bailey.

No, your alleged logic statements, quoted above, are yours.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Virologists themselves are the ones that have claimed to isolate and culture biological viruses. This is just a matter of asking them to provide evidence that they actually did so.

Really? Where is anyone asking them to just provide evidence?
Clearly you are just avoiding the evidence that has been provided. Why have you never explained why the Nobel prize was falsely awarded for what you claim has never been done?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If viruses are not real, how did democrats and their Chinese Communist masters murder 4 million people with one?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, your alleged logic statements, quoted above, are yours.

LOL.
Now you are just denying what Dr Bailey wrote.
Dr Bailey clearly states that a virus be grown in culture as evidence viruses exist. See step 1 that I quoted.
Dr Bailey clearly denies that viruses exist. Something that doesn't exist cannot be classified as if it did exist. Virologists do not all classify viruses as microbes. Therefor viruses may or may not be microbes.
Multiple creatures can not be grown in culture by they still exist as living creatures.
Some creatures can be grown in culture.
It seems you want to completely ignore the statements I quoted from Dr Bailey that show he is using the logic you have admitted is false.
Denial is pseudo-science. False logic is pseudo-science. You are practicing pseudo-science. Dr Bailey is practicing pseudo-science.

This is not my logic.
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 is Dr Bailey's logic based on his own statements. His method to prove viruses exist is faulty and not logical. His method is pseudo-science.
None of the predicates of my logical construct are false. The conclusion is clearly the one that Dr Bailey says needs to be met. The conclusion is clearly not logical based on the predicates.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I was describing -your- essay writing, in the form of posts.



I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that you stating your conclusions before your evidence doesn't make for a very persuasive essay.

ROFLMAO.
Let's look at Dr Bailey's essay.

Is this his conclusion?

They [viruses] are therefore not
pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take
measures to protect oneself or others against them.

Does he state that conclusion before he provides evidence?
Does that make Dr Bailey's essay not very persuasive?

It's funny the standards you don't have that you pretend you do have when you can't defend your position. So tell us if an essay is persuasive if the conclusion is stated before the evidence is presented. I can hardly wait to hear your answer.

 

[Scott]

You have agreed that Dr Bailey's requirement of a virus being purified are not logical

No, I didn't.

 

[Scott]

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.
**

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!!!!

Where in the papers I linked to do they show they used any previous Sars-COV to match?

I don't know what your papers say, but you can certainly quote any part of them that you feel is relevant here. I trust that Dr. Mark Bailey is correct when he says the following, which is what I'm trying to convey:

**
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 templatng 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 [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) | drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

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.

You keep repeating the same debunked pseudo-science.

Saying pseudo-science countless times doesn't debunk anything.

 

[Scott]

Let's go back to your post 1188 and point out it's problems.

Glad you've finally gotten around to responding to it.

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.

When claiming someone that did experiments did them wrong, you do need to have some evidence of that.

Agreed.

Dr Bailey has no evidence. He makes unsubstantiated claims.

Strongly disagree, on both counts.

Here is Dr Bailey

**
The claim that anyone can declare, “[they] identified a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus,”85 from a single human subject diagnosed with pneumonia is farcical in itself.
**

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

Dr Bailey relies solely on this one patient being used to find the virus as the basis of his entire part II.

He's right. It was that one patient that started it all. The fact that other virologists then did the same flawed experiments and found the same or similar results doesn't change that.

As I have shown the virus has been found de novo multiple times since then from multiple samples. (Several hundred in one experiment alone.)
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.
The breakdown is when Dr Bailey relies on debunking one experiment but fails to address the hundreds of other times the experiment has been repeated in different labs with different samples with the same results.

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.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that it's the methodology that's flawed. It doesn't matter how many times a flawed methodology is used, if the method is flawed, the results will be too.

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.

The breakdown is when Dr Bailey relies on debunking one experiment but fails to address the hundreds of other times the experiment has been repeated in different labs with different samples with the same results.
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.

Same point as the ones I've made above- a flawed methodology will lead to flawed results.