Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

and 5g kills us all.

I'd say it's more that there is strong evidence that 5G is harmful to humans and is at least one of the causal factors of the very vague definition of the disease labelled Covid 19.

I get into this in a thread I made in another forum back in 2021 if you're interested. If I were to make another thread like this today, I would change the title somewhat as well as a few other details, but I think for the most part it's a pretty good thread:

Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks | thepoliticsforums.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pseudo-science is actually filled with things that can't be debunked.

If pseudo-science can't be debunked and viral theory is pseudo-science then your posts have not debunked anything and the arguments by Dr Bailey are not persuasive since they can't debunk anything. Your argument that pseudo-science can't be debunked makes no logical sense in light of your continued attempts to debunk what you claim is pseudo-science. At this point you are certainly not making any intelligent arguments.

Virology is a great example of pseudo science in action, which is probably why there have been no virologists who have been willing to try to provide strong evidence that viruses actually exist, or don't, depending on the results of the tests outlined in the opening post of this thread. Science works on finding ways one could try to falsify theories, which is precisely what the authors of the statement made in the opening post of this thread have attempted to do.

Their method is not a valid method. How many times do we have to go over this? You keep repeating the same pseudo-science over and over and ignoring the simple fact that the method is not logically sound. The method as designed is not logical and is therefor pseudo-science.

Dr Bailey has been debunked because his method is flawed. You have agreed his method is flawed. Since you keep avoiding my argument, let me make it bigger so you can't miss 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.

Dr Bailey ignores that living creatures can exist that can't be grown in culture.
Dr Bailey says viruses don't exist and then classifies them as if they do exist and their properties are known.
Dr Bailey then concludes that viruses don't exist because they can't be isolated and grown in a culture.
Dr Bailey is using pseudo-science. You keep quoting Dr Bailey. You are repeating debunked pseudo-science.

First of all, the first definition of refute from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th addition is "To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof." You should know by now that I have seldom if ever claimed that I can prove anything. I tend to simply make arguments that I believe are persuasive.

Secondly, I made 3 responses to your post #1206. Post #1219 was only the first, the other 2 responses being 1220 and 1221. I see that you've responded to those posts as well, via your posts 1231 and 1234. I plan on getting to those relatively soon.

This post didn't actually respond to my post 1229 since you just ignore any argument that shows Dr Bailey's method is flawed. Tell us how a flawed method is valid in your mind. Tell us why you continue to support a method that you agreed is flawed logic. Your attempts to avoid answering for your position is getting very obvious. At this point, I can just keep posting the same response over and over and it will reveal to everyone reading this that you have no valid argument for your position.

Dr Bailey has been debunked because his method is flawed. You have agreed his method is flawed. Since you keep avoiding my argument, let me make it bigger so you can't miss 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.

Dr Bailey ignores that living creatures can exist that can't be grown in culture.
Dr Bailey says viruses don't exist and then classifies them as if they do exist and their properties are known.
Dr Bailey then concludes that viruses don't exist because they can't be isolated and grown in a culture.
Dr Bailey is using pseudo-science. You keep quoting Dr Bailey. You are repeating debunked pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Anyone can claim that their arguments remain undefeated. It's not a very productive use of time, generally akin to saying "You're wrong and I'm right". Better is to stay focused on the arguments themselves.

Then maybe you should stop using that method. You have agreed that the logic Dr Bailey is using is flawed yet you keep using him as if his arguments are right. Repeatedly quoting Dr Bailey instead of addressing the criticisms of his paper shows that you the one that is using the "You're wrong and I'm right." method. Better to stay focused on the actual arguments made than ignoring them and repeating arguments that even you agree are flawed.

Dr. Mark Bailey is claiming that the alleged Cov 2 virus wasn't actually found at all. It all has to do with the flawed methodology used to find biological viruses to begin with.



Glad you asked. From Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), Part II", beginning on page 28:

**
In The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity83 we documented the invention of SARS-CoV-2 by Fan Wu’s team who assembled an in silico “genome” from genetic fragments of unknown provenance, found in the crude lung washings of a single ‘case’ and documented in, “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China.”84 A further analysis of this paper is indicated as it illustrates how the fraudulent COVID-19 pandemic was created by means of an invented “genome” through deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing, which simply sought to detect all the RNA in a crude sample, and how it was misused to invent a non-existent pathogen. The claim that anyone can declare, “[they] identified a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus,”85 from a single human subject diagnosed with pneumonia is farcical in itself. The authors tried to justify this by stating, “although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study.”

Firstly, there was no physical isolation of any virus as will be discussed in detail momentarily. Secondly, their claim of being “independently corroborated” is a reference to the February 2020 paper of Peng Zhou et al. — a paper that cannot corroborate anything and the fraud of which is discussed on page 41. All that can be said is that if circular reasoning is employed, then finding similar genetic sequences on more than one occasion is seen as confirmation of a virus. The GISAID database is the treasure chest of this virological nonsense and by 29 August 2022 had over 12.8 million claims of having ‘found’ SARS-CoV-2.86 However none of them can point to an actual virus, they are simply calling ‘bingo’ by assembling similar sequences which they have aligned with Fan Wu et al. and other previous assemblies, no actual virus required.
.

I started to highlight false and biased statements in your quote and then realized it would quickly turn almost the entire long quote red. Let's just start with the first 2 paragraphs which I have already dealt with numerous times and you have not been able to defend Dr Bailey.
His claim that the method is flawed is unsubstantiated.
His claim that the virus Sars-Cov-2 is based on a single patient is false after we get past the first paper.
His claim that the are simply calling 'bingo' is false.
I have already shown how he ignores evidence but let me simply copy and paste the majority of a previous post since you have not been able to tell us why Dr Bailey insists on ignoring evidence.


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.
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.
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
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
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).

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.
.

Without quoting Dr Bailey's idiotic papers tell us how the methodology is flawed.

This should be easy to do if the methodology is actually flawed.

Failure to respond will show you have no argument!!!

 

[Scott]

No, I just pointed out that a certain logic statement you made was flawed.

Agreed.

He doesn't believe they exist, true. He is -also- asking virologists to provide evidence that they exist.

Congratulations. You have just agreed that Dr Bailey uses the same predicates as I use in the logic construct that you claim is flawed.

I doubt it, but you're welcome to try to persuade me that this is the case.

Now.. Do you agree that Dr Bailey's conclusion is that viruses don't exist?

Yes.

Because that conclusion is the same conclusion that you admit is flawed.

No, it's not.

Yes, but I believe that -all- of those creatures are not microscopic. Or do you know of some other microscopic self replicating entity that can't be grown in culture?

Sure. Virons.

I'm guessing you meant virions. But those are simply a form of these alleged biological viruses:

**
the infectious form of a virus as it exists outside the host cell, consisting of a nucleic acid core, a protein coat, and, in some species, an external envelope.
**

Source:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/virion

 

[Scott]

In this case, it's virologists who have claimed that biological viruses exist. The only thing that the doctors and other professionals referenced in the opening post are saying is that they'd like to see if the virologists can provide solid evidence that they do in fact exist.

Laying out a test that is not logical or scientific is not asking for proof.

Agreed. A few things here. First, the doctors and other professionals referenced in the opening post weren't "asking for proof", as you put it. They were asking for virologists to provide solid evidence that biological viruses existed, and they devised the framework for how to do so. If you claim that their framework is unscientific, it's up to you to provide persuasive evidence that this is the case. Otherwise, it's just another of your unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[Scott]

You keep on going on about these repetitions of the same methodology, when it's the methodology itself that is the problem.

What part of the methodology is flawed. Cite it.

I did so in post 1240. I see that you responded to it in post 1243, which I'm not yet at.

 

[Scott]

Yes, but I believe that -all- of those creatures are not microscopic. Or do you know of some other microscopic self replicating entity that can't be grown in culture?

Sure. Virons.

lol. virons. obviousy only theoretical.

words that dumb are always fake.

I believe he actually meant to say virions. Which are just a form of these alleged biological viruses:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virion

In other words, he hasn't countered my belief that the -only- alleged microscopic parasite that can't be grown in culture are alleged biological viruses.

It's noteworthy that some virologists -claim- to isolate and culture viruses, but if one looks at what they actually do, it becomes apparent that virologists have modified the words to suit their purposes and what they're doing is -not- what is generally considered to be the purification and isolation of a miscroscopic entity.

 

[Scott]

That's not from Dr. Mark Bailey's essay. That's from the Settling the Virus Debate Statement, located here:

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

Setting aside the authorship of the paper (I believe it may be Dr. Tom Cowan), he certainly provides evidence before making that statement. It's a statement that was made in the middle of the second paragraph. Here's the first paragraph and the -complete- second paragraph:

**
It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They 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. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.
**

Please tell us what actual evidence he provides in those 2 paragraphs by highlighting the supposed evidence. I am curious as to what you think is evidence that is introduced to support the conclusion in the second paragraph.

Since Dr Sam Bailey and Dr Mark Bailey both signed that document why can't I consider them authors?

Being a signatory of a statement is not the same thing as being its author. Nevertheless, I believe the authorship was "Dr. Tom Cowan et al", so it's possible that Dr. Mark Bailey played a part in writing it.

Regardless, it's a minor point. Moving on to your main point, I think that the statement itself doesn't provide the bulk of the evidence. It's a short 2 page statement, so it stands to reason. For strong evidence that biological viruses don't exist, I believe that Dr. Mark Bailey's 67 page "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" is the place to look.

 

[Scott]

so i guess phoenyx knows he's "polluting the well" at this point.

Could you elaborate no what you mean by that?

 

[Scott]

Pseudo-science is actually filled with things that can't be debunked.

If pseudo-science can't be debunked and viral theory is pseudo-science then your posts have not debunked anything

True. Pseudo science is all about making claims that are unfalsifiable and virologists have become quite expert at this. The only way to bring virology to heal is to test it by devising experiments that could falsify the hypothesis that biological viruses exist. This is exactly what the statement signed by doctors and other professionals referenced in the opening post have done.

 

[Scott]

You disagree but can't seem to make one logical or valid argument to refute my debunking

Anyone can claim that their arguments remain undefeated. It's not a very productive use of time, generally akin to saying "You're wrong and I'm right". Better is to stay focused on the arguments themselves.

Then maybe you should stop using that method.

What method?

You have agreed that the logic Dr Bailey is using is flawed

No, I have not.

 

[Scott]

Dr. Mark Bailey is claiming that the alleged Cov 2 virus wasn't actually found at all. It all has to do with the flawed methodology used to find biological viruses to begin with.

Glad you asked. From Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), Part II", beginning on page 28:

**
In The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity83 we documented the invention of SARS-CoV-2 by Fan Wu’s team who assembled an in silico “genome” from genetic fragments of unknown provenance, found in the crude lung washings of a single ‘case’ and documented in, “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China.”84 A further analysis of this paper is indicated as it illustrates how the fraudulent COVID-19 pandemic was created by means of an invented “genome” through deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing, which simply sought to detect all the RNA in a crude sample, and how it was misused to invent a non-existent pathogen. The claim that anyone can declare, “[they] identified a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus,”85 from a single human subject diagnosed with pneumonia is farcical in itself. The authors tried to justify this by stating, “although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study.”

Firstly, there was no physical isolation of any virus as will be discussed in detail momentarily. Secondly, their claim of being “independently corroborated” is a reference to the February 2020 paper of Peng Zhou et al. — a paper that cannot corroborate anything and the fraud of which is discussed on page 41. All that can be said is that if circular reasoning is employed, then finding similar genetic sequences on more than one occasion is seen as confirmation of a virus. The GISAID database is the treasure chest of this virological nonsense and by 29 August 2022 had over 12.8 million claims of having ‘found’ SARS-CoV-2.86 However none of them can point to an actual virus, they are simply calling ‘bingo’ by assembling similar sequences which they have aligned with Fan Wu et al. and other previous assemblies, no actual virus required.

I started to highlight false and biased statements in your quote and then realized it would quickly turn almost the entire long quote red. Let's just start with the first 2 paragraphs which I have already dealt with numerous times and you have not been able to defend Dr Bailey.
His claim that the method is flawed is unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantiated claim.

His claim that the virus Sars-Cov-2 is based on a single patient is false after we get past the first paper.

I'm fairly sure you know that it all started with that first paper. From there, it was simple for other virologists to use the same flawed method to arrive at the same false conclusion.

His claim that the are simply calling 'bingo' is false.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

I have already shown how he ignores evidence

Unsubstantiated assertion.

but let me simply copy and paste the majority of a previous post [snip]

Better to simply tell me the post number. I've responded to most if not all of your posts in this thread and I've made a thread tree for the entire thread, so if you give me the number, I can just find the post where I've quite possibly already responded to all the points you made.

 

[Scott]

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.

Without quoting Dr Bailey's idiotic papers tell us how the methodology is flawed.

Insulting Dr. Bailey's essays doesn't actually lend credence to your argument. I personally believe that Dr. Bailey's arguments are quite well reasoned and form a large part of the reasons that I believe that few if any biological viruses exist, so it only makes sense that I would quote him to explain why I believe that most if not all biological viruses don't actually exist.. You may have noticed the slight shift here. If memory serves, Dr. Stefan Lanka, who has questioned the existence of various viruses for quite a while, has argued that there are some very large biological viruses that he believes -do- exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. A few things here. First, the doctors and other professionals referenced in the opening post weren't "asking for proof", as you put it. They were asking for virologists to provide solid evidence that biological viruses existed, and they devised the framework for how to do so. If you claim that their framework is unscientific, it's up to you to provide persuasive evidence that this is the case. Otherwise, it's just another of your unsubstantiated assertions.

If they aren't asking for proof then why do they use the word proof? They also use the words evidence and factual which are part of providing proof.

Are you claiming this statement has nothing do with proving the existence of viruses?
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed
factual: Can something for which there is not proof be deemed factual?

Then this is their first experiment that they want completed
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;
I have repeatedly pointed out that test is pseudo-science.

Laying out a test that is not logical or scientific is not asking for evidence. It is pseudo-science.
This is the logic presented by your "professionals."

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 admitted that their logic is flawed. You have admitted that the predicates are theirs.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Being a signatory of a statement is not the same thing as being its author. Nevertheless, I believe the authorship was "Dr. Tom Cowan et al", so it's possible that Dr. Mark Bailey played a part in writing it.

Regardless, it's a minor point. Moving on to your main point, I think that the statement itself doesn't provide the bulk of the evidence. It's a short 2 page statement, so it stands to reason. For strong evidence that biological viruses don't exist, I believe that Dr. Mark Bailey's 67 page "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" is the place to look.

LOL. So because Dr Bailey signed it he isn't responsible for it's contents? When are you going to stand up for your position and actually defend it instead of repeatedly pointing to pseudo-science?
A conclusion near the beginning of a post that is not even one page long is not OK but a conclusion at the beginning of a 2 page document is just fine? Do you have any standards that you apply consistently?


Dr Bailey's farewell to Virology uses the same false logic as the 2 page paper.

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,

The only psuedo-science I see is Dr Bailey when he posits this test needs to be done when the test itself is not logical.

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 admitted that their logic is flawed. You have admitted that the predicates are theirs. You have pushed their conclusions repeatedly.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. A few things here. First, the doctors and other professionals referenced in the opening post weren't "asking for proof", as you put it. They were asking for virologists to provide solid evidence that biological viruses existed, and they devised the framework for how to do so. If you claim that their framework is unscientific, it's up to you to provide persuasive evidence that this is the case. Otherwise, it's just another of your unsubstantiated assertions.

If they aren't asking for proof then why do they use the word proof?

I took another look at the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement and you're right, it does mention proof near the end. To whit:
**
It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.
**

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

I think that was a mistake- the rest of the statement focuses on evidence, not proof. I strongly believe that the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that most if not all biological viruses don't exist and I think that this statement, along with Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" provide solid evidence that this is the case. So simply asking virologists to ask for solid evidence that viruses exist would have been the better play in my view.

They also use the words evidence and factual which are part of providing proof.

I agree that the word factual and the word proof are closely linked and I also think they should have refrained from using it. The word evidence is another matter entirely- while it -can- be used to try to prove something, it can also be used to simply bolster something, such as a theory (for instance, whether or not biological viruses exist).

Then this is their first experiment that they want completed
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;

I have repeatedly pointed out that test is pseudo-science.

You can say -anything- is "pseudo-science". Much more important in a productive discussion is giving solid reasons as to why you believe this.

Laying out a test that is not logical or scientific is not asking for evidence.

I already agreed with you there. Your problem is that you're not actually providing any evidence that the experiments that the statement mentions aren't logical or scientific.

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 admitted that their logic is flawed. You have admitted that the predicates are theirs.

No, I've pointed out that your ABC statement is flawed, specifically your point C.

 

[Scott]

Since Dr Sam Bailey and Dr Mark Bailey both signed that document why can't I consider them authors?

Being a signatory of a statement is not the same thing as being its author. Nevertheless, I believe the authorship was "Dr. Tom Cowan et al", so it's possible that Dr. Mark Bailey played a part in writing it.

Regardless, it's a minor point. Moving on to your main point, I think that the statement itself doesn't provide the bulk of the evidence. It's a short 2 page statement, so it stands to reason. For strong evidence that biological viruses don't exist, I believe that Dr. Mark Bailey's 67 page "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" is the place to look.

LOL. So because Dr Bailey signed it he isn't responsible for it's contents?

I said being a signatory of a statement doesn't mean that one is the author of said statement. If you can find any flaw in that statement, by all means point it out.

When are you going to stand up for your position and actually defend it instead of repeatedly pointing to pseudo-science?

I've been defending my various positions for some time now. Bandying about the word "pseudo-science" doesn't help move this conversation along.

A conclusion near the beginning of a post that is not even one page long is not OK but a conclusion at the beginning of a 2 page document is just fine?

Not sure what you're referring to here.

Dr Bailey's farewell to Virology uses the same false logic as the 2 page paper.

**
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,
**

[Source: A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), Page 4]

The only psuedo-science I see is Dr Bailey when he posits this test needs to be done when the test itself is not logical.

What test are you referring to?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Unsubstantiated claim.



I'm fairly sure you know that it all started with that first paper. From there, it was simple for other virologists to use the same flawed method to arrive at the same false conclusion.



Unsubstantiated assertion.



Unsubstantiated assertion.



Better to simply tell me the post number. I've responded to most if not all of your posts in this thread and I've made a thread tree for the entire thread, so if you give me the number, I can just find the post where I've quite possibly already responded to all the points you made.

I see you failed to respond to the majority of my post which substantiates what you claim is unsubstantiated in your attempt at "I am right and you are wrong."
Tell us where Dr Bailey deals with everything I have listed below. He doesn't. Since he doesn't deal with any of it then his claim that the method is flawed is unsubstantiated.

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.
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.
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
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
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).

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 took another look at the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement and you're right, it does mention proof near the end. To whit:
**
It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.
**

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

I think that was a mistake- the rest of the statement focuses on evidence, not proof. I strongly believe that the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that most if not all biological viruses don't exist and I think that this statement, along with Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" provide solid evidence that this is the case. So simply asking virologists to ask for solid evidence that viruses exist would have been the better play in my view.



I agree that the word factual and the word proof are closely linked and I also think they should have refrained from using it. The word evidence is another matter entirely- while it -can- be used to try to prove something, it can also be used to simply bolster something, such as a theory (for instance, whether or not biological viruses exist).



You can say -anything- is "pseudo-science". Much more important in a productive discussion is giving solid reasons as to why you believe this.



I already agreed with you there. Your problem is that you're not actually providing any evidence that the experiments that the statement mentions aren't logical or scientific.



No, I've pointed out that your ABC statement is flawed, specifically your point C.

The question is how can they require a creature be isolated and grown in culture if that creature is not a bacteria?
My logical construct is the same as what they are using. You have agreed that their logic is flawed while at the same time you defend their flawed logic.
Do your "professionals" require that viruses be isolated and grown in a culture as one of their steps to show viruses exist? That is precisely what step one is in their letter. Either you are not familiar with their arguments or you are trying to avoid the flaws in their arguments.

Dr Bailey ignores that living creatures can exist that can't be grown in culture.
Dr Bailey says viruses don't exist and then classifies them as if they do exist and their properties are known.
Dr Bailey then concludes that viruses don't exist because they can't be isolated and grown in a culture.
Dr Bailey is using pseudo-science. You keep quoting Dr Bailey. You are repeating debunked pseudo-science.