Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.



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



Not sure what you're referring to here.



What test are you referring to?

OMG. Are you really saying that? What test?
The letter is only 2 pages long. Read the damn thing. Pretending they don't require certain tests shows you are being disingenuous. What do you think an experiment is? Is it not a test? Isn't that the whole point of science? It has to be falsifiable. How do you conduct an experiment if it isn't a test of the falsifiabilty of the theory?

From Dr Bailey -
Because a scientific theory demands evidence that has repeatedly been tested and corroborated in
accordance with the scientific method,

This is from the 2 page paper
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed
factual:
It certainly looks to me like he is setting up a test of what requirements need to be met. But then we we look at the actual experiments that he wants to use in that test we get to the first flaw in his test.



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.

Why is Dr Bailey wrong?
You have agree that this logic is false.
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.

Science requires that the tests be falsifiable. Dr Bailey's requirements are not falsifiable since they are not logical.

 

[Scott]

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."

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Tell us where Dr Bailey deals with everything I have listed below. He doesn't.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

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

Apparently it's news to you, but that one patient was in fact the basis for the alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus.

As I have shown the virus has been found de novo multiple times since then from multiple samples.

Do you even know what de novo means? Journalist Iain Davis gets into its meaning in an article on the alleged Cov 2 virus that he published in Off Guardian way back in 2020. He actually starts to expose the fraud inherent in the "origina" Cov virus as well. Quoting from it:

**
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.

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.

In 2003 a team of researchers from from Hong Kong studied 50 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). They took samples from 2 of these patients and developed a culture in fetal monkey liver cells.

They created 30 clones of the genetic material they found. Unable to find evidence of any other known virus, in just one of these cloned samples they found genetic sequences of “unknown origin.”

Examining these unknown RNA sequences they found 57% match to bovine coronavirus and murine hepatitis virus and deduced it was of the family Coronaviridae. Considering these sequences to suggest a newly discovered SARS-CoV virus (new discoveries being ambrosia for scientists), they designed RT-PCR primers to test for this novel virus. The researchers stated:

Primers for detecting the new virus were designed for RT-PCR detection of this human pneumonia-associated coronavirus genome in clinical samples. Of the 44 nasopharyngeal samples available from the 50 SARS patients, 22 had evidence of human pneumonia-associated coronavirus RNA.”

Half of the tested patients, who all had the same symptoms, tested positive for this new alleged virus. No one knows why the other half tested negative for this novel SARS-CoV virus. The question wasn’t asked.

This supposed virus had just a 57% sequence match to allegedly known coronavirus. The other 43% was just “there.” Sequenced data was produced and recorded as a new genome as GenBank Accession No. AY274119.

The Wuhan researchers subsequently found an 79.6% sequence match to AY274119 and therefore called it a novel strain of SARS-CoV (2019-nCoV – eventually renamed SARS-CoV-2). No one, at any stage of this process, had produced any isolated, purified sample of any virus. All they had were percentage sequence matches to other percentage sequence matches.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

 

[Scott]

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?

No, the question is, is there any solid evidence that any biological virus actually exists? So far, I haven't found any, though I will point out that Dr. Stefan Lanka, who certainly doesn't believe in the Covid 19 virus, does apparently believe there are a few large entities that have been labelled as viruses that are real. I don't remember where I saw this, so that's all I can say on that. Dr. Stefan Lanka has some interesting things to say on the alleged Cov 2 virus. I'll quote a bit from the introduction of an article he did on it. Note that, like Dr. Mark Bailey, he points out that virologists fail to do sufficient control experiments:

**
The definition of SARS and Corona or COVID-19 states that atypical pneumonia is regarded as the disease characterising symptom. If known pathogens can be proven with pneumonia, it is characterised as a typical pneumonia, if not, then as atypical. The defining factor of SARS, Corona ‘virus’ and at least 20%-30% of all pneumonias is they are atypical. The causes for atypical pneumonias are well known and should not be claimed to be because of an unknown virus.

This fact is suppressed by Infectious disease experts and virologists and is the basis of the current fear-mongering and panic, because the afflicted, the public and the politicians have the impression that atypical pneumonias are especially dangerous and would be more frequently deadly because there are still no medications nor vaccines for this apparent new type of disease.

From the time that a test for the alleged ‘new virus’ was offered, healthy people also tested “positive” and the case count was automatically raised, which was covered up by the concerned parties. First, people with typical pneumonias were recorded and then more and more people with other diseases. This is regarded as empirical evidence for the spreading of the virus. More and more diseases are automatically added to the original disease “atypical pneumonia” and this “syndrome” is claimed to be “the new viral disease.”

The other defining factor, and not just for the SARS- and the Corona-virus, is that virologists who allege that pathogenic viruses exist suppressed a well-known fact for understandable reasons. The virus test that is used is a genetic test. The genetic sequences which they seek in the test are not isolated from a virus. They isolate typical genetic sequences, which are released in increasing quantities when tissues and cells die. These generally short genetic sequences, which are component parts of the human metabolism need to be studied further. Virologists can theoretically construct, with the help of a computer program, long genetic strands from many short genetic sequences. These are then claimed to be real viral genetic strands. That is the reason why healthy people who are repeatedly tested have a positive test.

Consistently, the virologists ignore two of the prescribed rules of science so that they do not contradict themselves. The first is to consistently verify all assertions oneself. The second is to test all assumptions and methods by means of control experiments. If they would carry out the control experiments, they would discover that all the genetic sequences, which are theoretically connected together to form a viral genetic strand originate from the human metabolism and not from outside, from an alleged virus.

**

Source:
Misinterpretation VIRUS II (2) by Dr. Stefan Lanka – Beginning and End of the Corona Crisis | yummy.doctor

My logical construct is the same as what they are using.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

You have agreed that their logic is flawed

No, I have agreed that -your- logic is flawed.

Do your "professionals" require that viruses be isolated and grown in a culture as one of their steps to show viruses exist?

Yes.

Dr Bailey ignores that living creatures can exist that can't be grown in culture.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Dr Bailey says viruses don't exist and then classifies them as if they do exist and their properties are known.

Dr. Mark Bailey certainly doesn't believe viruses exist, but that doesn't mean that he can't relate how these alleged viruses are classified.

Dr Bailey then concludes that viruses don't exist because they can't be isolated and grown in a culture.

That sounds about right. One thing I'd like to point out though: I checked Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)" just now. The word "proof" is mentioned 12 times in his essay, but it's always in relation to how virologists believe they have "proof" that viruses exist. Not once did he say that there was proof that biological viruses -don't- exist.

 

[Scott]

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.

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

Not sure what you're referring to here.

What test are you referring to?

OMG. Are you really saying that? What test?
The letter is only 2 pages long. Read the damn thing.

I did. I'm going to assume you did as well, though clearly you read it poorly. I'll quote a relevant portion of the document to make my point:

**
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;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**

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

I bolded the most important word in red. Note that it's experiments, with an s. And that's not even all the experiments that are outlined in the statement. There's also the suggested experiments mentioned in "Step One" and "Step Two" of the statement. So if you could be more specific as to what specific experiment you're referring to, it would be appreciated.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Unsubstantiated assertion.

That seems to be your version of "I'm right and you're wrong." It certainly doesn't address anything I have provided to refute your sources.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

That seems to be your version of "I'm right and you're wrong."

Apparently it's news to you, but that one patient was in fact the basis for the alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus.

One patient was the basis for one paper. Multiple instance of de novo assembly have been completed since then using hundreds of different samples from hundreds of different patients. This is the thing that Dr Bailey fails to address. How could de novo assembly result in the same or with only slight variations because of evolution if the RNA doesn't exist? Dr Baily ignores evidence. You ignore evidence. Ignoring evidence is pseudo-science. Dr Bailey is practicing pseudo-science. You are practicing pseudo-science.

Do you even know what de novo means? Journalist Iain Davis gets into its meaning in an article on the alleged Cov 2 virus that he published in Off Guardian way back in 2020. He actually starts to expose the fraud inherent in the "origina" Cov virus as well. Quoting from it:

**
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.

Do you know what that means? It means every time that a de novo assembly is done they are doing it as if they have no knowledge of what the correct sequence is. That means if they do 6000 de novo assemblies, each of those is not relying on any other known sequence.
If they are simply assembling a new sequence every time, why would all the de novo assemblies result in the same sequence? The most likely reason is that the sequence is a real sequence. If they were randomly doing the assembly then they would never get the same sequence twice let alone over 6000 times.
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.

Then to make it even clearer that Dr Bailey and you are pushing pseudo-science we have this:
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

In that paper they did multiple de novo assemblies of multiple samples using 8 different products and then compared the results of those products to see which worked best. They found 8 different viruses in the samples and they found the same viruses in each sample using different assemblers. This would be impossible if they were simply using random data to manufacture the sequences. If viruses don't exist then why are they not finding Sars-COV-2 in every sample? Why are they not finding different viruses when they split the patient samples to use with different assemblers? The results in this paper would be impossible based on Dr Bailey's claims and yet we have multiple instances of samples resulting in de novo assembly of one virus and not of other viruses.
Explain why the patient samples that found Denge didn't find Sars-COV-2.
Explain why the patient samples that found Denge using one assembler also found Denge using other assemblers.
Explain why the samples that were marked being from a Denge patient only found Denge and not any of the other 7 viruses.

Now, can you refute this or will you continue to ignore it like you have always done?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I did. I'm going to assume you did as well, though clearly you read it poorly. I'll quote a relevant portion of the document to make my point:

**
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;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**

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

I bolded the most important word in red. Note that it's experiments, with an s. And that's not even all the experiments that are outlined in the statement. There's also the suggested experiments mentioned in "Step One" and "Step Two" of the statement. So if you could be more specific as to what specific experiment you're referring to, it would be appreciated.

Is an experiment a test? How can you falsify something if you are not testing it?

But why are you asking they conduct an experiment that you have already said is not logical?
Step 1 would provide no valid evidence of the existence of viruses since you have already admitted that such an experiment is false logic.

That raises the question of why you cut off my post at that point and didn't answer the part that rebuts what you keep repeating.
Instead of replying to my entire post, you simply cut it off and don't answer the part that shows you are conducting pseudo-science. Let me post it again so you can respond in full this time.


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.

Why is Dr Bailey wrong?
You have agreed that this logic is false.
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.

Science requires that the tests be falsifiable. Dr Bailey's requirements are not falsifiable since they are not logical.
Step 1 of the experiments required by Dr Bailey doesn't provide evidence of anything since we know that a living creature can exist that can't be isolated or grown in culture. The only evidence provided by step 1 is evidence that Dr Bailey is conducting pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

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."

Unsubstantiated assertion.

That seems to be your version of "I'm right and you're wrong." It certainly doesn't address anything I have provided to refute your sources.

I'm wondering if you even know what the meaning of "unsubstantiated assertion" is. Just in case you don't, it means you haven't substantiated your assertion, at least as far as I could tell. That's quite different from saying "i'm right and you're wrong".

 

[Scott]

Apparently it's news to you, but that one patient was in fact the basis for the alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus.

One patient was the basis for one paper.

Yes, and it is the authors of that one paper that has been hailed as the discoverers of the Cov 2 virus.

Do you even know what de novo means? Journalist Iain Davis gets into its meaning in an article on the alleged Cov 2 virus that he published in Off Guardian way back in 2020. He actually starts to expose the fraud inherent in the "origina" Cov virus as well. Quoting from it:

**
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.

Do you know what that means? It means every time that a de novo assembly is done they are doing it as if they have no knowledge of what the correct sequence is.

I can believe it for the original Wuhan authors, but I can't believe it for anyone else afterwards. Put simply, they knew what to look for. Or are you saying that anyone after them didn't know of the Wuhan paper?

 

[Scott]

I did. I'm going to assume you did as well, though clearly you read it poorly. I'll quote a relevant portion of the document to make my point:

**
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;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**

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

I bolded the most important word in red. Note that it's experiments, with an s. And that's not even all the experiments that are outlined in the statement. There's also the suggested experiments mentioned in "Step One" and "Step Two" of the statement. So if you could be more specific as to what specific experiment you're referring to, it would be appreciated.

Is an experiment a test?

Pretty much, yeah:
**
the process of testing : EXPERIMENTATION
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment

How can you falsify something if you are not testing it?

I agree that tests need to be conducted to falsify things.

But why are you asking they conduct an experiment that you have already said is not logical?

Here is where your logic fails. All I ever did was point out the flaw in -your- logical statement. You have yet to connect your flawed logic with any logic that the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement has used.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pretty much, yeah:
**
the process of testing : EXPERIMENTATION
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment



I agree that tests need to be conducted to falsify things.



Here is where your logic fails. All I ever did was point out the flaw in -your- logical statement. You have yet to connect your flawed logic with any logic that the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement has used.

Let's see if big letters help you to understand something that is simple.
Dr Bailey step 1 is:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being.

Purification is the same thing as isolation which requires that the microbe be grown in a culture.
Dr Bailey is saying that to show that viruses exist they must be isolated and grown in a culture.

Do you agree that is the same thing as saying?
For viruses to be a living creature it must be isolated and grown in culture.

Bacteria are microbes. Bacteria can be isolated and grown in a culture.
Dr Bailey's test requires that viruses act just like bacteria.
Do you agree that Dr Bailey's test requires that viruses be isolated and grown in a culture as if they are microbes?

Now that we have established that this is the requirement of the test proposed by Dr Bailey, let's repeat it once again.
C are viruses
For C to be a living creature it must be isolated and grown in culture as if it was a microbe.

Do you agree that that statement is exactly what Dr Bailey asks in step 1?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm wondering if you even know what the meaning of "unsubstantiated assertion" is. Just in case you don't, it means you haven't substantiated your assertion, at least as far as I could tell. That's quite different from saying "i'm right and you're wrong".

I know exactly what your use of the words "unsubstantiated assertion" mean. It means "I'm right and you are wrong" since it is used by you to avoid the rest of any post or previous post that provides the substantiation for my statement.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pretty much, yeah:
**
the process of testing : EXPERIMENTATION
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment



I agree that tests need to be conducted to falsify things.



Here is where your logic fails. All I ever did was point out the flaw in -your- logical statement. You have yet to connect your flawed logic with any logic that the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement has used.

Since you know that an experiment is a test, why did you ask this?
What test are you referring to?
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Do you have amnesia? Or are you just a troll?

 

[Scott]

Pretty much, yeah:
**
the process of testing : EXPERIMENTATION
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment

I agree that tests need to be conducted to falsify things.

Here is where your logic fails. All I ever did was point out the flaw in -your- logical statement. You have yet to connect your flawed logic with any logic that the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement has used.

Let's see if big letters help you to understand something that is simple.

Dr Bailey step 1 is:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being.

Purification is the same thing as isolation which requires that the microbe be grown in a culture.

2 points I'd like to make:

1- The "Settling the virus statement" was written by Dr. Tom Cowan "et al". The et al may have included Dr. Mark Bailey and even his wife Dr Sam Bailey for all I know, but it's not a certainty. The only person I'm certain contributed to it was Dr. Tom Cowan, so I think it'd be better to call it Dr. Cowan's paper.

2- I agree that purification means the same thing as isolation, but purification/isolation has nothing to do with being grown in culture. As a matter of fact, if you read the 5 points carefully, you'll find that they're not actually asking for any alleged virus to be grown in culture at all. Virologists have often claimed that this can't be done for many viruses, so they've actually requested something quite different. It's written quite clearly in step 4:

**
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
**

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

The problem for virologists is that they haven't even shown solid evidence that they've ever isolated/purified a virus, in the regular sense of the term, which means removing everything -but- alleged viruses, so there's no way they could get to step 4.

 

[Scott]

I'm wondering if you even know what the meaning of "unsubstantiated assertion" is. Just in case you don't, it means you haven't substantiated your assertion, at least as far as I could tell. That's quite different from saying "i'm right and you're wrong".

I know exactly what your use of the words "unsubstantiated assertion" mean. It means "I'm right and you are wrong" [snip]

Once again, you're making an unsubstantiated assertion. Par for the course I guess. For those who'd like to read the definition of substantiated for themselves:

**
to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFY
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantiate

 

[Scott]

Pretty much, yeah:
**
the process of testing : EXPERIMENTATION
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment

I agree that tests need to be conducted to falsify things.

Here is where your logic fails. All I ever did was point out the flaw in -your- logical statement. You have yet to connect your flawed logic with any logic that the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement has used.

Since you know that an experiment is a test, why did you ask this?

I suggest you re-read my post #1264. Pay particular attention to the word in red.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

2 points I'd like to make:

1- The "Settling the virus statement" was written by Dr. Tom Cowan "et al". The et al may have included Dr. Mark Bailey and even his wife Dr Sam Bailey for all I know, but it's not a certainty. The only person I'm certain contributed to it was Dr. Tom Cowan, so I think it'd be better to call it Dr. Cowan's paper.

2- I agree that purification means the same thing as isolation, but purification/isolation has nothing to do with being grown in culture. As a matter of fact, if you read the 5 points carefully, you'll find that they're not actually asking for any alleged virus to be grown in culture at all. Virologists have often claimed that this can't be done for many viruses, so they've actually requested something quite different. It's written quite clearly in step 4:

**
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
**

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

The problem for virologists is that they haven't even shown solid evidence that they've ever isolated/purified a virus, in the regular sense of the term, which means removing everything -but- alleged viruses, so there's no way they could get to step 4.

1. Denial on your part. Dr Bailey signed the paper. Both Dr Baileys signed it. Claiming he didn't write it is irrelevant to the discussion of what is in the paper. It is simply you trying to use the red herring fallacy to direct the argument away from what you clearly don't want to discuss which is the fallacy in the paper.

2. How cute that you simply deny what Dr Bailey writes.
At the heart of the matter is a simple concept and we
need to see evidence that alleged disease-causing particles cause new particles that are clones of
the former.

The problem for Dr Bailey and you is that you both are using pseudo-science. Once again, you failed to address my argument and simply cut it off.

Here it is again.
Let's see if big letters help you to understand something that is simple. Perhaps you need even bigger letters. I can add color if you continue to ignore it.
Dr Bailey step 1 is:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being.

Purification is the same thing as isolation which requires that the microbe be grown in a culture.
Dr Bailey is saying that to show that viruses exist they must be isolated and grown in a culture.

Do you agree that is the same thing as saying?
For viruses to be a living creature it must be isolated and grown in culture.

Bacteria are microbes. Bacteria can be isolated and grown in a culture.
Dr Bailey's test requires that viruses act just like bacteria.
Do you agree that Dr Bailey's test requires that viruses be isolated and grown in a culture as if they are microbes?

Now that we have established that this is the requirement of the test proposed by Dr Bailey, let's repeat it once again.
C are viruses
For C to be a living creature it must be isolated and grown in culture as if it was a microbe.

Do you agree that that statement is exactly what Dr Bailey asks in step 1?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Once again, you're making an unsubstantiated assertion. Par for the course I guess. For those who'd like to read the definition of substantiated for themselves:

**
to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFY
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantiate

LOL. You keep ignoring my proof. Because you refuse to argue against my proof doesn't make my claim unsubstantiated. It is merely an attempt by you to avoid the actual argument and insist you are right by claiming my statement is unsubstantiated as you then don't quote the part of my post that substantiates my claim.

Your continued use of the words "unsubstantiated assertion" is simply a childish attempt on your part to say, "I'm right and you are wrong" so you don't have to disprove my statements that you continually refuse to quote or respond to.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I suggest you re-read my post #1264. Pay particular attention to the word in red.

So you don't think the scientific method should be used?
Scientific method -
question
hypothesis
Prediction
Testing -(often by conducting experiments)
Analysis

Your arguments at this point are nothing but logical fallacies. Your childish attempt to avoid the scientific method is noted.

 

[Scott]

Let's see if big letters help you to understand something that is simple.

Dr Bailey step 1 is:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being.

Purification is the same thing as isolation which requires that the microbe be grown in a culture. Dr Bailey is saying that to show that viruses exist they must be isolated and grown in a culture.

2 points I'd like to make:

1- The "Settling the virus statement" was written by Dr. Tom Cowan "et al". The et al may have included Dr. Mark Bailey and even his wife Dr Sam Bailey for all I know, but it's not a certainty. The only person I'm certain contributed to it was Dr. Tom Cowan, so I think it'd be better to call it Dr. Cowan's paper.

2- I agree that purification means the same thing as isolation, but purification/isolation has nothing to do with being grown in culture. As a matter of fact, if you read the 5 points carefully, you'll find that they're not actually asking for any alleged virus to be grown in culture at all. Virologists have often claimed that this can't be done for many viruses, so they've actually requested something quite different. It's written quite clearly in step 4:

**
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
**

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

The problem for virologists is that they haven't even shown solid evidence that they've ever isolated/purified a virus, in the regular sense of the term, which means removing everything -but- alleged viruses, so there's no way they could get to step 4.

1. Denial on your part.

What do you think I'm denying?

Dr Bailey signed the paper. Both Dr Baileys signed it. Claiming he didn't write it is irrelevant to the discussion of what is in the paper.

Agreed, but it's -not- irrelevant when it comes to who should be given credit for the steps mentioned in the paper. It seems you want to make this all about Dr. Mark Bailey, or at best, include his wife Dr. Sam Bailey, but the fact of the matter is that there are a good deal more doctors involved. If you're going to talk about the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, which Dr. Sam Bailey credited as having been written by "Dr. Tom Cowan et al", it simply makes more sense to say that they are Dr. Tom Cowan's steps, not Dr. Mark Bailey's.

2. How cute that you simply deny what Dr Bailey writes.

You really need to stop being so vague sometimes. First of all, there are 2 Dr. Baileys who have written articles on the subject of whether or not biological viruses exist. Saying that I "deny what Dr. Bailey writes" is akin to saying that someone denies what Edgar Allen Poe writes. You're going to need to be a tad more specific.

At the heart of the matter is a simple concept and we need to see evidence that alleged disease-causing particles cause new particles that are clones of the former.

The problem for Dr Bailey and you is that you both are using pseudo-science. Once again, you failed to address my argument and simply cut it off.

Alright, for those trying to follow along, Saunders has now jumped to a sentence from "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)", page 11, paragraph 2. I don't know why he decided to quote that line, or label it "pseudo-science", perhaps he can explain in the next post.

Here it is again.

Let's see if big letters help you to understand something that is simple. Perhaps you need even bigger letters. I can add color if you continue to ignore it.

Dr Bailey step 1 is:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being.

Again, for anyone trying to follow along, Saunders has now once again jumped to Dr. Tom Cowan et al's "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, page 1.

Purification is the same thing as isolation which requires that the microbe be grown in a culture.

I agree that purification is the same thing as isolation, but your statement after that has several points that need to be addressed.

For starters, purification/isolation of a substance doesn't actually need to be grown i a culture. If that were the case, proteins, which are smaller than alleged viruses, wouldn't be able to be isolated/purified, because proteins don't "grow in culture". Everyone agrees that they are not alive in the sense that they don't reproduce by any means. Note the fact that while proteins are smaller than these alleged viruses, they can still be purified/isolated, whereas viruses for some reason can't be. The simple explanation is they can't be isolated/purified because they simply don't exist and when you remove everything that isn't these alleged "viruses" you're left with nothing at all.

Secondly you don't need to be classified as a microbe to be grown in culture. Certain virologists have claimed to grow viruses in culture, but not all people agree that these alleged viruses are microbes.

Dr Bailey is saying that to show that viruses exist they must be isolated and grown in a culture.

First of all, which Dr. Bailey are you referring to? And secondly, where does Dr. Bailey say this?

Bacteria are microbes. Bacteria can be isolated and grown in a culture.

On this, we can agree.

Dr Bailey's test requires that viruses act just like bacteria.

Not sure what "test" you're referring to. I can say that Dr. Tom Cowan's "Settling the Virus Debate" statement makes it clear that their test doesn't involve growing alleged viruses in culture.

 

[Scott]

Once again, you're making an unsubstantiated assertion. Par for the course I guess. For those who'd like to read the definition of substantiated for themselves:

**
to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFY
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantiate

LOL. You keep ignoring my proof.

"Proof"? You have made a -lot- of unsubstantiated assertions. There's no way that any alleged single "proof" is going to whisk them all away. Furthermore, anyone can say they have proof of whatever claim they're making. The trick is not to simply say it, it's to prove it.