Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[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

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.

So you don't think the scientific method should be used?

Sigh -.-. I suspect you didn't re-read post #1264. It's up there at the top of the nested quotes for anyone who'd like to take a look. For the record, this started with Saunders referring to a "test" that he alleges was set out by a certain Dr. Bailey back in Saunders' post #1256. I asked him what test he was referring to and he went off on me, thinking it should have been clear. Turns out, he was probably referring to one or more of the tests from Dr. Tom Cowan et al's "Settling the Virus Debate" statement. To this day, he seems unwilling to admit that it wasn't exactly clear as to what test he was referring to.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What do you think I'm denying?



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.



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.




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.



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.



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.



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



On this, we can agree.



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.

ROFLMAO..
So rather than deal with my argument you are just going to deflect, deflect and deflect some more.
Quite the scam you have going there.
The doctors Bailey (both of them) signed the letter but somehow you think they have nothing to do with what is in the letter. Your bullshit is getting ridiculous at this point. Clearly you can't defend your position so can only deflect by arguing about who wrote what or whether an experiment is a test.
1. Your denial is this - I point out that the steps belong to one of the signatories. You deny that the signatory wrote the letter. Rather than refute my arguments you just deny they are the author. DENIAL on your part.

What test? What do you think step 1 is if not a test? It is the only step I have been discussing. Are you a complete idiot? Or are you admitting that you can't defeat the argument so resort to deflection by pretending I have been discussing multiple experiments that are also known as tests under the scientific method.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

"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.

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. It seem I need to make the letters even bigger.
In the letter signed by Dr Mark Bailey and also signed by Dr Sam 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.
Both Dr Baileys agree with the letter that 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.
The letter's test that both Dr Sam Bailey and Dr Mark Bailey signed on to requires that viruses act just like bacteria.
Do you agree that letter's test (a letter that both Bailey's signed) 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 the letter that Dr Sam Bailey and Dr Mark Bailey signed, 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 the letter that both Dr Baileys signed on to asks in step 1?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Sigh -.-. I suspect you didn't re-read post #1264. It's up there at the top of the nested quotes for anyone who'd like to take a look. For the record, this started with Saunders referring to a "test" that he alleges was set out by a certain Dr. Bailey back in Saunders' post #1256. I asked him what test he was referring to and he went off on me, thinking it should have been clear. Turns out, he was probably referring to one or more of the tests from Dr. Tom Cowan et al's "Settling the Virus Debate" statement. To this day, he seems unwilling to admit that it wasn't exactly clear as to what test he was referring to.

Interesting that you would nest all those quotes and then leave out the majority of my posts which is what I keep pointing out you refuse to answer. The readers can see a very clear pattern on your part. You always ignore the part of my post that lays out my argument showing why the first step proposed is not logical and then you claim I haven't substantiated anything.

Let me give my posts in full

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.

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

"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.

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.

proof
noun
1
a
: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b
: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

Both definitions apply to what I have posted.
My evidence has been cogent enough that you have agreed that my premises are true and the conclusion is false. The doctors that signed you letter then propose the conclusion you agree is false as their step 1 experiment.

A is a living creature that is not a microbe and can't be isolated and grown in culture. <--- you have agreed this is true
B is a living creature that is a microbe and can be isolated and grown in culture. <--- you have agreed this is true
C may or may not be a microbe. <--- You have agreed that not all living things are microbes.
therefor
For C to be a living creature it must be isolated and grown in culture as if it was a microbe. <--- you have agreed this is logically faulty and does not follow from the premises.


Now the only question is if C is a virus, what happens with the logical construct. (A logical construct is also called a proof.)
Your sources have argued that scientist try to get around the virus is a microbe argument by claiming viruses aren't subject to the same rules as bacteria. Ergo a virus may or may not be a microbe since there is disagreement about their properties. That means we can substitute "virus" for C and the conclusion is still faulty.

Since the conclusion is faulty any attempt to test using that faulty conclusion would also be faulty.
That leads us to is step 1.
Does the experiment in step 1 of the paper say that viruses must be purified?
Is purification basically the same as isolation and growing in culture since that is the process used for bacteria?
The correct answer for both of those would be yes. Any other answer would be denying facts.

We have already shown that the conclusion to the logic construct is false. So therefor the experiment to prove the existence of viruses proposed in step 1 relies on the faulty logic and is not scientifically sound.

The correct logical conclusion based on the premises is - One can not use the isolation and grown in culture test to test if C exists as a living creature.
One cannot use purification as the test to see if viruses exist is the only logical conclusion that can be reached based on the evidence.

 

[Scott]

What do you think I'm denying?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

On this, we can agree.

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.

ROFLMAO..
So rather than deal with my argument you are just going to deflect, deflect and deflect some more. Quite the scam you have going there.

Ah yes, your "argument". Akin to the "test" that you referred to a while ago. You're going to have to get a tad more specific. Meanwhile, you accuse -me- of "deflecting" and running a "scam", when the truth is that it's you that makes vague statements and simply expects me understand whatever it is you're trying to convey.

The doctors Bailey (both of them) signed the letter but somehow you think they have nothing to do with what is in the letter.

You seem to love to build up these strawmen. I said that there's no hard evidence that they wrote the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement. The fact that Dr. Sam Bailey actually said that it was written by "Tom Cowan et al" suggests that they weren't part of writing it. What they the Baileys did do was sign the statement, along with others.

1. Your denial is this - I point out that the steps belong to one of the signatories.

I've never said that the steps "belong" to anyone. I said that Dr. Tom Cowan should be given -credit- for authoring the statement and all of its steps, rather than the Baileys, since he's the only author of the statement that I know of.

You deny that the signatory wrote the letter.

First of all, which signatory are you referring to? Dr. Tom Cowan is the very first signatory on the list, and as I mentioned previously, Dr. Sam Bailey credited him by name as being the main author of the statement.

What test? What do you think step 1 is if not a test?

At this point, I'm not even completely certain what you mean by "step 1". After doing a bit of re-reading of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, I'm going to -guess- that you mean the following sentence, mainly because it's referred to as "Step 1" later in the statement:

**
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;
**

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

Is that the step 1 you're referring to?

 

[Scott]

"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.

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. It seem I need to make the letters even bigger.

Bolding a statement or coloring it a different color is more than sufficient to get a statement to stand out. Your problem is not the size of your text, it's the fact that you have frequently been pretty vague about what precisely you're referring to.

In the letter signed by Dr Mark Bailey and also signed by Dr Sam 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.

Technically, if that statement is your step 1, it's incomplete. The -complete- step 1 is as I mentioned in the last post, namely:

**
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;
**

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

Purification is the same thing as isolation

Agreed.

which requires that the microbe be grown in a culture.

Here's where we disagree. Growing a microbe in culture has never been a requirement to purify/isolate a microbe, or anything else for that matter.

Both Dr Baileys agree with the letter that is saying that to show that viruses exist they must be isolated and grown in a culture.

No, they don't. Here's what the statement actually says:
**
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
**

 

[Scott]

Sigh -.-. I suspect you didn't re-read post #1264. It's up there at the top of the nested quotes for anyone who'd like to take a look. For the record, this started with Saunders referring to a "test" that he alleges was set out by a certain Dr. Bailey back in Saunders' post #1256. I asked him what test he was referring to and he went off on me, thinking it should have been clear. Turns out, he was probably referring to one or more of the tests from Dr. Tom Cowan et al's "Settling the Virus Debate" statement. To this day, he seems unwilling to admit that it wasn't exactly clear as to what test he was referring to.

Interesting that you would nest all those quotes and then leave out the majority of my posts which is what I keep pointing out you refuse to answer. The readers can see a very clear pattern on your part. You always ignore the part of my post that lays out my argument showing why the first step proposed is not logical and then you claim I haven't substantiated anything.

Let me give my posts in full

Quoting your posts 'in full' doesn't make anything clearer as far as I'm concerned. However, I suspect that my previous 2 posts have clarified a fair amount.

 

[Scott]

"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.

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

I still strongly disagree with your assertion that "unsubstantiated assertion" means "I'm right and you are wrong", but if you believe there's solid evidence that this is in fact that case, by all means provide said evidence.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687097831914692608

Here's why they're having a hard time articulating the reason why vaccines cause myo/pericarditis. It's a catch 22.

If they blame it on the spike protein, as Paul Offit recently did, then the question of lab leak becomes incredibly important. We need to understand why the spike is how it is and whether its origin was related to any bioweapons programs or similar.

If they blame it on the LNP or other core components of the mRNA platform, they're throwing their cash cow under the bus and are risking untold billions in future revenue.

So they're claiming they have no idea about the mechanism by which the vaccines are causing heart damage. Which, in any sane world, would act as rock-solid evidence that the manufacturer has no idea what its product is doing in the human body and trigger an instant recall.

Sadly, in this world, it's just generating awkward clips, so it's the least bad option. If they have to choose, I guess they will blame the spike, and oh boy will that be fun after they've been claiming it's DEFINITELY not cytotoxic for years.

In addition, whenever this question is answered, the same questions will have to be asked about other adverse effects that fit the mechanism, tipping even more dominoes.

The myocarditis mechanism debate is extremely important to follow, as somebody will ultimately have to take the blame, and I really do wonder who it will be.

 

[Scott]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687097831914692608

Here's why they're having a hard time articulating the reason why vaccines cause myo/pericarditis. It's a catch 22.

If they blame it on the spike protein, as Paul Offit recently did, then the question of lab leak becomes incredibly important. We need to understand why the spike is how it is and whether its origin was related to any bioweapons programs or similar.

If they blame it on the LNP or other core components of the mRNA platform, they're throwing their cash cow under the bus and are risking untold billions in future revenue.

So they're claiming they have no idea about the mechanism by which the vaccines are causing heart damage. Which, in any sane world, would act as rock-solid evidence that the manufacturer has no idea what its product is doing in the human body and trigger an instant recall.

Sadly, in this world, it's just generating awkward clips, so it's the least bad option. If they have to choose, I guess they will blame the spike, and oh boy will that be fun after they've been claiming it's DEFINITELY not cytotoxic for years.

In addition, whenever this question is answered, the same questions will have to be asked about other adverse effects that fit the mechanism, tipping even more dominoes.

The myocarditis mechanism debate is extremely important to follow, as somebody will ultimately have to take the blame, and I really do wonder who it will be.

All very good points in regards to vaccines, but I'm not sure if there's any connection to the subject of this thread, namely whether or not biological viruses exist.

 

[Scott]

Because I don't believe in biological viruses,

Your problem. Viruses do exist.

Computer viruses, sure, but I've seen no solid evidence that biological ones exist.

They can be tested for,

Genetic sequences can be tested for. I've seen no solid evidence that any biological virus has ever been discovered though.

indicators can be prepared for them,

I'm not even sure what that means. Feel free to explain.

and you can even view them on modern microscopes.

You can certainly view microbes electron microscopes. I've seen no solid evidence that any of these microbes are biological viruses though. Here's a good quote from Mike Stone, who's been researching the virology fraud for some time now:

**
[The CDC] admittedly are unable to tell images of “SARS-COV-2” apart from different “coronaviruses,” “exosomes,” and other extracellular vesicles. All they are doing is pointing-and-declaring at the same particles while giving them different names.
**

Source:
Uncovering the Corona Fraud Part 18 | Mike Stone

[Virus] presence has been known since the 19th century.

Biological viruses have certainly been postulated since the 19th century. The problem is that there's never been any solid evidence that they actually exist.

 

[Into the Night]

Computer viruses, sure, but I've seen no solid evidence that biological ones exist.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

Genetic sequences can be tested for. I've seen no solid evidence that any biological virus has ever been discovered though.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

I'm not even sure what that means. Feel free to explain.

An indicator is just that. A test for the presence of something.

You can certainly view microbes electron microscopes.

Don't need an electron microscope to see bacteria. You can see viruses with an electron microscope.

I've seen no solid evidence that any of these microbes are biological viruses though.

Argument of ignorance.

Here's a good quote from Mike Stone, who's been researching the virology fraud for some time now:

Quoting other religious freaks is not a valid reference, Sock.

 

[Scott]

Your problem. Viruses do exist.

Computer viruses, sure, but I've seen no solid evidence that biological ones exist.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

I did an internet search for your "Argument of ignorance fallacy". Came up with an entry from Wikipedia titled "Argument from Ignorance", I assume this is what you mean. From their entry:

**
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
**

I have never asserted that I have proof that viruses don't exist. I have simply posited that I've seen no solid evidence that they exist. The same can be said for the doctors and other professionals who signed the document referenced in the opening post of this thread.

 

[Scott]

Genetic sequences can be tested for. I've seen no solid evidence that any biological virus has ever been discovered though.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

If you have evidence you believe is solid that biological viruses have in fact been discovered, by all means, present it.

 

[Scott]

[Viruses] can be tested for, indicators can be prepared for them,

I'm not even sure what that means. Feel free to explain.

An indicator is just that. A test for the presence of something.

Ah, well, sure, tests can certainly be run to detect the presence of something. Genetic sequences, for instance. The problem is that if there is no solid evidence that a given genetic sequence comes from a virus, you have a problem if your goal is to provide solid evicence that viruses actually exist.

 

[Scott]

You can certainly view microbes [through] electron microscopes.

Don't need an electron microscope to see bacteria.

Agreed.

You can see viruses with an electron microscope.

As I've mentioned previously, I've yet to see any solid evidence that any microbe is actually a biological virus.

 

[Into the Night]

I did an internet search for your "Argument of ignorance fallacy". Came up with an entry from Wikipedia titled "Argument from Ignorance", I assume this is what you mean. From their entry:

**
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
**

I have never asserted that I have proof that viruses don't exist. I have simply posited that I've seen no solid evidence that they exist. The same can be said for the doctors and other professionals who signed the document referenced in the opening post of this thread.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Void reference fallacy. You don't get to speak for magickal people, Sock. You only get to speak for you.

 

[Into the Night]

If you have evidence you believe is solid that biological viruses have in fact been discovered, by all means, present it.

I already have, Sock. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, well, sure, tests can certainly be run to detect the presence of something. Genetic sequences, for instance. The problem is that if there is no solid evidence that a given genetic sequence comes from a virus, you have a problem if your goal is to provide solid evicence that viruses actually exist.

I already have, Sock. RQAA.