APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Damocles]

I post links to multiple scientific papers that show how viruses are isolated and sequenced and your response is to disappear for a couple of months and then come back pretending no such evidence was ever presented.

Why do you not disprove the science with your own evidence? Why do you simply repost the same 2-3 sources over and over and over?
Why have your sources never addressed any of the hundreds of scientific articles I could cite?

Here is the post where I cited 20 science articles that you have ignored.

Because his entire argument is that one study wasn't done well enough for him, therefore no studies that confirm the theory could ever be conducted. He also just skips past the actual DNA of the viruses, how they can actually map the genome and predict what symptoms might arise from a novel virus, then test that theory by infecting plants or animals with the virus. That kind of thing doesn't matter, because one study wasn't done up to the standard that he, the uneducated not scientist, thinks it should be.

 

[Scott]

Virologists define isolation in a way that no one else does. To see where this all started, we need to look at the work of Franklin Enders. Quoting from an article that gets into his work:
**
View attachment 45906

For over 60 years, virologists struggled to convincingly demonstrate that they were working with actual pathogenic “viruses” in their experiments. In fact, there wasn't even consensus on what a “virus” was until 1957. However, in 1954, virologist John Franklin Enders, while supposedly working with the measles “virus,” introduced an illogical experimental setup that allowed researchers to claim that they were working with the entities that they believed were present in the fluids of sick patients. This was the cell culture experiment, which began with the assumption that the unseen “viruses” were already present within a sick patient's fluids. When these fluids were added to a Petri dish containing kidney cells from African green monkeys, along with various chemicals and foreign additives, Enders observed what he referred to as the cytopathogenic effect (CPE). This effect was then attributed to “viruses” and used as evidence that these invisible entities are present within the sample, thus completing the illogical circular loop where the effect was taken as proof of the cause. This experimental method was fundamentally flawed, as it was based on the fallacy of begging the question. This basic illogical premise is ingrained in all virology research that has proceeded afterwards.

[snip]

In these cases, people are assuming a connection between two events simply because they occurred one after the other or closely together in time. This same flawed reasoning is evident in the cell culture experiments performed by virologists. They assume that adding unpurified lung fluid or nasal mucus from a sick patient to a culture of monkey kidney cells, followed by the observation of CPE, implies that a “virus” was present in the sample and ultimately caused the CPE. This reasoning ties back to the fallacy of begging the question regarding the existence of the “virus” in the first place, as well as affirming the consequent by using the effect (CPE) as proof of the supposed cause (the “virus”). It's a tangled web of circular reasoning, with no direct proof of any entity described as a pathogenic “virus” before any experiments or observations take place.

This fallacy was utilized by John Franklin Enders in his original 1954 paper establishing the cell culture experiment when he assumed that the CPE that occurred in his “infected” cultures was evidence that he has “isolated” the cause of the effect in the measles “virus.”



Directly after this passage, Enders did concede to other possible causes of the observed CPE. However, he still maintained that the CPE caused by these other “viral” agents or unknown factors resembled the CPE that he was already attributing to a measles “virus.”


Enders would ultimately conclude that the findings in his paper of the cytopathogenic changes supported his presumption that they are caused by the measles “virus.”



Why Enders would initially believe that the cytopathogenic changes observed in tissue and cell cultures were caused by a “measles virus” is puzzling, especially given his own acknowledgments in a paper titled Cytopathology of Virus Infections: Particular Reference to Tissue Culture Studies, published the same year as his measles paper. In this work, Enders made some revealing concessions regarding the interpretation of CPE. He explained that CPE can be triggered by many harmful agents, and that, on its own, this observation could not be conclusively attributed to “viral” activity. Despite this, Enders asserted that an observer familiar with the specific CPE patterns attributed to a particular “virus” might tentatively conclude that a “virus” is responsible.



[snip]

Enders conceded that cytopathogenic changes observed in the lab are influenced by numerous factors—some known, while others remain undefined. He attempted to correlate certain susceptible cell lines with “viral replication,” but he noted that this correlation did not always hold true, and that the opposite was sometimes observed:



Enders tried to argue that certain “viruses” specifically target certain cell types, but he also admitted that there is no absolute relationship between cytotropism in vivo and in vitro:



[snip]

Moreover, Enders admitted that the conditions under which the assumed “virus” has been propagated prior to its study in tissue culture can influence the intensity and degree of CPE. He acknowledged that serial passaging might enhance moderate or weak cytopathogenicity, showing that the researcher's approach can directly influence the observation of CPE:



Finally, Enders recognized that environmental factors—both known and unknown—within the culture can also enhance or suppress cytopathogenic activity. He pointed to the composition of the medium, the temperature of incubation, and the period of cultivation of the cells before the addition of any “virus” as factors that influence CPE:


Thus, it is evident that John Franklin Enders was aware of various factors unrelated to the presence of any “virus” that could cause the cytopathogenic effect he attributed to the “virus.” Given that he had no direct evidence pertaining to the existence of, and actually working with, a pathogenic “virus” (begging the question) and that he used an observed effect to assert the existence of its cause (affirming the consequent), it becomes clear that Enders committed a false cause fallacy. There were multiple known factors capable of producing the same effect, making the explanation of a “virus” unnecessary and entirely illogical.
**

Full article:

ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies

The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers.

mikestone.substack.com

Wow... It seems you think that if you dispute a method used to isolate the measles viruses over 80 years ago it will just negate the next 80 years of science that includes genetic sequencing.

You don't understand- there has never been any isolation of any biological virus, at least in the traditional definition of isolation in science, which is separating something from everything else. Since no alleged biological virus has never been truly isolated, it means that any "genetic sequencing" of the soups they sequence doesn't in any way prove that such sequences are coming from an actual biological virus.

John Franklin Enders won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for showing they they were capable of growing the polio virus in a culture in 1949.

No, but I know that's what is taught. In truth, this is what Enders accomplished:
**
For over 60 years, virologists struggled to convincingly demonstrate that they were working with actual pathogenic “viruses” in their experiments. In fact, there wasn't even consensus on what a “virus” was until 1957. However, in 1954, virologist John Franklin Enders, while supposedly working with the measles “virus,” introduced an illogical experimental setup that allowed researchers to claim that they were working with the entities that they believed were present in the fluids of sick patients. This was the cell culture experiment, which began with the assumption that the unseen “viruses” were already present within a sick patient's fluids. When these fluids were added to a Petri dish containing kidney cells from African green monkeys, along with various chemicals and foreign additives, Enders observed what he referred to as the cytopathogenic effect (CPE). This effect was then attributed to “viruses” and used as evidence that these invisible entities are present within the sample, thus completing the illogical circular loop where the effect was taken as proof of the cause. This experimental method was fundamentally flawed, as it was based on the fallacy of begging the question. This basic illogical premise is ingrained in all virology research that has proceeded afterwards.
**

Source:

ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies

The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers.

mikestone.substack.com

For those who don't know what "begging the question" means:
**
A logical fallacy in which a premise of an argument contains a direct or indirect assumption that the conclusion is true; offering a circular argument; circular reasoning.
**

Source:

begging the question — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You don't understand- there has never been any isolation of any biological virus, at least in the traditional definition of isolation in science, which is separating something from everything else. Since no alleged biological virus has never been truly isolated, it means that any "genetic sequencing" of the soups they sequence doesn't in any way prove that such sequences are coming from an actual biological virus.

And here you go again. Making the same claims without pointing out any errors in the 20 papers I linked to. If only science lived in the 1800s like you wanted it to.

There are 3 ways to isolate viruses. Those ways have been done repeatedly. You have failed to address those 3 methods.

No, but I know that's what is taught. In truth, this is what Enders accomplished:
**
For over 60 years, virologists struggled to convincingly demonstrate that they were working with actual pathogenic “viruses” in their experiments. In fact, there wasn't even consensus on what a “virus” was until 1957. However, in 1954, virologist John Franklin Enders, while supposedly working with the measles “virus,” introduced an illogical experimental setup that allowed researchers to claim that they were working with the entities that they believed were present in the fluids of sick patients. This was the cell culture experiment, which began with the assumption that the unseen “viruses” were already present within a sick patient's fluids. When these fluids were added to a Petri dish containing kidney cells from African green monkeys, along with various chemicals and foreign additives, Enders observed what he referred to as the cytopathogenic effect (CPE). This effect was then attributed to “viruses” and used as evidence that these invisible entities are present within the sample, thus completing the illogical circular loop where the effect was taken as proof of the cause. This experimental method was fundamentally flawed, as it was based on the fallacy of begging the question. This basic illogical premise is ingrained in all virology research that has proceeded afterwards.
**

Source:

ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies

The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers.

mikestone.substack.com

For those who don't know what "begging the question" means:
**
A logical fallacy in which a premise of an argument contains a direct or indirect assumption that the conclusion is true; offering a circular argument; circular reasoning.
**

Source:

begging the question — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Reposting the same lack of science over and over only proves you have no real argument.

It is you that is making a circular argument. You argue that there is only one way to isolate a virus and then you argue that since that way has never been met to your satisfaction that viruses have never been isolated. You have not addressed any of the scientific papers that show viruses being isolated. You are stuck in your circular loop of a logical fallacy.

We have been over this before in that humans like viruses are not bacteria. If you want to argue that viruses must be isolated in the same way as bacteria then humans should have the same requirement for isolation as bacteria. Otherwise you are simply setting up your argument so that it reaches your desired conclusion. A circular argument and a great example of "begging the question" since you set up the test in order to fail.

 

[Scott]

Scott was here 6 months ago promoting the same nonsense. We'll probably see him back here again in another 6 months to a year doing this all over again.

But why? For what purpose?

At this point, it would be a fair assumption to conclude that he is being paid to disseminate disinformation.

I could say the same thing of you with just as little evidence. Insulting others is -so- easy. Providing evidence for one's own positions is another matter entirely.

 

[Scott]

Mr. Stone has analyzed way more than one study. But that's not the only point. There's a passage from a book that has nothing to do with biological viruses that I think is quite apt here. Quoting from it:
**
These are two classic examples of what’s called the “confirmation bias” — or cherry picking evidence. When you’re already convinced that something is true or untrue — you’re always on the lookout for additional proof (and studies) which confirms how right and smart you are.

In order to avoid this mistake and spot real science from pseudoscience, famous science philosopher Karl Popper proposed that real science should be based on the principle of “falsifiability”38 — always looking for evidence which might show that your theory is wrong.39

Let me give you an example. Let’s say you take the hypothesis “All swans are white.” To prove this statement, most people would be tempted to start counting white swans. But as Magda Havas, PhD explains, “no number of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black swan disproves it.”

A much better way to go would be to use falsification, and try to find a black swan. If you look real hard and aren’t able to find a single black swan, you can feel reasonably confident that your theory (all swans are white) is right — even if it hasn’t been definitely proven just yet.

**
Source:
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology (pp. 24-25). (Function). Kindle Edition.

Now, let’s apply this idea to whether biological viruses exist. We don’t verify that they exist by counting studies that suggest that they do. This is the same as counting white swans, and is an example of cherry picking. Instead, we do it by reading articles pointing to flaws in the evidence that they exist — because every single article which provides logical arguments showing that the evidence that they exist is flawed shatters the theory pushed by authorities that they definitely exist.

Since REAL SCIENCE is based on the principle of falsifiability then it should be obvious to you that Mike Stone has done nothing that could be classified as REAL SCIENCE.

On the contrary, I believe that Mr. Stone has done an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in virology.

Pointing out flaws is not falsification.

That depends on how bad the flaws are. As Nicolas Pineault pointed out, if your argument is that there are no black swans, then a single black swan would disprove your theory, regardless of how many white swans exist. Along the same lines, a single paper pointing out the flaws in virology is more important than a hundred that don't.

 

[Scott]

Real science would require that Mike Stone provide an answer of what is in the electron microscope pictures

Not if his goal is to point out the flaws in the reasoning of virologists who believe what they've seen are biological viruses. In case you're wondering, that was in fact his goal.

Thanks for admitting that Mike Stone is not presenting any science.

You apparently don't understand that pointing out flaws in theories is a fundamental aspect of real science.

 

[Scott]

what causes the diseases associated with viruses

He has certainly given alternative explanations for what is observered in laboratories and claimed to be the work of biological viruses. A good article of his where he does this:

ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies

The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers.

mikestone.substack.com

The funny thing is all of his alternative explanations have been falsified so it proves him wrong.

Absolute balderdash, but you're welcome to try to prove that his alternative explanations have been falsified if you like.

 

[Scott]

Not exactly, it's akin to asking an ex-scientologist how scientology isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I can certainly agree that that could apply to anyone who no longer believes in virology. I think his very first line is quite good:
"If you're ever anywhere where you can't question what's put before you..."

My point exactly.

The reason I mention this is that you are arguing that an element of current science (biological viruses) simply doesn't exist.

I think it's safe to say that the doctors and other researchers who no longer believe in virology would argue that viroligy is as scientific as scientology. Quoting from the statement that I quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread:
**
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 rational 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.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

I can certainly agree that that could apply to anyone who no longer believes in virology. I think his very first line is quite good:
"If you're ever anywhere where you can't question what's put before you..."

My point exactly.

Just saying "nuh uh" isn't questioning anything.

Agreed. I suspect you know I've never said "nuh uh".

If you want to prove that the disease caused by viruses are caused by some other thing you need to propose a hypothesis

First of all, I'm sure you're aware that there are -many- diseases that are alleged to be caused by various biological viruses. Secondly, even the medical doctors and other researchers that I reference in the opening post have never said that their goal is to prove anything. Rather, their goal is to ask those who believe in virology to provide solid evidence that biological viruses actually exist. As for other theories as to what causes various diseases attributed to biological viruses, there are certainly plenty of those. As an exampel, here are some alternative theories as to the causes of polio:

A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science

We’re told the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case. There are scientists who believe polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.

childrenshealthdefense.org

The Hidden History Of Polio, the Disease That Never Was

Polio is a nickname for poliomyelitis, which means inflammation of the grey matter of the spinal cord. If you get a lesion on your spinal cord, the corresponding part of your body may develop paralysis.

deeprootsathome.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I could say the same thing of you with just as little evidence. Insulting others is -so- easy. Providing evidence for one's own positions is another matter entirely.

I provided 20 scientific papers. You have not addressed one of them. Being intellectually dishonest seems to be very easy for you.

You have provided no evidence for your position. You just keep repeating the same sources over and over and never addressing the criticisms of those sources.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Absolute balderdash, but you're welcome to try to prove that his alternative explanations have been falsified if you like.

Oh.. look, you provided no evidence to support your claims. All you did is denial.

Whose alternate explanations are you talking about? Explanations that are not able to be falsified would not be science. Your sources are not doing any science. They are simply denying without doing their own work to falsify what they are denying.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think it's safe to say that the doctors and other researchers who no longer believe in virology would argue that viroligy is as scientific as scientology. Quoting from the statement that I quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread:
**
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 rational 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.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

I think it's safe to say you are not aware of what science is. Denial is not science. Cherry picking an alleged error is not science. Science requires doing the actual work.

All you are doing is repeating the same circular arguments over and over and denying that they are circular.
Dr Bailey's argument is that because viruses don't act exactly like bacteria then they don't exist. It is nothing more than "begging the question."
Provide your evidence that viruses are bacteria.

DrBailey makes claims that are not supported by evidence. Would you care to point out what controls were insufficient in the 20 science articles I posted links to? Dr Bailey has not pointed out what is insufficient. Dr Bailey's claims without evidence can be dismissed as insufficient.

 

[Damocles]

I asked him long ago to cite studies that have proven the thousands of studies on viruses wrong, he has not cited a single study, just that stupid book again...

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. I suspect you know I've never said "nuh uh".



First of all, I'm sure you're aware that there are -many- diseases that are alleged to be caused by various biological viruses. Secondly, even the medical doctors and other researchers that I reference in the opening post have never said that their goal is to prove anything. Rather, their goal is to ask those who believe in virology to provide solid evidence that biological viruses actually exist. As for other theories as to what causes various diseases attributed to biological viruses, there are certainly plenty of those. As an exampel, here are some alternative theories as to the causes of polio:

A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science

We’re told the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case. There are scientists who believe polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.

childrenshealthdefense.org

The Hidden History Of Polio, the Disease That Never Was

Polio is a nickname for poliomyelitis, which means inflammation of the grey matter of the spinal cord. If you get a lesion on your spinal cord, the corresponding part of your body may develop paralysis.

deeprootsathome.com

Your alternate theories are complete garbage since they don't even begin to address all the evidence.
If DDT causes polio then why did Polio exist prior to DDT being used? This would be impossible if DDT causes polio.
The highest death rates for Polio occurred in 1916. DDT wasn't used until after WW2.
Then if DDT causes polio why did the number of Polio cases drop drastically after the Polio vaccine was introduced.
By 1963, Polio had dropped to .21 per 100,000 from the 36.45 in 1952. DDT use continued into the 1970s.

The viral explanation of Polio explains the reasons for Polio to exist prior to 1940 and explains the reason for the drop off in cases after the Polio vaccine was introduced in the early 60s.

The problem once again is that you are not doing science. The way to falsify the DDT theory is to show that Polio existed when DDT wasn't in use. Polio did exist when DDT wasn't in use so DDT as the reason for polio has been proven to be false if we use actual science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think it's safe to say that the doctors and other researchers who no longer believe in virology would argue that viroligy is as scientific as scientology. Quoting from the statement that I quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread:

That is not a scientific argument. Science would require that they falsify the virology theory. The fact that they have not falsified it would show that they are not doing science. They are simply spouting garbage and you are eating their garbage.

 

[Scott]

The Cov 2 "virus", like all other viruses, was never isolated in the common meaning (as opposed to virology's twisted meaning) of isolation. Dr. Mark Bailey gets into this in the essay, and the line you quote is certainly part of that. Below, I include it in its proper context. The sentence you quoted is in orange:
**
PROFESSOR STEPHEN BUSTIN’S PRIMING OF A PCR PANDEMIC

Scientists have a tendency to assume that everything outside of their domain of interest is true and that they can just rely on it.

— David Crowe following his interview of Stephen Bustin in April 2020.137

To sustain the illusion of the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’, cases were required. These were provided by the world’s largest ever human ‘testing’ programme involving billions of PCR kits distributed around the world. It remains unclear to us as to why Stephen Bustin, who is a, “world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR, and his research focuses on translating molecular techniques into practical, robust and reliable tools for clinical and diagnostic use,”138 failed to decisively point out the inappropriate use of the PCR process. Bustin was the lead author for the 2009 publication,“The MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments,”139 in which the key conceptual considerations for real-time PCR experiments were outlined as follows:

1. 2.1 Analytical sensitivity refers to the minimum number of copies in a sample that can be measured accurately with an assay, whereas clinical sensitivity is the percentage of individuals with a given disorder whom the assay identifies as positive for that condition...

2. 2.2 Analytical specificity refers to the qPCR assay detecting the appropriate target sequence rather than other, nonspecific targets also present in asample. Diagnostic specificity is the percentage of individuals without a given condition whom the assay identifies as negative for that condition.

If Bustin remained true to the science then he should have called a halt to the PCR pandemic in January 2020 when the Corman-Drosten PCR protocols were published.140 The word ‘specificity’ appears only once in the Corman-Drosten paper and it had nothing to do with diagnosing a clinical condition, let alone a viral infection. There was no “detection of 2019-nCoV” as the paper claimed, all that was established was the analytical specificity of their assay to detect selected target sequences. It was an in vitro molecular reaction experiment with synthetic nucleic acid technology that does not require the existence of a virus. Further, there was no establishment of how the PCR result related to a clinical condition, i.e. the COVID-19 PCR kits were never shown to diagnose anything in a human subject. An invented disease based on a fictional virus.

Aside from the issue of specificity, it was not well publicised that the world-expert on PCR said to David Crowe in April 2020 that, (even on virology’s own terms,) calling a coronavirus PCR result“positive” at 36-37 cycles, as was happening around the world was, “absolute nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever."141 However, the PCR fraud was even more apparent when Eric Coppolino interviewed Bustin on Planet Waves FM in February 2021.142 Coppolino’s intention was to find out more details about the problematic reverse transcription (RT) step of the RT-PCR process but he was stunned after the interview to realise that what he thought was a sometimes inaccurate test was completely fraudulent.143 Bustin appeared uncomfortable when Coppolino pointed out that all positive PCR results were being called a, “confirmed case of infection,” even if they had no symptoms.144 Instead of admitting that the diagnostic specificity of the PCR kits had never been established, Bustin offered peripheral explanations such as claiming that, “ICUs are overrun at the moment.”

He further defended the PCR protocols in use with the assertion that, “this pneumonia was being caused by this virus. And this virus started popping up where more and more people were coming down with the same symptoms. And these primers were detecting that virus.” When Coppolino pushed him on the lack of virus isolation to be able to make these claims, Bustin responded that,“the way the sequence was established by taking the samples from the original patient, growing up something and then sequencing it and then disassembling the sequence and what came out of that was the SARS virus.” Unfortunately, Bustin lent support to virology’s misuse of the word ‘isolation’ and the loose terminology involved in detecting a “virus.” The crucial issue is that it doesn’t matter how well designed any primers are — if the provenance or significance of the genetic sequences being amplified through the PCR are unknown, then nothing more can be concluded by their mere presence. Bustin can reassure the world about the potentially very high analytical performance of a PCR protocol but the establishment of its diagnostic performance is where the rubber meets the road. Even if SARS-CoV-2 had been shown to physically exist and the PCR was accepted as a valid diagnostic tool, Bustin would have to admit that none of the PCR assays have been developed as his MIQE Guidelines specify and none qualify as being clinically-validated.
**

Source:

https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A-FAREWELL-TO-VIROLOGY-Expert-Edition-V1.2.pdf

We are back to you demanding that viruses be treated like bacteria.

No, I'm just pointing out that there's never been any solid evidence that biological viruses actually exist.

Requiring that viruses be isolated like bacteria ignores that viruses are not cells.

You are assuming that biological viruses, as defined by biology textbooks, actually exist at all. What the group of medical doctors and other researchers I've quoted and referenced extensively have been pointing out is that there is no solid evidence that this is the case.

The PCR test has nothing to do with "isolation."

On that we can agree.

It is nonsense to claim that something that looks for sequences of RNA of a virus is not finding the virus.

What is nonsense is to assume that any solid evidence has been found that any RNA sequence actually belongs to a biological virus as defined by medical textbooks.

 

[Scott]

Let's just move on from your ideas of what is "obvious" and get to the actual argument...



I decided to look at the context of your quoted material. Turns out, you're missing quite a lot of revealing information. For anyone who'd like to follow along with Mike Stone's original article, it's here:

The Germ Hypothesis Part 1

Pasteur's Problems

mikestone.substack.com

First of all, his fraudulent method of "infecting" chickens with cholera:
**
However, when discussing how he studied the disease for vaccination, Pasteur stated that he injected his cultured poison into the pectoral muscles and thighs of chickens.

“I inoculate them in their pectoral muscles or, still better, in the muscle of the thigh, so as to observe with greater ease the effect of the innoculation.”

His use of injections to “prove” the microbe as the causative agent was admitted by Pasteur in his 1881 address An Address on Vaccination in Relation to Chicken Cholera and Splenic Fever where he claimed that he injected the blood and cultured broth of “infected” chickens into the skin of healthy chickens.

“Let us take one of our series of culture preparations-the hundredth or the thousandth, for instance—and compare it in respect to virulence with the blood of a fowl which has died of cholera; in other words, let us inoculate under the skin ten fowls, for instance, each separately with a tiny drop of infectious blood and ten others with a similar quantity of the liquid in which the deposit has first been shaken up. Strange to say, the latter ten fowls will die as quickly and with the same symptoms as the former ten: the blood of all will be found to contain after death the same minute infectious organisms.”

Obviously, feeding chickens diseased muscles from other dead chickens and injecting cultured broth and blood into the pecs, thighs, and skin of healthy chickens are not natural routes of exposure, and thus, this recreation of experimental disease would not be reflective of anything that could be observed in nature. These experiments did not line up with Pasteur's hypothesized natural exposure route of the pus of guinea pigs contaminating the feed. Thus, the proposed hypothesis was never tested in any way that could logically confirm or reject it. Instead, Pasteur employed unnatural methods where chickens cannibalized other chickens or were injected with substances in ways that they would not be subjected to in nature, thus invalidating the evidence presented.

However, this isn't the most damning revelation. In the 1882 paper Pasteur's Experiments by Rollin Gregg, M.D., a fatal flaw was pointed out regarding the assumptions made by Pasteur and other researchers studying chicken cholera and related diseases. They were mistaking coagulated fibrin as living microorganisms.

“This brings us then to one of the most important of all questions, for a better and more scientific understandiug of this subject, and that is: What are these microbes? Prof. Pasteur says they are living organisms, bacteria, or vegetable parasites, and all investigators and writers, not only upon these diseases, but on diphtheria as well, assert the same. But have not all such observers overlooked one ever-present and very important fact in all these and similar cases, and that the fact, that in every instance where blood congests, as the result of their inoculation, the fibrin in the blood of the animal inoculated commences at once, or soon, to coagulate, locally at first, and then more or less throughout the whole system, into minute granules as the result of the poison introduced; and that these minute granules of fibrin have been mistaken by them for living organisms, or vegetable parasites?”
Dr. Gregg went on to say that these fibrin particles appear indistinguishable from the forms of bacteria that had been discovered at the time, and that injecting coagulated fibrin into healthy chickens causes the same coagulation to occur within them leading to disease.
Again, it should be borne in mind, that the molecular granules; the fibrils and spirals of coagulating fibrin, are, in their very appearance, and under all circumstances, precisely like the three classified forms* of bacteria, spherical, rod-like and spiral (the microscope has never pointed out the slightest distinction between them), and that they occupy the same positions and demean themselves in precisely the same manner wherever found.

Therefore, if Prof. Pasteur will repeat his highly important experiments, recently reported in London, and while doing so, keep well in view the foregoing facts, he will no doubt be led to revise his conclusions, from seeing that his microbes, or bacteria, of chicken cholera, and of splenic fever, are simply coagulated particles of fibrin in the blood of the diseased animals, and that those caused in healthy animals by their inoculation with such blood, are also nothing but coagulating particles of the fibrin of their blood—the coagulation thereof being simply induced in the healthy animal by like matter, coagulated fibrin, in the diseased animal’s blood, introduced by the inoculation.”
Dr. Gregg then criticized Pasteur for assuming and asserting the presence of unnatural elements within the blood without proof while ignoring a natural element in fibrin that can be proven easily. He then challenged Pasteur to prove his burden of an unnatural element, or the natural explanation should take its place.
“He assumes and asserts the presence of an unnatural and foreign element, vegetable organism, in the blood, etc, without clear proof that they are such, while we can positively assert and prove the actual presence of a normal element, fibrin, there, but morbidly changed, that is, coagulated into minute particles, by the inoculating poison, or by the inflammation which that excites. Therefore, I repeat, the burden of proof lies wholly with him to make good his unnatural claim, or the natural fact must and should take its place.”
Based upon Dr. Gregg's account, we can see that it was a misinterpretation of what Pasteur witnessed within the blood, as well as the unnatural experimental mode of injection, that led to disease. This had absolutely nothing to do with how a chicken would acquire the disease in nature or Pasteur's hypothesized natural exposure route. Thus, Pasteur's experiments failed as an explanation of an observed relationship of a natural phenomenon. Ironically, even Robert Koch rejected some of Pasteur's experiments as worthless and naive, particularly ridiculing his work with chicken cholera.
**

I was going to include what you quoted in this post, but it was passing the 12,000 character limit, so I'll do it in my next post.

Posting garbage doesn't make it not garbage.

Agreed.

 

[Scott]

No, neither I nor the 'no evidence for biological viruses' group referenced in the opening post of this thread have ever claimed that electron micrographs aren't real. The claim is that there is no solid evidence that the microbes recorded in electron micrographs are biological viruses.

Once again. We see nothing but a red herring argument.

On the contrary, I'd say that ignoring the lack of evidence that anything observed in electron microscopes fits the definition of a biological virus is the true red herring.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I'm just pointing out that there's never been any solid evidence that biological viruses actually exist.

I see you have decided to completely ignore the 20 science papers that provide solid evidence and by not looking at them you then claim there is no solid evidence.

You are assuming that biological viruses, as defined by biology textbooks, actually exist at all. What the group of medical doctors and other researchers I've quoted and referenced extensively have been pointing out is that there is no solid evidence that this is the case.

Your sources have not addressed any of the evidence in the 20 science papers I gave you as evidence. Denial on your part only proves you can't defend your positionl

On that we can agree.



What is nonsense is to assume that any solid evidence has been found that any RNA sequence actually belongs to a biological virus as defined by medical textbooks.

What is nonsense is how you fail to refute any of the 20 papers I cited and simply rely on the same 2 people that have no evidence in support of their opinions.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed.

So when are you going to address any of the 20 papers I presented as evidence? It would appear you are going to continue to ignore them and continue with denials that are not supported by any evidence, facts or logic.