APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

Show me solid evidence that any of the microbes recorded in any electron micrograph is actually a biological virus and then we can talk about your "proofs".

You will simply post the same garbage over and over and over as you have done for over the last year.

Insulting the quality of your opponent's arguments is not quite as bad as directly insulting your opponent, but it's still pretty bad. If you don't find an argument to be persuasive, you should simply point out why and leave it at that.

Proof it is a virus -

It came from a creature or plant showing signs of a disease.

Your argument seems to be that if a creature or plant shows signs of disease, then anything that "came" from it must be a virus. This is nonsense.

It was grown in a cell culture.

If you can show me any solid evidence that a biological virus was "grown" anywhere, by all means, present it.

It was isolated using one of several different methods

I've seen absolutely no evidence that any biological virus has ever been isolated using the conventional definition of the term. This is something that the signers of the statement referenced in the opening post talk about extensively. Quoting from the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement:
**
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

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.
Define virus.
Then tell us how a picture is supposed to fit that definition.

Pictures of something don't fit a definition of actions or DNA/RNA. It is another red herring on your part to claim that something observed in an electron microscope doesn't fit the definition of a virus. The pictures show that viruses exist because they exist physically and can be photographed. The pictures also show that specific viruses have unique shapes. The pictures also prove that viruses can be isolated in order to have the pictures taken.

You are simply running from one isolated denial to another isolated denial trying to avoid the fact that your denials don't make sense when we put them all together. Science requires you look at ALL THE EVIDENCE at the same time. You don't get to ignore 95% of the evidence to try to deny 5%.

 

[Scott]

Hold on there. Before you go on about what you think biological viruses are -doing-, you first need to establish solid evidence that they exist.

We already have that. The DNA is irrefutable.

"The" DNA? What DNA are you referring to?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Insulting the quality of your opponent's arguments is not quite as bad as directly insulting your opponent, but it's still pretty bad. If you don't find an argument to be persuasive, you should simply point out why and leave it at that.

Advice you should learn to live by. You have never pointed out why the argument for viruses is not persuasive. You have only relied on denial and running away from the majority of the evidence.

Your argument seems to be that if a creature or plant shows signs of disease, then anything that "came" from it must be a virus. This is nonsense.

Lovely straw man fallacy. It appears you can't make a persuasive argument so have to resort to lies and obfuscation.

If you can show me any solid evidence that a biological virus was "grown" anywhere, by all means, present it.

Did you look at any of the 20 papers I presented? It would appear not since you have not addressed one of them.
Asking me for evidence and then not looking at the evidence is not a valid argument on your part. It shows there is no quality at all to your argument. You simply repeat the same dictas over and over, demand evidence and then ignore the evidence.

I've seen absolutely no evidence that any biological virus has ever been isolated using the conventional definition of the term. This is something that the signers of the statement referenced in the opening post talk about extensively. Quoting from the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement:

You have refused to even look at any evidence. Your blindness is not based on lack of evidence from me but is based on your continued refusals to even look at any evidence.

**
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

And there you go again. Reposting the same crap from Dr Bailey instead of addressing any of the evidence you have been presented.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

"The" DNA? What DNA are you referring to?

Denial again on your part. How can you argue that viruses don't exist when you don't even understand the arguments for why they exist?

 

[Scott]

Unsubstantiated assertion on your part. There is a lot of solid evidence that a lot of microbes fit the definition of biological viruses. There is a lot of evidence including aver a thousand years of circumstantial evidence that viruses exist.

Alright, show me this evidence then.

Let me know when Mike Stone, Dr Bailey or you have refuted any of the following -
Then I can get to the next 20 -

Structure and Organization of Virus Genomes - PMC

This chapter provides an in depth study on the structure, composition, and organization of viral genomes, their classification into double stranded and single stranded DNA viruses, positive and negative stranded RNA viruses with and their genome ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Once again, I'd like to point out that no one has said that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist. What the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement posits is that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time, because to date, I've seen no paper that questions the underlying assumptions inherent in such papers, which is that biological viruses exist. What I and the signatories in the "Settling" statement are asking for is solid evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.

 

[Damocles]

"The" DNA? What DNA are you referring to?

This has to be the thirtieth time that you have asked that and I answered every single time.

Genetic sequencing of viruses exist. They can use it to map patient zero, and using a DNA map of a novel virus they can predict what symptoms may arise, or how virulent that particular variant might be.

What Is Virus Genome Sequencing?

What Is Virus Genome Sequencing?

www.webmd.com

Viruses have genomes, too. A virus genome can be made of DNA or a similar molecule called RNA. Compared to your genome, a virus genome is tiny. For example, coronaviruses such as the one that causes COVID-19 have an RNA genome that’s about 30,000 letters long (that’s 100,000 times smaller than the human genome). The genome of influenza or flu virus is even shorter at about 13,500 RNA letters.

Using genomic sequencing they were able to tell, for instance, that Omicron variant would spread easier than earlier variants.

Not only were they able to isolate the virus they were also able to sequence the genome, and with it predict how the variant might react.

 

[Scott]

Hold on there. Before you go on about what you think biological viruses are -doing-, you first need to establish solid evidence that they exist.

Complete nonsense on your part. You are doing nothing but using logical fallacies. In science you don't establish that something exists before determining what it is doing.

Ah, ofcourse, we need to first establish what unicorns are doing and -then- determine if they exist -.-.

The normal science would be to observe something happening and then try to figure out what caused it.

On -that- we can agree. So, what we have are diseases and people came up with theories as to what causes these diseases. Some people came up with the theory that various diseases are caused by things they decided to call "viruses". The problem is that to date, there's been no solid evidence that such things exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Once again, I'd like to point out that no one has said that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist. What the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement posits is that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time, because to date, I've seen no paper that questions the underlying assumptions inherent in such papers, which is that biological viruses exist. What I and the signatories in the "Settling" statement are asking for is solid evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.

So in other words, you will simply not look at any evidence while demanding that you be shown evidence.

I guess that settles the debate.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Ah, ofcourse, we need to first establish what unicorns are doing and -then- determine if they exist -.-.

Once again. You simply resort to logical fallacies because you have no other arguments.

We saw the actions of viruses before we knew viruses existed.
Since you brought up unicorns. Tell us what action you have observed that might be the result of unicorns then we can determine if those actions were actually caused by unicorns or something else.

On -that- we can agree. So, what we have are diseases and people came up with theories as to what causes these diseases. Some people came up with the theory that various diseases are caused by things they decided to call "viruses". The problem is that to date, there's been no solid evidence that such things exist.

The problem is that you refuse to look at any evidence when shown it.
This is your entire argument in one sentence -

As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,