I see you have decided to prove you refuse to read anything that refutes your claims.
christianeducatorsacademy.com
mikestone.substack.com
You are not quoting the work of experienced doctors or researchers.You're so focused on me that you fail to recognize that I'm literally quoting the work of experienced doctors and other researchers. Mike Stone has written long essays on the evidence that virology isn't scientific, as I've already pointed out to you. For those in the audience who may not yet have seen his excellent work, here are 2 that I believe are quite good:
The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 1: The “Lipovirus”
How a speculative agent with no direct evidence was framed as a causative "virus."
The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 2: SMON Says
"Act like a virus!"
viroliegy.com
childrenshealthdefense.org
Interesting. You claim the theory can't be falsified and then you propose a method to falsify it.Perhaps it'd be best to agree to disagree on that one.
Sure. The 2 page "Settling the Virus Debate" statement does it at the very top of the first page:
**
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that canreplicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1
**
They get this definition from a mainstream source:
1 Definition of ‘virus’ from Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6
Where did you get the notion that I thought a picture was supposed to fit that definition? The correct way to see what something does is to -truly- isolate it from other things and only -then- introduce it back to things to ensure that any effects (such as the cytopathic effect) is actually caused by the thing you have isolated. The problem in the case of alleged biological viruses is that this has never been done. It has actually been alleged that it -can't- be done. Instead, various substances have been introduced to cells and one or more of the introduced substances have caused the cytopathic effect. There has never been any solid evidence that the microbes seen under electron microscopes were required to produce said cytopathic effects.
The "Settling the virus debate" statement makes it clear that providing evidence that a biological virus is actually required for observed cytopathic effects is quite important. It's literally in their first step for determining whether biological viruses exist. I've colored CPE, aka cytopathic effect in orange so you can skip to the word and backtrack from there if you like:
**
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity asa pathogenic human virus exists...
STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of theother participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive fivenasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will bemade available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.
**
Full statement:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement
drsambailey.com
Your argument that it is a poison and not a virus is easily shown to be impossible.Interestingly, the definition of biological viruses themselves has changed over time. At first, it apparently meant some form of chemical poison, according to Mike Stone:
**
While Pasteur had this idea of how diseases were caused by microorganisms as early as the 1860s, he didn't put his hypothesis to the test until the late 1870s. In an 1878 lecture The Germ Theory And Its Applications To Medicine And Surgery read before the French Academy of Sciences on April 29th, 1878, Pasteur had already hypothesized that there was a “virus” (i.e. some form of chemical poison as the word didn't mean an obligate intracellular parasite at that time) in the solutions of the bacterial cultures that he was working with. He then went on to claim that this poison would accumulate within the body of the animal as the bacteria grew. Interestingly, he then noted that his hypothesis presupposes the forming and necessary existence of the bacteria, thus admitting that his hypothesis was not based upon any observed natural phenomenon.
**
Source:
The irony is that I strongly believe that the idea that poison is the true cause of a lot of CPE (cytopathic effect) is the truth. Louis Pasteur couldn't find existence for bacteria causing the problem because there was none. Those who no longer believe in biological viruses say that there is in fact no viruses either, just microbes, such as exosomes, that are labelled as such.
I don't believe in unicorns, though I have heard that the idea of them may have come from rhinoceroses, which do have a big horn (as well as a smaller one, but the big one tends to stick out more). There are also narwhals, that were apparently killed and their horns then sold off as unicorn horns. My point is that electron microscopy has clearly seen various microbes and passed some of them off as biological viruses, but that doesn't mean that they actually have the parasitical characteristics that biological viruses are said to have.
www.thecanary.co
Hold on. You just compared religion to science. That does not work. Religion is based on faith because there is so little evidence for the existence of any God. Nobody has ever studied God because nobody has ever seen God to be able to study it.Science, like virology, is based on factual information. Things that you can see, manipulate, study, etc.As I believe I've said in the past, I don't believe that the "entirety of the scientific/medical world" got together to "manufacture the lie of biological viruses". People believe -many- things that are false- religious beliefs perhaps being the most obvious. Did you know there are up to 40,000 distinct Christian groups/denominations worldwide? It's true:
Shocking Truth: How Many Christian Sects In the World?
Have you ever wondered how many Christian sects there are in the world? The answer may shock you.
I hope we can agree that, at best, only one of them can be completely right. Does that mean that all the other Christians "got together" to "manufacture" lies? No, it just means that people frequently reach conclusions that aren't supported by solid evidence.
In the case of how people came to believe that biological viruses not only exist but are incredibly dangerous, the start of that story comes from the work of people who started the concept of "germ theory", people such as Louis Pasteur who were known to use pseudoscience liberally in order to further their agenda. Mike Stone, author of the ViroLIEgy newsletter, has written articles on the subject of germ theory. He wrote one a few weeks ago, which can be seen here:
An Inquiry into the Logical Basis of the Germ Theory
The germ “theory:" a scientific foundation or a logical fallacy?
I'll just quote the first paragraph of the article below:
**
To those familiar with my work, it comes as no surprise that I take great interest in highlighting the forgotten voices from the formative years of germ “theory” and virology—those who examined the rise of these pseudoscientific fields with critical eyes. These individuals had front-row seats to history, and they witnessed firsthand the unscientific, contradictory foundations that shaped our modern beliefs about health, disease, and wellness. They recognized the manipulation by vested interests and warned against the manufactured acceptance of germ “theory” by a fearful, uninformed public. And they spoke out—attempting to avert what they foresaw as a grave disaster.
**
DENIAL and refusal to look at anything I posted on your part isn't lack of evidence on my part.
Because someone believes something doesn't mean it is logical or even possible. People still believe the Earth is flat.
It is you that is using illogic by claiming something is unfalsifiable when you refuse to even look at any science.
There have certainly been efforts in that direction, but they tend to get cut short once someone in a position of authority proclaims that a given disease is caused by a biological virus. I've cited examples in the past, such as the case 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.
What a lovely logical fallacy you have presented us with. Because you think the methodology is wrong doesn't show viruses don't exist.
You just have no actual argument. You only have your beliefs that are not supported by any evidence since you refuse to look at any evidence that shows your beliefs are not logical and not scientific.
People can transport poisons but they can't transport enough poison to sicken millions that they don't come into contact with.
LOL. If the air on a plane is toxic then how do thousands that were not on the plane get poisoned? A poison can't poison anyone that never comes into contact with the poison. You don't seem to see how your arguments are easily falsified and then you just run away from that evidence that your arguments are shown to be false and unbelievable in any real world scenario.Again, that's just false, since planes themselves can and do generate poisons. Some web pages that can help you see the light on this:
Welcome to Toxic Cabin Air - Toxic Cabin Air
WELCOME TO TOXIC CABIN AIR We are a website devoted to informing the public, physicians, and flight crew of the hazards of breathing in the air in the cabins of commercial airlines. We are devoted to providing you with facts about TCP, bleed air, and toxic poisoning that can occur from burnt or...toxiccabinair.com
A silent threat in the skies: the under-reported dangers of ‘aerotoxic syndrome’
Canary guest author Monica Piccinini takes a deep dive into the controversy surrounding aerotoxic syndrome & the lack of action on it
Logical fallacy on your part. Whether a PCR test works or not has no bearing on whether viruses exist. The only logical conclusion you can draw from a PCR test that doesn't work is the PCR test doesn't work. It certainly doesn't show that viruses don't exist. All you are doing is showing us you don't understand logic.Now we're getting into something else entirely, namely the belief that PCR tests can determine if someone is ill. Mike Stone gets into the PCR fallacy in an article he published in April, which can be seen here:
Quoting the relevant part:
**
With the rise of molecular virology, genomics has played an ever-increasing role in the “viral” delusion. The advent of PCR in the 1980s led to the use of the DNA Xerox machine becoming a makeshift test to detect “viruses” based off of fragments from their genomes. However, as was clearly demonstrated during the “Covid-19 pandemic,” PCR is highly inaccurate and unsuitable for this purpose. What’s also evident is that genomes themselves are entirely unreliable, as virologists are unable to sequence the exact same genome every time. At the time of this writing, there are nearly 17 million variants of the same “SARS-COV-2 virus” running around.
Why is this the case? Setting aside the equally flawed foundations of the DNA paradigm for a moment, let’s address this hypothetically. If someone claims to have a “viral” genome, they must first possess the “virus” itself to extract its genetic material. For example, if I claim to have sequenced the genome of a dog, I would need to start with an actual dog—and ideally, have living specimens to confirm that the genome is both accurate and biologically meaningful. Without direct access to the entity in question, the genomic claim becomes baseless, and the entire premise collapses.
As discussed before, virologists are unable to purify and isolate the particles they claim are “viruses,” so the resulting genome comes from unpurified mixtures of RNA and DNA, including genetic material from humans, animals, bacteria, and other microorganisms. There is absolutely no way to tell where the genetic material is coming from nor whether it belongs to a single source, especially when sequenced from unpurified cell culture supernatant.
Even the WHO warned that passaging genetic material through cell cultures can introduce artificial mutations not present in the original sample, which can compromise subsequent analyses. They specifically advised against using cell culture “solely for the purpose of amplifying virus genetic material for SARS-CoV-2 sequencing.” Nonetheless, virologists continue to assemble hypothetical genomes—digital sequences of A, C, T, and G—claimed to represent a “virus” that has never been directly observed.
The so-called reference genome utilized to verify a newly assembled “viral” genome is not a sequence from a purified “viral” particle, but a consensus model—a stitched-together average built from multiple inconsistent and unverified samples. This process assumes the very thing it sets out to prove: that a coherent “virus” genome exists. The result is circular logic disguised as scientific progress.
To justify these digital constructs, virologists compare new models to old ones already stored in databases—sequences built on the same flawed assumptions. For example, the first “viral genome,” attributed to bacteriophage Φ-X174, was not derived from purified particles. Its sequence may have been nothing more than a patchwork of unrelated fragments, but it became a precedent that allowed decades of downstream error. The practice of validating present genomes by comparing them to past ones creates a closed loop, where consistency is mistaken for accuracy, allowing for the reinforcement of the original errors.
View attachment 55609
The proliferation of millions of so-called “variants” further undermines the claim of a stable, identifiable “virus.” It also raises a critical question: how can one entity possess so many divergent genomic representations and still be considered the same thing? The theory becomes unfalsifiable when any deviation from the expected genome is labeled a “mutation” or “variant,” allowing any result to be reinterpreted to fit the narrative, no matter how inconsistent, rather than to challenge it.
I previously analyzed the CDC’s protocol for constructing “viral” genomes, highlighting numerous ways contamination and other factors can affect the final product. Technological limitations further complicate the process. The fact that there are numerous processing steps the samples must go through during the creation of a genome—each introducing alterations, artifacts, distortions, and errors—makes it easy to see that the final “viral genome” is nothing but a meaningless, indirect, and fraudulent representation of a non-existent entity.
Even virologists have acknowledged the problem. In 2001, Charles Calisher cautioned that detecting nucleic acid “is not equivalent to isolating a virus.” He warned against the “wholesale takeover by modern lab toys,” noting that “a string of DNA letters in a data bank” tells us little about how “viruses” work. Studying sequences alone, he said, is like “trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprints.”
Edward R. Dougherty, Scientific Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Genomic Systems Engineering, echoed similar concerns. In a 2008 paper, he described an “epistemological crisis” in genomics. He warned that modern genomics often fails to meet the basic requirements of scientific method and epistemology. “The rules of the scientific game are not being followed,” he wrote. Accumulating large amounts of data may seem impressive, but data alone does not equal science. Dougherty stressed that contemporary genomic research often produces invalid knowledge, failing to qualify as true science.
This reliance on computer-generated genomes—standing in for an entity never shown to exist in a purified and isolated state—has led to the use of fragments from this fraudulent RNA assembly of unknown provenance as a means of detection via PCR. The results have been disastrous. Vast numbers of people have been tested and diagnosed with a computer-constructed “virus,” despite being entirely free of disease. Entire populations have been locked down, quarantined, and treated for something that exists only in silico, not in nature. There is no scientific evidence linking the A, C, T, and G sequences in digital databases to the unpurified particles selected in electron microscope images. In the end, it is pseudoscientific fraud—generated by computers and accepted by consensus.
**
You are claiming that you know the methodology when you refuse to actually look at the methodology. I have presented multiple papers showing how viruses are isolated and you refuse to look at any of them and rely on your ignorance.
You seem to be completely ignorant of contact tracing. It occurs with bacterial infections that can pass from human to human. Contact tracing can also show the spread of a viral infection. . If A is sick and has contact with B. Then B gets sick and has contact with C. C gets sick and has contact with D who then gets sick. This goes on for multiple contacts with X never having had contact with A, B, C, D and being located hundreds of miles from where they were. That makes it unlikely if not impossible for X to be sick from a poison that got A, B, C and D sick. Contact tracing doesn't prove that someone got sick from that contact but it becomes the most likely way if there is no other ways to be found. Poisons can be traced to a source. They weaken as they spread from that source. Poisons can't increase in toxicity as they spread. Viral and bacterial infections retain the same ability as they spread.
The problem with your claim is that it violates reality.
