APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

Right, that's how one could falsify the assertion that all swans are white.

The problem when it comes to the microbes that virologists claim are biological viruses is that they haven't shown that -any- of them actually fit the description of biological viruses.
Circular logic on your part. Viruses don't exist so therefore nothing fits the definition of a virus.

No, that's not the logic being used here at all. The signatories of the 2 page statement quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread used the standard definition of a biological virus as their starting point. To whit:
**
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”
**

This is their source for the above definition:

The case the signatories of the 2 page "Settling the Virus Debate" statement make is that there has never been any solid evidence that any such microbes exist. For anyone who hasn't seen the 2 page statement, it can be seen and downloaded here:
 
You're constructing a straw man argument. I never said nor implied that "the entirety of the scientific/medical world (public and private, on every continent) [got] together [to] manufacture the lie of biological viruses". What's happened here is more like scientology. Perhaps you believe in scientology. Most people don't. It's a religion that asserts its scientific. I think Wikipedia reveals the truth here:
**
Hubbard initially developed a set of pseudoscientific ideas that he represented as a form of therapy, which he called Dianetics.
**
Source:

I classify virology as much the same. Do people who believe in virology have to be lying? Ofcourse not, just like scientologists can fervently believe that scientology is scientific. It doesn't change the fact that it's not though.
I'm not creating a strawman argument at all.

I think you did in your previous post, but it may be that you're no longer doing so, which is good.

If you believe that biological viruses don't exist, but you also acknowledge that the entirety, or maybe just 99.99%, of the scientific world tells us that they do exist, then you also have to believe that there was some coordination at some point, to keep the lie alive, right?

Coordination in the sense of reading the same material, sure, but using the term lie implies that most people who say they believe in biological viruses don't actually believe in biological viruses. I have never stated nor implied that. As I've said to you previously, I believe that virology is very similar to scientology. Both claim to be based on solid foundations, and I can easily believe that most people in both groups really do believe this. It's just that it's not true, in either case.

And not only a one-time event, but some kind of ongoing activities to keep all new scientists, doctors etc on board with the lie.

There are certainly serious -pressures- for medical doctors to stay on board the mainstream narrative in regard to covid as well as to biological viruses. When it comes to some parts of the covid narrative, those who rebelled are now being awarded:

However, this clearly still isn't the case when it comes to rebelling against the mainstream narrative that biological viruses are real.
 
You really need to read what I say carefully. I said I never relied -solely- on Pasteur's work to make the case that virology is pseudoscientific. I've certainly pointed out the pseudoscientific nature of a lot of his work to make a powerful case that one of virology's founders used pseudoscientific means to bolster his theory.
You certainly are leaning hard into your logical fallacy. Pasteur's work doesn't invalidate 150 years of science since then.

Agreed. However, Pasteur's work -is- the foundation of germ theory, of which virology is a significant part. Seeing as how Pasteur's work was pseudoscientific, it strongly suggests that virology, which is based on germ theory, is as well.
 
You're constructing a straw man argument. I never said nor implied that "the entirety of the scientific/medical world (public and private, on every continent) [got] together [to] manufacture the lie of biological viruses". What's happened here is more like scientology. Perhaps you believe in scientology. Most people don't. It's a religion that asserts its scientific. I think Wikipedia reveals the truth here:
**
Hubbard initially developed a set of pseudoscientific ideas that he represented as a form of therapy, which he called Dianetics.
**
Source:

I classify virology as much the same. Do people who believe in virology have to be lying? Ofcourse not, just like scientologists can fervently believe that scientology is scientific. It doesn't change the fact that it's not though.
So you are saying that your belief in "no viruses" is like Scientology, where they pretend that it has something to do with science by making it almost part of the name?

No, I'm saying that virology is like Scientology. There is no scientific basis for either.

As it stands, the scientific method has isolated thousands and thousands of viruses
Not by the standard definition of isolation, only by virologists twisted definition. Mike Stone wrote an article on this subject which can be seen here:
 
You've presented me with links which I'm sure would -claim- are based on the scientific method, but that's just a claim. The way I see it, you're lazy, and it's understandable. You don't think you have to prove that biological viruses exist because the mainstream has been saying it's true for the last 100 years. And that's fine, it's just not good enough for someone who's done the amount of research I have on the subject. Now, if you'd like to -stop- being lazy, then quote a passage in any article you choose providing the evidence that any disease must be caused by an alleged biological virus.
A lazy person is one that doesn't bother to read something...

I've actually looked up the word lazy in the past- it was rather educational. I'll do it again here as I think it's apropos. The first defintion on wordnik.com, from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**
Not willing to work or be energetic.
**

But work is rather vague, isn't it? Furthermore, there are times when it makes little sense to do certain work. I have a saying that I think is apt here: Don't do your opponent's homework for them. If you think there is something in the 20 papers you've linked to in the past that proves or at least bolsters one of your points, quote it. You certainly know that I quote from the articles I link to extensively. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same. I'm not going to go through your papers looking for evidence for -your- arguments.
 
No, there are no ways to isolate biological viruses, at least not by the commonly accepted definition of the term, not virologists' twisted definition.
I see you have decided to prove you refuse to read anything that refutes your claims.

I have read a lot of posts from you and others that disagree with the doctors and other researchers that I've referenced in the opening post. I just haven't seen any solid evidence against their claims.

I have presented multiple papers showing there are 3 ways to isolate viruses

You've linked to multiple papers that you claim show 3 ways to isolate viruses. I've already said microbes alleged to be biological viruses have never been isolated using the standard definition of the term. If you disagree, by all means, present evidence, in the form of a quote, from any source you choose. That can certainly include any of the papers you've linked to in the past.
 
No, that's not the logic being used here at all. The signatories of the 2 page statement quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread used the standard definition of a biological virus as their starting point. To whit:
**
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”
ROFLMAO.
I see you have decided to just pretend all the evidence doesn't exist.
RNA and DNA exist. The protein coat exists. The replication exists in a host cell.

The interesting thing about your use of that definition is it exposes the lie about viruses not being isolated since the form of isolation you keep claiming viruses don't comply with requires replication outside of a host cell. The definition of a virus is that it replicates in a cell. The very definition of a virus shows that any requirement that the virus be replicated outside a cell would violate the definition of a virus.
**

This is their source for the above definition:

The case the signatories of the 2 page "Settling the Virus Debate" statement make is that there has never been any solid evidence that any such microbes exist. For anyone who hasn't seen the 2 page statement, it can be seen and downloaded here:


I tell you what, the next time you are sick with an alleged virus, why don't you allow Dr Sam Bailey to take all your cells and open them up to find the viruses in order to meet his idiotic standards.
 
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:

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:

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.
**
Hold on. You just compared religion to science.

No, I compared religions to virology. I've seen no solid evidence that virology is scientific.
 
Oh, but I am. I don't know -anyone- who has researched the history of virology more than Mike Stone.
Because you only read 2 or 3 sources doesn't mean they are the one who has done the most research.

I read from a -lot- of sources when it comes to information in general, though only a small subset of that has to do with virology. Mike Stone is almost always my first stop when it comes to virology, although there are some other sources, such as Dr. Sam Bailey and others listed as signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate", quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread. I fully acknowledge that there may be someone else who has researched virology more than Mike Stone, it's just not someone that I've come across myself.

Mike Stone has done no science.

Mike Stone has -explained- the scientific method better than anyone I know, especially when it comes to applying it to virology. Dr. Mark Bailey has also done so, but he tends to write a lot less articles on the subject that Mike Stone. Some good ones from Mike Stone on the subject of germ theory and virology:


 
I believe the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement makes it clear that virology has set itself up to be unfalsifiable. As such, it isn't science, but pseudoscience. It's understandable that most people can't see this though. How many people know the methodologies virologists employ, let alone the fact that they have insufficient controls?
What you believe is unbelievable.
Obviously false, or I wouldn't believe it.
Because someone believes something doesn't mean it is logical or even possible.

You've changed the goal posts. First, you said that what I believe is unbelievable. This was obviously false because I believe it. Now you're arguing that what someone believes "doesn't mean it is logical or even possible". I agree with that statement, but that's not how this conversation started out.
 
I've actually looked up the word lazy in the past- it was rather educational. I'll do it again here as I think it's apropos. The first defintion on wordnik.com, from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**
Not willing to work or be energetic.
**

But work is rather vague, isn't it? Furthermore, there are times when it makes little sense to do certain work. I have a saying that I think is apt here: Don't do your opponent's homework for them. If you think there is something in the 20 papers you've linked to in the past that proves or at least bolsters one of your points, quote it. You certainly know that I quote from the articles I link to extensively. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same.
Reading is work. You are not willing to read the 30 scientific articles that show your claims to be false.

Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
No one can honestly claim they have done research when they refuse to read anything that disputes their beliefs.
I'm not going to go through your papers looking for evidence for -your- arguments.
Prima facia evidence that you are not willing to research the topic since you simply refuse to read anything that would dispute your beliefs.

Since you demand a quote, here is a quote showing viruses were isolated to sequence and an electron microscope image of that isolate was done.
Isolates from the first passage of an OP and an NP specimen were used for whole genome sequencing. The genomes from the NP specimen (Genbank accession MT020880) and OP specimen (Genbank accession MT020881) matched each other 100%. The isolates also matched the corresponding clinical specimen 100% (Genbank accession MN985325).

nihpp-2020.03.02.972935-f0001.jpg

Vero CCL-81 cells were used for isolation and initial passage. Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat inactivated fetal bovine serum(5 or 10%) and antibiotic/antimyotic (GIBCO). Both NP an OP swabs were used for virus isolation. For the isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, 50 μl serum free DMEM was pipetted into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that it is unfalsifiable if one uses the illogic of virologists. I don't, so I -do- think that it's falsifiable.
It is you that is using illogic by claiming something is unfalsifiable when you refuse to even look at any science.

I've looked at plenty of science. What I have not seen is any scientific evidence that microbes exist that fit the standard definition of biological viruses.
 
You've changed the goal posts. First, you said that what I believe is unbelievable. This was obviously false because I believe it. Now you're arguing that what someone believes "doesn't mean it is logical or even possible". I agree with that statement, but that's not how this conversation started out.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it believable. Your belief is incredible, astonishing, extraordinary, and extreme. What you believe is unbelievable. Your attempt to use the equivocation fallacy fails.


unbelievable

Definitions

adjective - Not to be believed; incredible.

adjective - Astonishing, extraordinary, or extreme.
 
I've looked at plenty of science. What I have not seen is any scientific evidence that microbes exist that fit the standard definition of biological viruses.
This is you and your willingness to look at plenty of science when I have presented you with 30 science sources.

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

I think the more accurate claim is you have refused to look at plenty of science.
 
I've looked at plenty of science. What I have not seen is any scientific evidence that microbes exist that fit the standard definition of biological viruses.
No, you have seen the evidence, you have simply chosen to believe the pseudoscience ramblings of three referenced books that ignore decades of studies and the scientific process over the actual evidence, up to and including the DNA and RNA evidence.

I have stopped posting in this thread because you have produced nothing new, you reference the same three pseudoscientific books that you have chosen to believe in over all evidence and you will not move past it regardless of evidence, at this point we have as much effect on you as we would have arguing with a tape recording.
 
I read from a -lot- of sources when it comes to information in general, though only a small subset of that has to do with virology. Mike Stone is almost always my first stop when it comes to virology, although there are some other sources, such as Dr. Sam Bailey and others listed as signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate", quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread. I fully acknowledge that there may be someone else who has researched virology more than Mike Stone, it's just not someone that I've come across myself.



Mike Stone has -explained- the scientific method better than anyone I know, especially when it comes to applying it to virology. Dr. Mark Bailey has also done so, but he tends to write a lot less articles on the subject that Mike Stone. Some good ones from Mike Stone on the subject of germ theory and virology:


Mike Stone has done no science. His articles are not science. His articles are not even good logic. They are classic examples of conspiracy theory mongering. He takes a few facts and weaves them to make a tale while ignoring 90% of the evidence that would show his arguments to be false. If I was to play your game I would point out you didn't provide any quotes from Mike Stone but I am not that lazy. I can follow and read the articles you link to.

So let's point out some of the innuendo, fallacies, and falsehoods in Mike Stone's article - my critique in color

In the 1950s, virology began to emerge as a distinct discipline, separating itself from bacteriology. For the first time, it was (falsely) recognized as a legitimate scientific field. (No evidence to support the claim of false.)

This method, still used by virologists today, asserts “viral” presence based on lab-created, artificial effects observed in cultures of human and animal cells. Ignores all science since 1954 and falsely implies this is the way modern science identifies viruses.

Despite these numerous claims, no consistent or definitive evidence ever established a direct causal link between any of these agents and hepatitis. Researchers experimented with various tissue and cell cultures, hoping to find a formula that would recreate the disease and produce the expected indirect signs of “infection.” This statement directly violates the scientific method. The fact that there were failures in the claims doesn't disprove viruses. It only shows that science depends on failure since that is how falsification works. When a theory is presented science tests it and it is falsified if it can't be replicated.

They would name a supposed “virus” and then treat it as if it had been proven to cause the artificial, lab-created effects they had generated. In doing so, they engaged in fallacious reasoning—such as affirming the consequent and post hoc fallacies—deceiving themselves into believing that the invisible culprit was in hand. In this case it is Mike Stone that is using fallacious reasoning to affirm the consequent. He ignores the fact that science is based on falsification and that any claimed virus is subject to that falsification. Anyone is free to show something isn't a virus by showing it is something else. Mike Stone doesn't do that. He simply uses innuendo.



-------
If we followed Mike Stone's logic, we could claim that there is no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun since the first "science" made errors and claimed the sun revolved around the earth and we can therefor ignore all science since those first mistakes. Mike Stone is not making a valid argument. He is ignoring almost all evidence to concentrate on the few things he can spin to make his conspiracy theory seem real to the ignorant.
 
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:
I already showed you that the use of pesticides doesn't even correlate with the spread of Polio.

You did nothing of the sort. From the article I linked to in the post you were responding to:
**
In 2021, Ryan Matters published an excellent, in-depth article called, “mRNA ‘Vaccines,’ Eugenics & the Push for Transhumanism,” in which he looked at the link between polio and DDT, among other things. (I very highly recommend reading his entire article.) Matters wrote:

“One crop pesticide in widespread use at the time was DDT, a highly toxic organochlorine that was widely publicized as being ‘good for you,’ but eventually banned in 1972. In 1953, Dr. Morton Biskind published a paper in the American Journal of Digestive Diseases pointing out that:

“‘McCormick (78), Scobey (100-101) and Goddard (57), in detailed studies, have all pointed out that factors other than infective agents are certainly involved in the etiology of polio, varying from nutritional defects to a variety of poisons which affect the nervous system.’

“The danger of toxic pesticides, including DDT, and their disastrous effects on the environment were illustrated by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring.

“In more recent times, researchers, Dan Olmstead, co-founder of the Age of Autism, and Mark Blaxill conducted two brilliant investigations into the polio epidemics of the 20th century, reaching a similar conclusion to Scobey and Biskind, namely that the disease was caused by the widespread use of neurotoxic pesticides such as arsenite of soda and DDT.

“Although Salk’s vaccine was hailed as a success, the vaccine itself caused many cases of injury and paralysis. And though there does appear to be a convincing correlation between the timing of the vaccine and the reduction in polio cases, as all good scientists know, causation doesn’t equal correlation [sic], especially considering the fact that DDT was phased out, at least in the US, over the same period.”

An indirect (and sometimes direct) connection to eugenics

In his article, Ryan Matters also pointed out the fact that “Dr. Salk’s polio research was funded by the mother of Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon family banking fortune who idealized Margaret Sanger and later joined the board of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation,” and who supported compulsory sterilization as a means to limit birth rates in developing countries.

Notably, May was also on the board of the Population Council, an organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III, that focused on population reduction. The passion of the wealthiest families for population control (under their leadership) and eugenics is not a conspiracy theory. It’s been thoroughly documented even in the mainstream media.

Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood, in her 1932 “Plan for Peace,” advocated for “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring,” as well as for “giving certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

By the way, according to Matters, in 1995, the Population Council collaborated with the World Health Organization on their fertility regulating vaccines.

**

Full article:
 
That's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that virology's methodology for finding biological viruses is pseudoscientific, but since most people are unaware of what methods need to be employed for a. methodology to be scientific, most people don't realize this.
What a lovely logical fallacy you have presented us with. Because you think the methodology is wrong doesn't show viruses don't exist.

Agreed. I think we can also agree that -if- virology doesn't use the scientific method to establish that biological viruses exist, then it is by definition pseudoscientific.
 
Poisons can't get on planes and fly half way around the globe from their original source [snip]
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:

LOL. If the air on a plane is toxic then how do thousands that were not on the plane get poisoned?

You may notice from the nested quotes above that I was simply referring to the fact that planes can indeed get on planes and fly half way around the globe.
 
Back
Top