APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[ZenMode]

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



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.



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:

Intellectual Freedom Award goes to Stanford doctor who challenged Covid narrative | FreePressers

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who received death threats and was blacklisted by so...

freepressers.com

However, this clearly still isn't the case when it comes to rebelling against the mainstream narrative that biological viruses are real.

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



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.

Not just reading the same info, but actively working together, around the globe, to keep lies going.

I mentioned HIV in my last post. Explain how your beliefs of manufacturing the existence of biological viruses would play out in regard to a new virus... a new virus that scientists around the world are researching. How does it work out that they all end up on the same page, not just in regard to HIV, but now talking about all viruses for as long as virology has existed.

You believe that peer pressure would keep e v e r y s i n g l e doctor/virologist/pharmaceutical researcher EVER in line? Is that really what you believe?

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:

Intellectual Freedom Award goes to Stanford doctor who challenged Covid narrative | FreePressers

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who received death threats and was blacklisted by so...

freepressers.com

Now you're creating a Strawman. He didn't question the existence of Covid. He questioned the policies, especially lockdowns, associated with Covid.

However, this clearly still isn't the case when it comes to rebelling against the mainstream narrative that biological viruses are real.

You're talking in circles. You're assuming there is grand conspiracy in regard to biological viruses and using that to rationalize other claims. It's no different than religious people saying "I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God."

 

[Scott]

Explain how a poison source in China within a month of the illness first being found suddenly poison people in Italy and in New York without mass poisoning of every place between Wuhan and New York or Wuhan and Italy.

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:

Intro to ViroLIEgy

Version 2.0

mikestone.substack.com

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.
**

Logical fallacy on your part. Whether a PCR test works or not has no bearing on whether viruses exist.

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what you yourself have been saying. This is what you said back in post #277:
"Explain how a poison source in China within a month of the illness first being found suddenly poison people in Italy and in New York without mass poisoning of every place between Wuhan and New York or Wuhan and Italy."

You apparently haven't even realized the assumption you're obviously making here, that being that what caused someone to get sick in China is the same thing that caused someone to get sick in Italy and New York. Now, what would get you to come to such a conclusion? I can think of only one answer- the PCR tests. But if you have another answer, by all means, speak up.

 

[Scott]

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.

You are claiming that you know the methodology when you refuse to actually look at the methodology.

On the contrary, I've spent a lot of time on the methodology. Apparently, you've forgotten. Allow me to refresh your memory. From one of Mike Stone's articles:
**
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. This shift was largely due to the introduction of the cell culture technique by John Franklin Enders in 1954. This method, still used by virologists today, asserts “viral” presence based on lab-created, artificial effects observed in cultures of human and animal cells.

Around the same time, electron microscopy became more widely available, allowing researchers to peer into unpurified culture soup and label random particles from the destruction of these cells as “viruses.” After decades of vagueness, in 1957, French microbiologist André Lwoff offered a consensus definition for the invisible entities virologists claimed to be studying. Journals were launched to publish the work of these newly anointed experts. It was a decade of enormous “progress” for the pseudoscientific field.

Emboldened by these tools and techniques, “virus” hunters began “discovering” new “viruses” with remarkable ease—despite never having the actual agents in hand to study. But in their rush to interpret indirect, nonspecific, and artificial lab effects as proof of “viral” entities, virologists set the field on a path of misinterpretation, speculation, and pseudoscience.

This pattern soon played out across a range of illnesses in need of a theoretical “pathogen.” One prominent example was hepatitis. According to the editorial Candidate Viruses in Hepatitis, researchers had previously relied on serologic “antibody” testing and human volunteer inoculation in an attempt to prove a “viral” cause for the disease, but the invisible culprit remained elusive. Results that appeared promising for one group were often not reproducible by others—a direct violation of a foundational principle of the scientific method. Yet despite lacking a purified “virus” and failing to replicate findings, researchers still labeled these mysterious agents as “candidate viruses,” signaling nothing more than an unproven suspicion of causation.

“Identification as an agent likely related to hepatitis in turn has relied mainly on serologic (neutralization) tests and inoculation of human volunteers followed by reproduction of clinical features of the disease. A problem precluding maximum accomplishment has been the inability of different research laboratories to reproduce the same results. In addition, essential as repeated isolations from the original material by any given laboratory might seem, this has not always been the case.”​

The first “candidate virus” for hepatitis was “discovered” by Werber Henle in 1954 using Maitland-type chick embryo tissue cultures. However, his attempts to demonstrate an “infectious virus” failed: the inoculated volunteers showed no serologic response, and no “immunity” could be observed upon re-challenge.

“The first culture-derived observations on infectious hepatitis were reported by Henle, working with Maitland-type chick embryo tissue cultures. Serological findings in volunteer subjects inoculated with the fluid remained negative, and no immunity could be demonstrated in subsequent challenge with the original agent.”​

Over the next decade, numerous labs claimed to isolate “candidate viruses” from hepatitis patients using a variety of human and animal tissue cultures. These included:

• Rightsel and Boggs: Claimed hepatitis-like illness was caused by injection of “infected” culture fluid.
• Davis: “Isolated” the so-called San Carlos agents (“adenoviruses”) from children’s stool, but no direct link to hepatitis was found.
• Chang: Reported a “lipovirus” from hepatitis patients’ blood, but could not classify it or establish any association.
• O’Malley: “Isolated” the “A-1 virus” from serum; results were inconsistent, and serologic relationships were unclear.
• Bolin et al.: Claimed “isolation” of a “virus” from volunteers given a known serum hepatitis sample.
• Hillis: Observed cell damage from hepatitis patient serum, but the effect was lost in serial passage.
• Hsiung et al.: Found a “myxovirus” (DA “virus”) in a fatal case, but refrained from claiming causation.
• Schneider et al.: Detected agents in both chronic and acute cases using canine lung tissue.
• McKees: Claimed to “isolate viruses” on monkey kidney tissue from hepatitis patients, reportedly transmissible to suckling mice.

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.” When a particular result appeared to match their expectations, they rushed to assume a “viral” cause. 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.

Fortunately, some researchers were honest enough to acknowledge when the evidence failed to support early assumptions of a “viral” cause. In many cases, the indirect findings not only fell short of being sufficient—they ultimately pointed away from the “viral” hypothesis altogether. One notable example comes from the work of Dr. Robert Shihman Chang, a pioneer in cell culture. He was among the first to establish immortalized lymphoid cell lines using the “Epstein-Barr Virus,” focusing primarily on developing cell lines that could support “viral” growth for in vitro study. During his investigations into hepatitis, which led to the emergence of the so-called “lipovirus” in 1960, he inadvertently demonstrated how reliance on indirect evidence—such as CPE, “antibody” tests, and electron microscopy—paired with fallacious reasoning can lead researchers to mistakenly believe they’ve discovered a new “virus,” only to later realize the trail of pseudoscientific breadcrumbs led nowhere. This is the story of how a virologist was both misled by assumptions and deceived by the very methods believed to prove a “viral” cause.

**

The article continues with yet more information, definitely worth reading in my view. Here's the full article:

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."

mikestone.substack.com

 

[Scott]

Here is where your logic fails. You are -assuming- that it's contact with other people that caused them to get sick. Unless you can -prove- that contact with others made a person sick, that's all you have, an assumption. There's another factor as well, and that is, even if contact with someone else somehow made a person sick, it still doesn't prove that a microbe was involved, let [alone] a biological virus.

You seem to be completely ignorant of contact tracing.

Not at all- I've definitely heard of this pseudoscientific method of "detecting" alleged biological viruses.

It occurs with bacterial infections that can pass from human to human.

When it comes to bacteria, at least, no one I know of is claiming that they don't exist. That doesn't meant that they are truly the cause of all the diseases they are blamed for, but the fact that they actually exist at least means we have that to agree on when it comes to bacteria. Let's move on to alleged biological viruses...

Contact tracing can also show the spread of a viral infection.

I think it's a tad difficult to "show" the spread of an alleged viral infection when there's no solid evidence that biological viruses exist at all.

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.

From what I've seen, there is no solid evidence that any alleged biological virus has ever harmed anyone, so this is akin to talking about what unicorns are up to. First, show me evidence that one actually -exists-.

 

[Scott]

For one, anyone who has been contaminated with transferable toxins or nuclear radiation could certainly make someone sick, but no microbe is involved in those cases.

The problem with your claim is that it violates reality.
Nuclear radiation is easy to test for.

Doesn't seem so easy to me, even for something as simple as soil contamination:

How to Test and Remediate Radioactive Soil Contamination | Live to Plant

Radioactive soil contamination is a serious environmental and health concern that arises when radioactive materials are deposited on or within the soil. The ...

livetoplant.com

But it's certainly -doable-.

Nuclear radiation is easy to test for. It can't pass through multiple persons since each time it passes from one person to the next it will be diluted. By the time it gets to the 10th or 11th level contact it will have been diluted to the point it can't sicken.

Sounds reasonable.

It's would be the same way with a transferable toxin. Without a way to multiply itself it will be diluted over time.

Again, sounds reasonable.

Then poisons are also easily tested for.

Again, it looks a lot more complicated then you seem to believe. Here's a website on testing for various poisons:

Certified Poison, Toxins & Heavy Metal Testing Lab

The Carlson Company offers poison & toxin testing for hair, blood, & urine. Get certified food, lead & heavy metal poisoning tests with fast results.

thecarlsoncompany.net

Please show us any toxin or nuclear material that increases in strength or toxicity as it passes from person to person and is diluted. No such thing exists to my knowledge

We are in agreement here.

No such thing exists to my knowledge without it having the ability to reproduce.

I'm skeptical, even when it comes to bacteria -unless- a person's body has already been seriously compromised by something.

It's impossible for DDT to be a poison that causes Polio if Polio occurs and the person has never had any contact with DDT.

Did I ever say that I believe that DDT was the only possible cause of polio?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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:

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

There was a large polio outbreak in 1915-1918. DDT didn't come into use as a pesticide until during WW21 and wasn't used in the USA until after WW2. Your denials don't change those simple facts.
Your source fails to tell us how Polio could be caused by DDT before it was in use. Why was the largest death rate per capita from Polio in 1916 if DDT was not being used?
Why did Polio drop to almost zero in 1963 if DDT was still heavily in use until 1972. Shouldn't cases have continued until then if DDT was the cause.
(Side note, Polio outbreaks correlate more closely with the New York Yankees winning the pennant than with DDT use.)

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

I think we can agree that you refuse to read any paper that shows the scientific method being used to show viruses exist or cause disease.
You are by definition lazy and trapped by your conspiracy theory.


The scientific method requires that when a theory is shown to be wrong, the theory should be discarded or modified.
You have repeatedly been shown that based on the history of Polio epidemics occurring prior to 1940 and DDT not coming into use until after 1944 that DDT can not be the cause of Polio. By not rejecting the theory of DDT causing Polio you are the one that is by definition using pseudoscience.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. If you can provide solid evidence that these alleged biological viruses are doing this, by all means, do so.

Funny. You demand evidence then when provided evidence you refuse to look at it. Your requests are far beyond just disingenuous. They are outright fraud on your part.

When provided that evidence this is your response.
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not at all- I've definitely heard of this pseudoscientific method of "detecting" alleged biological viruses.

I didn't realize that you also believed that bacteria doesn't exist since contact tracing can also used to trace bacterial infections.

When it comes to bacteria, at least, no one I know of is claiming that they don't exist. That doesn't meant that they are truly the cause of all the diseases they are blamed for, but the fact that they actually exist at least means we have that to agree on when it comes to bacteria. Let's move on to alleged biological viruses...

And this is after you just claimed that contact tracing for bacteria is pseudoscience.

I think it's a tad difficult to "show" the spread of an alleged viral infection when there's no solid evidence that biological viruses exist at all.

That is some lovely fallacious reasoning on your part. You don't need to know the cause to do contact tracing since contact tracing is based on people with symptoms. Contact tracing can also be used to find the source of poisons. It seems you use psuedoscience and false logic consistently.

From what I've seen, there is no solid evidence that any alleged biological virus has ever harmed anyone, so this is akin to talking about what unicorns are up to. First, show me evidence that one actually -exists-.

Once again. You simply refuse to look at any evidence. This is you.

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

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Doesn't seem so easy to me, even for something as simple as soil contamination:

How to Test and Remediate Radioactive Soil Contamination | Live to Plant

Radioactive soil contamination is a serious environmental and health concern that arises when radioactive materials are deposited on or within the soil. The ...

livetoplant.com

I guess you didn't read your source. While it isn't easy to find the source of contamination it is very easy to see that radiation exists.
Portable radiation survey meters such as Geiger-Müller counters or scintillation detectors are used onsite to detect elevated radiation levels.

But it's certainly -doable-.



Sounds reasonable.



Again, sounds reasonable.



Again, it looks a lot more complicated then you seem to believe. Here's a website on testing for various poisons:

Certified Poison, Toxins & Heavy Metal Testing Lab

The Carlson Company offers poison & toxin testing for hair, blood, & urine. Get certified food, lead & heavy metal poisoning tests with fast results.

thecarlsoncompany.net

Once again, you just use pseudoscience and fallacious logic. Testing persons for poison is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the source. of the poison. People are not the source. In fact your link lists several sources of poisons that make people sick. Those sources must each come into contact with a person and in most cases ingested to cause poisoning.

We are in agreement here.



I'm skeptical, even when it comes to bacteria -unless- a person's body has already been seriously compromised by something.



Did I ever say that I believe that DDT was the only possible cause of polio?

Did you provide any source that said otherwise? You did provide a source that claims DDT was. Then you continue to use that source even when shown that DDT can't be the source. You are the one using pseudscience since you cling to your theories even when facts show them to be wrong.

 

[Scott]

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.

No idea where you got that notion. Let's continue...

RNA and DNA exist.

Never said they didn't.

The protein coat exists.

I never said microbes couldn't have protein coats.

The replication exists in a host cell.

Things certainly replicate in cells. My understanding is that this is how we evolve from sperms and eggs to adult human beings. I've simply seen no solid evidence that biological viruses exist.

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.

My understanding is that the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement went with that definition as it apparently comes from a standard textbook on molecular cell biology. I can appreciate wanting to take the mainstream definition of biological viruses when it comes to debating whether or not they exist. The "Settling the Virus Debate" statement then goes on to make a solid case that no solid evidence has even been presented that biological viruses actually exist.

 

[Scott]

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:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470817501000236?via%3Dihub

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:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

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.

First of all, Dr. Sam Bailey is a woman- Sam is short for Samantha. Secondly, the signatories' method for trying to determine whether biological viruses exist wouldn't involve opening up all the cells of someone who allegedly has a biological virus. If you'd like to know what methods they propose in order to determine whether biological viruses exist, I strongly recommend reading the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement in full- it's linked to in the opening post and it's only 2 pages long.

 

[Scott]

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.

It certainly -can- be. It can also be something one does in one's leisure time. It all depends on what one is reading.

You are not willing to read the 30 scientific articles [snip]

No, I'm not willing to read a bunch of articles (I swear it started off as 20) that may -claim- to be scientific but which I believe are in fact all pseudoscientific. I'd much rather debate the pseudoscientific foundations of virology, which is what I've been doing, rather then the current state of this pseudoscience, as it's easier to point out the flaws of virology by looking back at how they went from assumptions to dogma.

 

[Scott]

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.

Absolute balderdash. If that were true, I'd have stopped reading what you have to say on virology ages ago.

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.

Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient - PMC

The etiologic agent of the outbreak of pneumonia in Wuhan China was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome associated coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in January, 2020. The first US patient was diagnosed by the State of Washington and the US ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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).

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

As I've mentioned in the past, virologists have twisted the definition of isolation/purification. Mike Stone's written articles about it, such as this one:

Purification: Virology’s Black Sheep

PURITY: Relative freedom from extraneous matter in the finished product, whether or not harmful to the recipient or deleterious to the product. (21 CFR 600.3(r)) FDA Guidance Definition for vaccine…

viroliegy.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No idea where you got that notion. Let's continue...



Never said they didn't.



I never said microbes couldn't have protein coats.



Things certainly replicate in cells. My understanding is that this is how we evolve from sperms and eggs to adult human beings. I've simply seen no solid evidence that biological viruses exist.



My understanding is that the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement went with that definition as it apparently comes from a standard textbook on molecular cell biology. I can appreciate wanting to take the mainstream definition of biological viruses when it comes to debating whether or not they exist. The "Settling the Virus Debate" statement then goes on to make a solid case that no solid evidence has even been presented that biological viruses actually exist.

Rather than address the fact that the definition you gave completely destroys your own argument, you just obfuscate and deny.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

First of all, Dr. Sam Bailey is a woman- Sam is short for Samantha. Secondly, the signatories' method for trying to determine whether biological viruses exist wouldn't involve opening up all the cells of someone who allegedly has a biological virus. If you'd like to know what methods they propose in order to determine whether biological viruses exist, I strongly recommend reading the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement in full- it's linked to in the opening post and it's only 2 pages long.

I did read it. The idiotic method they propose can only be accomplished by opening up cells of someone who has a biological virus. Why aren't you willing to volunteer?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Absolute balderdash. If that were true, I'd have stopped reading what you have to say on virology ages ago.



As I've mentioned in the past, virologists have twisted the definition of isolation/purification. Mike Stone's written articles about it, such as this one:

Purification: Virology’s Black Sheep

PURITY: Relative freedom from extraneous matter in the finished product, whether or not harmful to the recipient or deleterious to the product. (21 CFR 600.3(r)) FDA Guidance Definition for vaccine…

viroliegy.com

What is balderdash is you relying on Mike Stone. I notice you failed to respond to where I pointed out how and why Mike Stone is balderdash so I will repeat it here to highlight the fact that you can't make cogent arguments but can only cite it without understanding why it is bullshit.

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Planes can get on planes? It seems you don't know the difference between a plane and a poison which might explain a lot. (Since you decided to be pissy about a pronoun I guess I am entitled to act similarly.)

DDT can not get on a plane in China and then get off the plane and make 5 million people sick that are 50 miles or more from where that plane landed and the DDT deplaned

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Since we know that Sam Bailey and Mike Stone use pseudoscience can be both agree that you should stop using them as sources?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. If you can provide solid evidence that these alleged biological viruses are doing this, by all means, do so.

This has been provided to you on multiple occasions and this is how you respond.


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