APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed, but let's get back to where this started. You asserted that Dan Olmstead provided "no evidence that polio is caused by factors other than a virus". I pointed out solid evidence that he does and that said evidence is in the title of one of his articles. Again, here's the article in question:
The Age of Polio: How an Old Virus and New Toxins Triggered a Man-Made Epidemic

Olmstead REQUIRES the virus before the disease happens. The title even says the virus exists and is old. It is ONLY the virus that causes Polio. Olmstead argues that other factors can make the virus more virulent. At no point does Olmstead take the position that polio can occur without the virus being present. He points out his critics make that claim but he doesn't accept or promote that position.

You did not present any solid evidence that he said polio is caused by something other than a virus. You completely ignore what he writes and try to pass his critics off as if they were actually Olmstead. They are not.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As I imagine you know, the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" and I don't share your belief that there is any solid evidence that measles virus actually exists.

As you should know, the signatories of "Settling the Virus Debate" are using pseudoscience.

Let's show exactly how.
The definition they use is that in order to show something exists it must be completely isolated from everything else.
This is easily falsified.
Do humans exist?
Have humans ever been completely isolated from everything else? The correct answer is no. No human has ever been completely isolated from their internal and external biome. Requiring complete isolation before existence is falsified. The requirement that a virus be completely isolated from everything else is pseudoscience since it is not a requirement for existence.

The way to isolate bacteria is to grow it in a culture. The bacteria is not completely isolated from everything else since it is in that culture. By the definition the authors of "Settling the Virus Debate" are using, bacteria has never been isolated.

 

[Scott]

He provides no evidence that polio is caused by factors other than a virus.

He does. You've even quoted him doing it. I suspect you don't know what factors as applied to health means. Fortunately, Wikipedia can help out in this regard:
**
Diseases can be caused by any number of factors and may be acquired or congenital. Microorganisms, genetics, the environment or a combination of these can contribute to a diseased state.
**

One of Dan Olmstead's articles, that you actually quoted, has this for a title:
The Age of Polio: How an Old Virus and New Toxins Triggered a Man-Made Epidemic

Now, if you'd like to explain how Dan Olmstead -doesn't- think that "New Toxins" are a factor in polio, by all means, go for it.

Counting the times a word is used isn't science.

Agreed. Now if we could get back to the subject at hand, you had stated that Dan Olmstead provided "no evidence that polio is caused by factors other than a virus". I countered that yes, he does, and presented an argument as to why I believe this. If you could respond to that point, would be appreciated.

 

[Scott]

I acknowledge that I would have been better off counting the term virus rather than polio virus. That being said, if memory serves, not all of those mentions were referencing the polio virus. Also, as I've pointed out to you in the past, he has mentioned a critique that postulates that the polio virus doesn't exist. He never said that this critique couldn't be correct. For the audience, here's what Dan Olmstead wrote on the matter:
**
The second critique of the arsenic-virus theory is the toxin-only critique -- there’s no such thing as a poliovirus, or if there is it doesn’t trigger epidemics of paralytic illness; therefore, the “vaccine” didn’t really end those epidemics. Under this theory, It was banning DDT that caused the epidemics to diminish. Cases were camouflaged as "flaccid paralysis."
**
Source:

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-age-of-polio-explosion.html

Look up the word critique.

Certainly:
**noun A critical evaluation or analysis, especially one dealing with works of art or literature.**

If someone says that something is a critique of their work it doesn't mean they accept the critique as true or even likely.

It certainly would agree that it doesn't -necessarily- mean they accept the critique as true or even likely. The key word there is "necessarily". They might agree with the critique, they might not. One way of being pretty sure they don't agree with it is for them to say so. Dan Olmstead never did that in the article in question. There's another, more important point as well- regardless of whether or not Dan Olmstead believes there may be merit in this critique, -I- believe there's merit in it. You're having a debate with me, not Dan Olmstead. I present evidence that I believe bolsters my point of view and I believe that Dan Olmstead's article did that in some ways.

 

[Scott]

That sounds reasonable, yes. I imagine you're aware that those who signed the "Settling the Virus Statement" believe that virologists are not following the scientific method. From their "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread:
**
After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses isbased on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purifiedfrom 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.
**

Source:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

And there you go again. Repeating the same pseudoscience.

It can be so very disappointing to quote a few paragraphs from a learned individual on the 'no solid evidence for a biological virus' side of this debate only to get the tired "pseudoscience" refrain -.- Well, here's to hoping you actually have arguments rather than insults further down in your post.

 

[Scott]

Are viruses bacteria?

Ofcourse not. Unlike bacteria, alleged biological viruses are actually not even included in the tree of life domain system. Wikipedia explains:
**
According to the domain system, the tree of life consists of either three domains, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya, or two domains, Archaea and Bacteria, with Eukarya included in Archaea. In the three-domain model, the first two are prokaryotes, single-celled microorganisms without a membrane-bound nucleus. All organisms that have a cell nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles are included in Eukarya and called eukaryotes.

Non-cellular life, most notably the viruses, is not included in this system.
**
Source:

Domain (biology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't help but suspect that those who designed these systems were suspicious as to whether biological viruses actually exist and thus decided not to include them in their system.

 

[Scott]

If viruses are NOT bacteria then is it scientific to demand they act the same as bacteria?

As far as I know, no one is demanding that alleged biological viruses "act the same as bacteria". People are just pointing out that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist at all.

 

[Scott]

If someone ignores scientific experiments [snip]

I'm guessing you think someone is ignoring scientific experiments. Is that the case?

 

[Scott]

I provided you with 20 papers showing how to isolate viruses

Enough with the links. Can you quote any of your 20 papers where they actually provide evidence that they have isolated a single biological virus? Remember, I'm talking about the -traditional- definition of isolation, which means to separate from other things, not the twisted definition that virologists use that allows them to include various other things apart from the alleged biological viruses. The "Settling the Virus Debate" statement gets into this with the following line:
**
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.
**

Source:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

What definition of isolate are you using today?

Again, I'm talking about the traditional definition that is used in regular dictionaries. Quoting one:
**
To identify or distinguish as a separate entity or group.
**
Source:

isolate — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

What definition of isolate are you using today? If it is simply being separated from other things then that has been done thousands if not millions of times using three different methods.

If you're talking about virology, name these 3 different methods.

 

[Scott]

Here is another example of a virus being isolated.

I study viruses: How our team isolated the new coronavirus to fight the global pandemic

By isolating SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, researchers can now work on developing tests, treatments and vaccines in Canada.

theconversation.com

Isolating a virus requires collecting specimens from patients and culturing, or growing, any viruses that occur in the samples. These viruses are obligate intracellular parasites, which means that they can only replicate and multiply in cells. To isolate a particular virus, researchers need to provide it with an opportunity to infect live mammalian cells, in tiny flasks or on tissue culture plates.

As I've said before, virologists use a twisted definition of isolation that no one else uses. In their version, they never actually isolate the alleged viral particles. Instead, they have a soup of various particles and then jump to the conclusion that viral particles are there based on pseudoscientific methods. The above actually hints at their deception- they alleged that they "need to provide [viruses] with an opportunity to infect live mammalian cells". The allegation is that without including cells, biological viruses can't be isolated. Here's the problem- if you never isolate the viral particles, how are you sure that they are doing what you think they are doing? This ties in to what I've said before about CPE. Quoting a relevant portion of Mark Bailey's essay "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)":
**
The issue extends beyond just SARS-CoV-2 — every virus asserted to exist relies on similar pseudoscience.The history of virology reveals that the types of cells eventually selected for these experiments have been those that have a propensity to break down with the claim of virus-induced ‘cytopathic effects’ (CPEs), rather than those that are, “relatively easy to grow in the lab,” as Wiles claimed in her article. For example, Vero E6 monkey cells18 have long been favoured by virologists, supposedly due to their “suitability” to host many viruses, but suspiciously also, because the aneuploid19 kidney line is more susceptible to toxic insults from additional ingredients such as the ubiquitous nephrotoxic anttibiotics and antifungals added to the culture mix. When one group attempted to culture SARS-CoV-2, they had no desired result with human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), and a big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B), but then declared they had a “viral isolate” following the observation of CPEs in Vero E6 cells.20 As is typical, there seemed to be no sense of irony for them that the purported human respiratory virus cannot be shown to “infect” the relevant cell type, let alone the relevant species. And their experiments were once again invalidated by the absence of appropriate control cultures.
**

Source:

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

 

[Scott]

Here is a fact check of the claim that Covid-19 was never isolated which includes links to papers you will refuse to read.

Fact Check: SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and its complete genome has been sequenced

An interview with a late Canadian writer has resurfaced on social media and shows him making several false claims about COVID-19. Among them, he questions the existence of coronaviruses by saying they have never been isolated. This is not true, and such a claim reveals the writer’s lack of...

www.reuters.com

However, the first argument relating to isolation is not true. There are multiple examples of scientists isolating SARS-CoV-2 (here, here, here, here), the virus that causes COVID-19 disease, where they also sequenced the complete genome (here, here, here). Pictures of isolated SARS-CoV-2 particles have been released by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (here).

I took a look at your article. I see that it quotes Siouxsie Wiles. Dr. Mark Bailey has quite a lot to say on Wiles in his "A Farewell to Virology ( Expert Edition)" essay. Quoting from it, starting on Page 6:
**
DR SIOUXSIE WILES — VIROLOGY’S ‘ISOLATION’ ACOLYTE

The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as the “virus isolation technique”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses. — Dr Stefan Lanka, 2015.4​

The defense of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favored microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles.5 Her employer, the Universityof Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that,“[it] has not done any work relating to the purification ofany Covid-19 virus,”6 and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. This associate professor, who advised the country that,“the world is on fire,” in March 2020,7 was ordained New Zealander of the Year in 2021 for, “helping millions globally see past the fear and complexities of the pandemic... and helping to keepus safe.”8 In her November 2020 article,“Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformation rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.”9 Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates,10 which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates11 into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in ahuman or anywhere else.


Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard toSARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate[sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfill these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”12 The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive.13 The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere.14 Their monkey experiment was not only invalidated by its lack of controls and unnatural exposure route but like all virology publications, they failed to demonstrate a particle that met the definition of a virus. Wiles also appeared to be at odds with NaZhu et al., one of the first teams that claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, because they conceded that, “although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV [later ‘SARS-CoV-2’] in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include... animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”15

—However, whether different virologists want to entertain the validity of Koch’s Postulates or not, it is simply another distraction as the postulates require the physical isolation of a microbe rather than assertions that one exists through means such as computer simulations, imaging vesicles of unknown biological function, or claiming that unpurified biological soups given to animals contain “viruses”.


Wiles also decided to champion virology’s blatant misuse of the word‘isolation’ when she stated,“as for using isolation in the every-day sense of the word, rather than the definition that is relevant to the question being asked? Well, that’s just bloody ridiculous and a clear sign these requests for evidence are not being made in good faith.”16 She appeared to be incredulous that others had pointed out that the definition of a word being used scientifically was unilaterally changed by the virologists to imply a certain proof was obtained. However, if their use of isolation does not mean what most people think it means, then it is likely that most of the public are being misinformed. On this account, Wiles is an active participant in promulgating disinformation, whether it is an act of willful blindness or otherwise. Wiles needs to show her hand as an expert and explain to the public what the definition of isolation in virology means, in particular with regard to demonstrating the putative existence of viruses. Perhaps she thinks she did explain when she wrote, “when virologists want to isolate avirus from a sample they’ll take the sample or some part of it and add it to some cells – usually ones that are relatively easy to grow in the lab – and then look to see if the cells die and/or ifthere are any virus particles released into the liquid nutrient bath the cells are growing in.”17 It is unclear if Wiles is implying that the “virus isolate” is established by: (a) the taking of the sample, (b) seeing some cells die in vitro, (c) the release of claimed “virus particles” in the tissue culture,or (d) all or some combination of these elements. However, nothing she described requires the existence of viruses — it is a game of deception, whether realized or not. It simply involves the assertion that a virus was in the sample, blaming the breakdown of experimentally stressed cells in the test tube on the imagined virus, and then declaring that some of the vesicles (whose biological composition and function were not established) were the viruses.There is a further fatal flaw in this exercise. As this essay will detail,the claims that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to exist through this methodology are all scientifically invalid as none of the experiments were performed with valid controls.


This is exemplary of how Wiles has acted in her role as one of the key influencers for the New Zealand government’s disinformation campaign and its murderous rollout program of an injectable product called Comirnaty (TM) – claiming that non-specific tissue culture experiments verify the existence of the virus when nothing of the kind has been demonstrated. The issue extends beyond just SARS-CoV-2— every virus asserted to exist relies on similar pseudoscience. The history of virology reveals that the types of cells eventually selected for these experiments have been those that have a propensity to breakdown with the claim of virus-induced ‘cytopathic effects’ (CPEs), rather than those that are, “relatively easy to grow in the lab,” as Wiles claimed in her article. For example, Vero E6 monkey cells18 have long been favored by virologists, supposedly due to their “suitability” to host many viruses, but suspiciously also, because the aneuploid19 kidney line is more susceptible to toxic insults from additional ingredients such as the ubiquitous nephrotoxic antibiotics and anti fungals added to the culture mix. When one group attempted to culture SARS-CoV-2, they had no desired result with human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), and a big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B), but then declared they had a “viral isolate” following the observation of CPEs in Vero E6cells.20 As is typical, there seemed to be no sense of irony for them that the purported human respiratory virus cannot be shown to “infect” the relevant cell type, let alone the relevant species. And their experiments were once again invalidated by the absence of appropriate control cultures.
**

Source:

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

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As far as I know, no one is demanding that alleged biological viruses "act the same as bacteria". People are just pointing out that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist at all.

As far as you know because you refuse to use actual science.
Can humans be isolated the same way as bacteria? Yes/no
Are humans the same as bacteria?
Can viruses be isolated the same way as bacteria?
Are viruses the same as bacteria?

Demanding that viruses be isolated the same way as bacteria is demanding that they act the same as bacteria. The letter you keep posting sets the standard that in order to prove viruses exist they act the same way as bacteria. Since viruses like humans are not bacteria any standard that requires viruses act like bacteria is pseudoscience.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Certainly:
**noun A critical evaluation or analysis, especially one dealing with works of art or literature.**

You will notice is says nothing about the original author agreeing with the critique simply because the critique exists. In fact it would go against the very definition of critique to make the assumption that the original author has any view on the validity of the critique without his specifically agreeing or disagreeing.

It certainly would agree that it doesn't -necessarily- mean they accept the critique as true or even likely. The key word there is "necessarily". They might agree with the critique, they might not. One way of being pretty sure they don't agree with it is for them to say so. Dan Olmstead never did that in the article in question. There's another, more important point as well- regardless of whether or not Dan Olmstead believes there may be merit in this critique, -I- believe there's merit in it. You're having a debate with me, not Dan Olmstead. I present evidence that I believe bolsters my point of view and I believe that Dan Olmstead's article did that in some ways.

ROFLMAO.
Dan Olmstead's article has 14 chapters where he disagrees with the claim that there is no viruses and then has one paragraph where he acknowledges that as one of the critiques of his 14 chapters. You have to completely ignore logic, science and the definition of the word critique to make your argument. You have presented no evidence. You have only presented an opinion that is completely outside any standards for critical thinking. Dan Olmstead says that viruses exist. He does not support any argument that they don't exist. Dan Olmstead says that the only way for Polio to occur is to be infected with the virus.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It can be so very disappointing to quote a few paragraphs from a learned individual on the 'no solid evidence for a biological virus' side of this debate only to get the tired "pseudoscience" refrain -.- Well, here's to hoping you actually have arguments rather than insults further down in your post.

I see you can't actually show that it isn't pseudoscience but can only complain that calling pseudoscience pseudoscience makes you all hurt and unable to think so you can't provide any defense. This seems to be a common tactic on your part. You accuse me of hurting your feelings so you just can't respond. Then you just go back to reposting the same pseudoscience over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Why are you unable to tell us why humans are not subject to the same isolation standards as bacteria as your pseudoscientific sources would require for their standard to actually be science?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Ofcourse not. Unlike bacteria, alleged biological viruses are actually not even included in the tree of life domain system. Wikipedia explains:
**
According to the domain system, the tree of life consists of either three domains, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya, or two domains, Archaea and Bacteria, with Eukarya included in Archaea. In the three-domain model, the first two are prokaryotes, single-celled microorganisms without a membrane-bound nucleus. All organisms that have a cell nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles are included in Eukarya and called eukaryotes.

Non-cellular life, most notably the viruses, is not included in this system.
**
Source:

Domain (biology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't help but suspect that those who designed these systems were suspicious as to whether biological viruses actually exist and thus decided not to include them in their system.

Since you agree that viruses are not bacteria why do you continue to use pseudoscientific sources that require viruses to act like bacteria?

Viruses are not bacteria. Anyone that sets a standard that viruses act like bacteria is NOT using science. Dr Bailey is not using science. Mark Stone is not using science. The authors of the letter you keep posting over and over are not using science. Bottom line is since viruses are not bacteria any source trying to claim viruses need to act like bacteria is spouting pseudoscience. (You are the one that brought the word pseudoscience into this discussion so getting all upset about my using the term correctly only shows you have no actual facts.)

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As far as I know, no one is demanding that alleged biological viruses "act the same as bacteria". People are just pointing out that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist at all.

Anyone that says viruses have to be isolated like bacteria to show they exist is demanding that viruses act the same as bacteria. As long as you keep posting those sources I will keep pointing it out.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm guessing you think someone is ignoring scientific experiments. Is that the case?

I'm guessing you can't actually read more than 5 words at any given time since you continually ignore my arguments. Is that the case?