APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

I think it's safe to say that the doctors and other researchers who no longer believe in virology would argue that viroligy is as scientific as scientology. Quoting from the statement that I 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 is based 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 rational 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 purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

That is not a scientific argument.

I disagree.

Science would require that they falsify the virology theory.

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?

 

[Scott]

On the contrary, I'd say that ignoring the lack of evidence that anything observed in electron microscopes fits the definition of a biological virus is the true red herring.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Perhaps it'd be best to agree to disagree on that one.

Define virus.

Sure. The 2 page "Settling the Virus Debate" statement does it at the very top of the first page:
**
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that canreplicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

**

They get this definition from a mainstream source:
1 Definition of ‘virus’ from Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6

Then tell us how a picture is supposed to fit that definition.

Where did you get the notion that I thought a picture was supposed to fit that definition? The correct way to see what something does is to -truly- isolate it from other things and only -then- introduce it back to things to ensure that any effects (such as the cytopathic effect) is actually caused by the thing you have isolated. The problem in the case of alleged biological viruses is that this has never been done. It has actually been alleged that it -can't- be done. Instead, various substances have been introduced to cells and one or more of the introduced substances have caused the cytopathic effect. There has never been any solid evidence that the microbes seen under electron microscopes were required to produce said cytopathic effects.

The "Settling the virus debate" statement makes it clear that providing evidence that a biological virus is actually required for observed cytopathic effects is quite important. It's literally in their first step for determining whether biological viruses exist. I've colored CPE, aka cytopathic effect in orange so you can skip to the word and backtrack from there if you like:
**
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity asa pathogenic human virus exists...

STEP ONE

5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of theother participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive fivenasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;

2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will bemade available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

A good rule of thumb- don't start with your conclusions, but your arguments. That's especially true if your conclusions are incredibly insulting to the person you're responding to. What tends to happen is people subjected to such treatment tend to shut out any actual arguments you make after your insults. Some people do this by insulting the person who just insulted them, I prefer to simply point out why I tuned out.

It's insulting to tell someone the theory they support is garbage?

Hmmm...

Perhaps you could stop insulting us here by citing the Baileys and Mike Stone.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I disagree.



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.

What you believe is unbelievable.
Since you claim that the theory of viruses is unfalsifiable tell us why that is the case that it can never be falsified.


It is easy to falsify the theory of viruses. You can do it in several ways. You can show that diseases are caused by another cause that is more likely. You can show where the DNA and RNA sequences come from if they don't come from a virus. You can show us what is actually in the pictures that claim to be viruses. Rather than do anything to falsify the virus theory, you make the wild claim that it can't be falsified. You are providing us nothing but excuses and unsupported claims.

How many people know the methodologies virologists employ, let alone the fact that they have insufficient controls?

Claiming that because people don't know the methodology it is wrong and therefor viruses don't exist is a logical fallacy. It is not based on science. It is simply furtherance of your Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
Since virologists employ an actual methodology that methodology could be falsified which shows your claim that it can't be falsified to be false.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Perhaps it'd be best to agree to disagree on that one.



Sure. The 2 page "Settling the Virus Debate" statement does it at the very top of the first page:
**
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that canreplicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

**

They get this definition from a mainstream source:
1 Definition of ‘virus’ from Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6



Where did you get the notion that I thought a picture was supposed to fit that definition? The correct way to see what something does is to -truly- isolate it from other things and only -then- introduce it back to things to ensure that any effects (such as the cytopathic effect) is actually caused by the thing you have isolated. The problem in the case of alleged biological viruses is that this has never been done. It has actually been alleged that it -can't- be done. Instead, various substances have been introduced to cells and one or more of the introduced substances have caused the cytopathic effect. There has never been any solid evidence that the microbes seen under electron microscopes were required to produce said cytopathic effects.

The "Settling the virus debate" statement makes it clear that providing evidence that a biological virus is actually required for observed cytopathic effects is quite important. It's literally in their first step for determining whether biological viruses exist. I've colored CPE, aka cytopathic effect in orange so you can skip to the word and backtrack from there if you like:
**
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity asa pathogenic human virus exists...

STEP ONE

5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of theother participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive fivenasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;

2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will bemade available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

Interesting. You claim the theory can't be falsified and then you propose a method to falsify it. It seems you can't even keep your arguments straight.

What we are seeing from you is nothing but classic conspiracy nonsense.
1. Take a couple of truths or obvious errors and build your entire case on those isolated instances while ignoring all the other evidence.
2. Claim only you know the truth and everyone else is hiding things.
3. Make contradictory claims while pretending those claims are not contradictory. (Can't falsify while proposing a method to do so.)
4. Refuse to look at any other evidence that disputes the conspiracy theory or claim all the other evidence is fake.



We are back to this -
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.

You will never find a study if you never bother to look at anything. The problem isn't that there is no evidence. The problem as you yourself admit is that you simply refuse to look at any evidence.

How do you know that your sources are correct if you refuse to read any of the 30 science papers I have linked to?